DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
All of the limitations: “a top face”, “two side faces”, “a front face”, and “a rear face”, do not have a references numeral in the specification, to be found in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation “connection means” recited in line 8 of claim 1 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; and is assigned the structure of holes 16 in the side plates of the side faces as shown in fig. 5.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 1-2 recites “simplified structure and mechanism”; examiner points out (a) that there is no standard for what is considered simple or “simplified”, and (b) what is the “structure” and what is the “mechanism” and the difference between them?
Claim 1 recites “a support leg in the shape of a tube” in line 5, later the claim recites “the rear face has a slot whose height is less than the diameter of the tube” reciting the tube as an element or a limitation. Objection is that the tube is only recited earlier in the claim to refer to the shape of the support leg not as a positively recited component of the ladder. Similar to claim 1, claims 2 and 3 refer to “the tube” as a positively recited / established component.
Claim 1 line 10-11 recites “the diameter of the tube”; there is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 2 line 2 recites “its upper end”; there is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 2 line 2-3 recites “the ends of the pin”; there is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 2 line 2 recites “near its upper end”; since near is a relative term, examiner recommends using the term “proximate”.
Claim 3 line 2 recites “each side”; there is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 4 line 2 recites “its lower end”; there is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 7 recites “the connecting means”; it is assumed that this is the same as the “connection means” established in claim 1, however, consistent nomenclature is required throughout the claim set to refer to the same component. If these are not the same component; it is provided that this limitation lacks antecedent basis and is not clear which component is being referred to in the specification.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the convex faces”; there is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High, US (5590739) in view of Moreno, US (10767418).
In regards to claim 1 High discloses:
A ladder (ladder of fig. 1) for preventing unwanted accidents by means of a simplified structure and mechanism, said ladder comprising: a main structure (1, 2, 3s, 20, 21, 22s, 25, 34/35; fig. 1) including stringers (1/2 or 20/21), rungs (3s), and an upper platform (25); and a support leg (34/35) in the shape of a tube (as shown in fig. 1), pivotally connected to the upper platform (via 41s, upper most 22); CHARACTERIZED in that the upper platform comprises a top face (top surface), two side faces (see annotated drawings), a front face (see annotated drawings), and a rear face (see annotated drawings), wherein said side faces have connection means (apertures through which pins 26 passes; as shown in fig. 12) to connect to a connector (upper most 22) of the support leg.
PNG
media_image1.png
714
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1 High does not disclose the rear face has a slot whose height is less than the diameter of the tube.
Moreno teaches the rear face has a slot (see annotated drawings below).
PNG
media_image2.png
579
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the slot taught by Moreno onto the rear face of the upper platform of High for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for means to hang an object/tool/drill etc., that can be useful to a worker as he/she is standing on the ladder. Note that the slot of Moreno once taught onto the rear face of the upper platform of high would indeed have a heigh less than the diameter of the tube of the support leg.
In regards to claim 2 High discloses the support leg connector (upper most 22) is a cylinder pin (22 as shown in fig. 1) that passes perpendicularly through the tube (through 41 which is part of the tube of the support leg 34/35), near its upper end (as shown in fig, 1), wherein the ends of the pin are connected to the upper platform (via the sides faces) by means of bolts (26s).
In regards to claim 3 High discloses the pin is attached to a pair of plates on each side of the tube (as shown in fig. 1). However, High and Moreno do not teach the pair of plates being welded, where the pair of plates of High are integral with the upper platform; however, it is provided that welds are a mechanical equivalent of attaching a plate to a structure such as the upper platform. Examiner takes Official Notice that welds are olds and well known in the art to attach a plate to another plate-like structure. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found that welding the side plates onto the upper platform would have allowed for having the plates separate and replaceable when they fail, break or crack, where it would not be necessary to replace the entire upper platform assembly.
In regards to claim 4 High discloses the support leg has a gripping element (36) at its lower end.
In regards to claim 5 High discloses said gripping element has two or more points (front and back of rectangular pads 36) of support with the ground.
In regards to claim 6 High discloses the gripping element has a convex curved shape (see annotated drawings below).
PNG
media_image3.png
216
401
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7 High discloses the connecting means consist of holes (apertures through which pins 26 passes; as shown in fig. 12).
In regards to claim 9 High discloses the stringers and rungs are channel-shaped (all rails 1, 2, 20, and 21 are channel shaped as shown in fig. 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High and Moreno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rassmussen, US (1984655).
In regards to claim 8 High and Moreno do not teach the stringers are partially curved and positioned in such a way that the convex faces of both stringers are facing each other.
Rassmussen teaches the stringers are partially curved and positioned in such a way that the convex faces of both stringers are facing each other (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
566
388
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the convex curved structure of the stringers of Rassmussen onto the stringers of High for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for enhanced stability of the overall structure where the structure of the stringers of Rassmussen are less likely to buckle or have the stringers shack/vibrate/slip with respect to each other.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High and Moreno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arnold, US (3083786).
In regards to claims 10 and 11 8 High and Moreno do not teach the stringers and rungs are joined together by rivets and gussets.
Arnold teaches the stringers and rungs are joined together by rivets (22; fig. 3) (claim 10).
And the stringers and rungs are joined together by rivets (22; fig. 3) and gussets (25 and 25’; fig. 1 and 3) (claim 11).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize rivets and gussets as taught by Arnold to join the stringers and rungs of High in the same manner taught by Arnold, for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a sturdier solid attachment between the stringers and the rungs where they would bear higher loads and be less prone to structural failure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to PTO-892 form for list of cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634