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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (claims 41-50 and 60) in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 51-59 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 “the elongate support member comprises two parts, a first portion and separate a second portion” claim 44, and “a single beam having the mounting region centrally located along the beam and working regions located at opposing ends of the beam” claim 45, and “the working end of the or each elongate support member is splined or keyed” claim 46, and “the bore is internally splined” claim 47 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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “the releasable detent prevents longitudinal movement of the elongate support member relative to the bore” in lines 9-10; while the claim only recites the ladder in intended use form in the preamble; note that the above recitation requires the releasable detent to prevent longitudinal movement relative to the bore, i.e., actively prevents, in contrast to “configured to prevent”; hence positively reciting and requiring the bore and therefore the ladder. The positive recitation of the ladder is further underscored in claims 43 (each of the bore and the elongate support member have a square cross-section; which again requires the bore), claim 44 (the working regions of each of the first portion and the second portion protrude from the bore with the mounting regions received within opposing ends of the bore of the ladder) and claim 47 (the bore is internally splined). Therefore, the claims are being interpreted / examined as a combination claim: coupling device and ladder.
Claim Objections
Claims 42, 46, 47 and 60 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 42 recites the limitation "the cross-sectional geometry" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the working end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 46 recites “the or each elongate support member is axially splined to prevent rotation relative to the bore”; the recitation of “the or each elongate support member” requires revision because there has only been one elongate support member established.
Claim 47 is objected to in light of claim 46 from which it depends, because claim 47 recites “the bore is internally splined to receive the axial splines of the elongate support member” and claim 46 establishes splines in both the working and the mounting regions, applicant is required to explain how would the spline of the working region be received in the bore when the working region is protruding from the bore.
Claim 60 recites the limitations “a ladder” and “a bore”; are these the same limitations established in claim 41 incorporated into claim 60?
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a first portion” and “a second portion”.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 44-48 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 44 recites “the elongate support member comprises two parts, a first portion and separate a second portion, each portion configured to provide a mounting region and a working region”; this recitation renders the claim indefinite because: First, in addition to the lack of illustration as well as lack of antecedent basis for “a first portion” and “a second portion” in the specification, as best understood in light of the disclosure, it appears that the two portions are two elongate support members 6; hence claiming them as part of the established elongate support member raises indefiniteness. Second, re-establishing “mounting region” and “working region” for each of the portions further raises the question if these are in addition to or including the “mounting region” and “working region” established in claim 41 from which claim 44 depends. Third, per the exact wording of the limitation above, did the applicant mean to claim four components i.e., two parts + a first portion + a second portion? And finally, it is not understood what is meant by “separate a second portion”, did applicant mean to claim “a separate second portion”? Claim will be examined as best understood.
Claim 45 recites “the elongate support member comprises a single beam having the mounting region centrally located along the beam and working regions located at opposing ends of the beam, such that the working regions protrude from the bore of the ladder when the elongate support member is mounted thereto”; the positive recitation and requirement of “working regions located at opposing ends of the beam” is unclear as to if said working regions include “a working region” established in claim 41 line 3. Secondly, it appears that applicant is reciting a none-illustrated embodiment that have a single elongate support member extending from both ends of the bore, which not only cannot be understood in light of lack of illustration, but would also appear inoperable since the releasable detent would get in the way of inserting such beam where it will catch onto the first aperture 13 and prevent further insertion to the other end. Currently, claim 45 is only rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, pending further clarification by the applicant.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 41-44 and 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lazarus, US (2005/0023084).
In regards to claim 41 Lazarus discloses:
A coupling device (28, 30; figs. 2), for a ladder (22) having a bore (bore extending through support member 12, note that sleeve members 14, 16 are considered part of the ladder 22 in the assembled configuration as shown in fig. 2) extending between a pair of spaced apart styles (18, 20; fig. 2), the coupling device comprising:
an elongate support member (30, 28) having a mounting region (portion of 30 inserted into 12 as shown in phantom in fig. 4; see annotated drawings below) and a working region (portion of 30 protruding out of 12 as shown in fig. 4; see annotated drawings below), the mounting region configured to be received within the bore of the ladder to engage therewith (as shown in fig. 2 and in phantom in fig. 4; see below), and the working region being configured to protrude from the bore (as shown in fig. 2 and fig. 4; see below) and to receive and support one or a plurality of utility modules (stabilizing arms 42; fig. 1); and
a releasable detent (pin 26) to secure the elongate support member within the bore (as described in paragraph [0029]; highlighted excerpt below),
wherein the mounting region is restrained from rotational movement relative to the bore (per the square cross-section of members 12 and 30/28), and the releasable detent prevents longitudinal movement of the elongate support member relative to the bore (26 inserted through 24 in 12 and 32 in 30; “The apertures 32 are also designed to receive pins 26” as described in paragraph [0030]).
