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 were received on 9/5/25. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng, US 2011/0209946 in view of Bensman, US 2005/0051940 and Paluch, PL 236054.
Regarding claim 1:
Leng discloses a foldable ladder, comprising:
two front leg pipes (100) parallel to each other in a left-and-right direction,
two rear leg pipes (300) parallel to each other in the left-and-right direction,
a stand platform (400), and
one or more climbing platforms (500), wherein:
each of the two front leg pipes and a corresponding one of the two rear leg pipes on a same side are pivotally connected to each other in a splayed shape (at 110, refer to Fig. 1),
two sides of a front portion of the stand platform are pivotally connected to the two front leg pipes (refer to Fig. 4),
two sides of a middle portion of the stand platform are pivotally connected to first ends of two connecting pieces (510) respectively,
second ends of the two connecting pieces are pivotally connected to the two rear leg pipes respectively (refer to Fig. 4),
a connecting rod (310) is connected between the two rear leg pipes for supporting the stand platform,
the one or more climbing platforms are located below the stand platform,
the one or more climbing platforms are connected between the two front leg pipes,
each of the one or more climbing platforms comprises a flanged edge extending along all sides thereof in an enclosed shape (refer to Fig. 2),
the flanged edge is welded to the two front leg pipes (they are connected), and
when the stand platform and the one or more climbing platforms are in an opened state:
the stand platform and the one or more climbing platforms are horizontally arranged, and
the stand platform is supported on the connecting rod.
The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process.
Leng does not expressly disclose wherein the ladder is iron and the one or more climbing platforms and two front leg pipes are iron and a front and rear side of each of the two front leg pipes are respectively and obliquely welded to a corresponding one of two sides of the flanged edge by an elongated welding line.
Bensman discloses a ladder of iron (para. 0025, steel is an iron alloy) wherein the one or more climbing platforms and the two front leg pipes are made of iron (para. 0025).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to construct the steps and leg pipes of Leng of iron as suggested by Bensman in order to provide sufficient strength (para. 0025 of Bensman). Bensman further discloses securement by welding.
Paluch discloses a foldable ladder (1) having a front side and a rear side (at 4, refer to Fig. 3) of each of two leg pipes respectively and obliquely welded (4) to a corresponding one of two sides of a flanged edge by an elongated welding line.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the welding attachment as suggested by Paluch to the ladder of Leng in order to ensure a strong, reliable attachment.
Leng does not expressly disclose wherein a height of the flanged edge is larger than 2 cm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the flanged edge larger than 2cm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from making the height of the flanged edge larger than 2 cm. There is no evidence that the claimed dimensions not specifically taught by Leng provide a criticality that would be unachievable and unexpected with a reasonable amount of experimentation.
Regarding claim 6:
Leng discloses wherein the foldable iron ladder further comprises a U-shaped handrail (200) and two ends of the handrail are respectively connected to the two front leg pipes in an insertion member (110).
Regarding claim 7:
Leng discloses wherein a top end of each of the two front leg pipes is disposed with a sleeve, and a top end of each of the two rear leg pipes is pivotally connected to the sleeve (110).
Regarding claim 8:
Leng discloses wherein spacers (910) are disposed at a pivoting positioned between the two sides of the front portion of the stand platform and the two front leg pipes.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng, US 2011/0209946 in view of Bensman, US 2005/0051940 and Paluch, PL 236054 as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, further in view of Baumgartner, US 2005/0029050.
Regarding claim 3:
Leng appears to disclose wherein a rear side of a bottom portion of the stand platform is disposed with an elastic rotating locking buckle (600), and the elastic rotating locking buckle is locked to the connecting rod when the stand platform is in the opened state. However, Leng does not expressly disclose wherein the member includes elasticity.
Baumgartner discloses a foldable ladder having a rear side of a bottom portion of the stand platform is disposed with an elastic rotating locking buckle (16), and the elastic rotating locking buckle is locked to a connecting rod (48) when the stand platform is in the opened state.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use the rotating locking buckle as suggested by Baumgartner with the foldable ladder of Leng in order to securely lock the ladder in an open position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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 Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633