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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not have proper antecedent basis for the claim limitation “the anti-slip material comprises a polymer material” (clm 6).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “hitch pin” of claim 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4,9-12 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the securing member comprises a stake, pin, or fastener”, however, claim 3, from which it depends only functionally recites a securing member (i.e. “for receiving a respective securing member”). Therefore the scope of the claim is confusing as it is unclear if the securing member is part of the claimed invention or only functionally recited as part of the intended use of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 10 recite “a rear wall extending substantially perpendicular from the base member” (clm 9) and “the rear wall is oriented at an acute angle relative to the base member” (clm 10). Since claim 10 depends from claim 9 it is unclear if the rear wall extends substantially perpendicularly or at an acute angle from the base member causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12 recite “the acute angle is between 45 and 50” (claim 11) and “the acute angle is approximately 48.6 (clm 12). It is unclear what is encompassed by the claim term “approximately” given the previous recitation of between 45 and 50, where “approximately 48.6” as best understood in view of the specification and closest prior art appears to be “between 45 and 50”. Therefore it is unclear if claim 12 is further limiting to claim 11 from which it depends. The scope of the claimed invention cannot be ascertained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim(s) 1-5,9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jennings (5669462).
Claim 1. Jennings discloses a ladder stabilization assembly comprising:
a frame member (8) composed of a single sheet of material, the frame member comprising a base member (24/38) and three walls (18/28) extending therefrom to cooperatively form a cavity (28) shaped and sized to receive a foot of a ladder (as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure); and
a locking member (20) for releasably securing the ladder foot within the cavity of the frame member.
Claim 2. The ladder stabilization assembly of claim 1, wherein the base member is substantially planar and comprises opposing ends (as seen in the figures).
Claim 3. The ladder stabilization assembly of claim 2, wherein each opposing end of the base member comprises one or more apertures (as seen in the figures and noted at col. 4 lines 25-27) for receiving a respective securing member (such as 50) therethrough.
Claim 4. The ladder stabilization assembly of claim 3, wherein the securing member (such as 50) comprises a stake, pin, or fastener configured to penetrate at least one of a ground material, concrete material, and wood material (as noted throughout the disclosure).
Claim 5. The ladder stabilization assembly of claim 1, further comprising an anti-slip material (48) provided on a bottom surface of the base member.
Claim 9. The ladder stabilization assembly of claim 1, wherein the three walls comprise opposing side walls and a rear wall extending substantially perpendicular from the base member (where 18 has three walls including opposing side walls and a rear wall as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure, where 18 is capable of extending perpendicular from the base member).
Claim 10 (as best understood). The ladder stabilization assembly of claim 9, wherein the rear wall is oriented at an acute angle relative to the base member (where it is capable of extending at an acute angle as noted in the figures and disclosure).
Claim 11. The ladder stabilization assembly of claim 10, wherein the acute angle is between 450 and 500 (as seen in the figures).
Claim 12. The ladder stabilization assembly of claim 11, wherein the acute angle is approximately 48.60 as seen in the figures).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 13-18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (5669462) in view of Talley (4236603).
Claims 13-16. Jennings discloses the ladder stabilization assembly of claim 9, further comprising a set of aligned apertures comprising a plurality of aligned apertures in a row and equidistantly spaced apart along an upper portion of the wall, the plurality of apertures extend along a horizontal plane that is substantially parallel to the base member. Jennings does not disclose that the set of apertures are in each side wall.
It is known to have apertures in the sidewall, where the apertures defined on the opposing side walls are substantially aligned with one another, such that individual apertures of one side wall are in alignment with corresponding individual apertures of on the other side wall.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the stabilization assembly of Jennings to have the sets of aligned apertures on the opposing side walls as taught by Talley to achieve the predictable result of an assembly that is easy to secure together and provides easy access for locking and resists separation.
Claim 17. The ladder stabilization assembly of claim 16, wherein corresponding individual apertures on the side walls are configured to receive the locking member (as taught by both Jennings and Talley) for releasably securing and retaining a ladder foot within the cavity of the frame member.
Claim 18. The ladder stabilization assembly of claim 17, wherein the locking member comprises a pin or bolt configured to pass through corresponding and aligned apertures of the side walls and thereby extend across the cavity and retains a ladder foot within the cavity (as seen in the figures and disclosure of Talley).
Claim 20. The ladder stabilization assembly of claim 19, wherein the locking member comprises a hitch pin (as seen and noted in Talley).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (5669462) in view of Talley (4236603) and further in view of Polzen (9482053).
Claim 19. Jennies in view of Talley disclose the ladder stabilization assembly of claim 18, but do not disclose wherein the locking member comprises a safety pin retained within the apertures via a wire snap. It is known to use safety pin with wire snap for retaining members. For example Polzen discloses a ladder stabilization assembly including a locking member comprising a safety pin and wire snap (102).
At the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue known design options and modify the locking member of Jennies in view of Talley as noted above to be a safety pin and wire snap as taught by Polzen to achieve the predictable result of an easily assembled and disassembled locking system that resists undesired disassembly.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (5669462) in view of Talley (4236603) and further in view of Lanzafame (8863902).
Claim 6. Jennings in view of Talley disclose the ladder stabilization assembly of claims 1,5, as above, but do not expressly disclose wherein the anti-slip material comprises a polymer material, or that the single sheet of material comprises a metal material, wherein the metal material comprises aluminum or steel.
Lanzafame discloses that it is known to have a ladder attachment assembly be made of materials such as polymer or metal such as aluminum (col. 8).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the anti slip material to be a polymer and the sheet of material to be a metal comprising aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In the instant case it would have been obvious for at least the reason that polymer and aluminum provide an anti-corrosion property that improves the life and wear resistance of the assembly and they are easy to obtain and manufacture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571.270.3238. 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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635