PNG
media_image1.png
515
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
679
1018
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
373
871
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
210
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 42 Lazarus discloses the mounting region is restrained from rotation by the cross-sectional geometry of the elongate support member (per the square cross-section of members 12 and 30/28; figs. 1, 2).
In regards to claim 43 Lazarus discloses each of the bore and the elongate support member have a square cross-section (figs. 1, 2).
In regards to claim 44 (as best understood) Lazarus discloses the elongate support member comprises two parts (28, 30), a first portion (28) and separate a second portion (30), each portion configured to provide a mounting region (portion inserted in 12) and a working region (portion protruding from 12), such that the working regions of each of the first portion and the second portion protrude from the bore (fig. 4) with the mounting regions received within opposing ends of the bore of the ladder (fig. 4).
In regards to claim 46 Lazarus discloses the mounting region of the or each elongate support member is axially splined (apertures 32, fulfilling the definition of “splined” as obtained from Spline - definition of spline by The Free Dictionary ; see definition below) to prevent rotation relative to the bore (per insertion of pin 26), and/or the working end of the or each elongate support member is splined or keyed to receive a non-rotatable connector thereabouts.
PNG
media_image5.png
195
507
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 47 Lazarus discloses the bore is internally splined (aperture 24, fulfilling the definition of “splined” as obtained from Spline - definition of spline by The Free Dictionary ; see definition above) to receive the axial splines of the elongate support member and thereby prevent rotational movement therebetween (figs. 1, 2 and paragraphs [0029] & [0030]).
In regards to claim 48 Lazarus discloses the detent is selected from the following group: a bolt, a pin (pin 26), a spring-loaded stopper, a bolt spring plunger and a snap- lock plunger.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lazarus, US (2005/0023084).
In regards to claim 49 Lazarus discloses:
A ladder assembly (shown in fig. 2) comprising the coupling device of claim 41 (as shown in fig. 2 and described under rejection for claim 41 above), in combination with a first of the plurality of utility modules (end members 36 including arms 38/42), wherein the first of the plurality of utility modules comprises a pair of adjustable legs (adjustable via apertures in 36 as shown in fig. 2) for supporting the ladder on a vertical or a horizontal surface (as shown in fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
515
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lazarus, US (2005/0023084).
In regards to claim 60 Lazarus discloses:
A kit (components making up assembly of fig. 2 constitutes “A kit”) comprising the coupling device according to claim 41 (as shown in fig. 2 and described under rejection for claim 41 above), and a headstock (12) for a ladder, the headstock having a bore (bore extending through support member 12) extending at least partially therethrough for receiving the elongate support member of the coupling device (as shown in figs. 1, 2).
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.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazarus as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Fowler, US (2419065).
In regards to claim 50 Lazarus discloses each leg comprises a plurality of equidistantly spaced holes for releasably engaging an adjustable connector.
In regards to claim 50 Lazarus does not disclose the adjustable connector comprising two pieces: a connecting cuff and a releasable collar.
Fowler teaches the adjustable connector (12, 5/13) comprising two pieces: a connecting cuff (5/13) and a releasable collar (12), the cuff at least partially encircling the leg (in the manner 13 encircles 5) and providing a locking means (20/22) to releasably secure (intended use) the cuff to one of the plurality of holes along the leg.
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 attachment mechanism taught by Fowler between arms 38 and 42 of end member 36 of Lazarus for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for adjustable means between the arms to provide for more flexible / versatile stabilizer able to contact at different spots on a building, post, scaffold or other structure against which work is performed.
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
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634