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 .
The amendment filled 07/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 41-50 and 60 have been amended. Claims 51-59 remain withdrawn, therefore claims 41-50 and 60 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Numerals references: 6a, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a are not found / referred to in the specification.
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 “a single beam having the mounting region centrally located along the beam and working regions located at opposing ends of the beam” claim 45 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.
Claim 45 is 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 45 recites “a single beam, the mounting region centrally located along the beam and a portion of the working region located at each opposing end of the beam, such that the working regions protrude from opposing ends of the bore”; 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.
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 stiles (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 more utility modules (stabilizing arms 42; fig. 1); and
a first releasable detent (pin 26 inserted into 12 and portion of 30 inserted into 12 as shown in fig.1 and in phantom in fig. 4; see pin with reference line numeral 26) within the mounting region (portion of 30 inserted into 12) to secure the elongate support member within the bore (as described in paragraph [0029]; highlighted excerpt below), and a second releasable detent (unnumbered pin next to and similar to 26 inserted into 38 and the exposed portion of 30; see fig. 1 and in phantom in fig. 4; see annotated drawings below) within the working region to secure the elongate support member to the one or more utility modules (to secure 30 to 42, 38 being part of 42 as shown in fig. 1),
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 first releasable detent selectively 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
293
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
679
1018
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
373
871
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
210
574
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 42 Lazarus discloses the mounting region is restrained from rotation within the bore by a 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 mounting region of the elongate support member have a square cross-section (figs. 1, 2).
In regards to claim 44 Lazarus discloses the elongate support member (28, 30), is provided as a elongate support member (28) and separate a second elongate support member (30), each providing respective mounting regions (figs. 2, 4) and respective working regions (figs. 2, 4), such that the working regions of each of the first elongate support member and the second elongate support member protrude from the bore on opposing sides of the ladder (figs. 2, 4), where the mounting regions of each of the first elongate support member and the second elongate support member are receivable within the bore on opposing sides of the ladder (figs. 2, 4).
In regards to claim 46 Lazarus discloses the mounting region of each of the pair of elongate support members 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) to prevent rotation relative to the bore.
PNG
media_image6.png
195
507
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 47, note that the claim is solely directed to further narrowing the second option (b) of claim 46 from which it depends, hence by addressing the first option (a) of claim 46 (see rejection of claim 46 above), claim 47 is now treated as only further narrowing the option that was not addressed in the claims.
In regards to claim 48 Lazarus discloses each of the first and second releasable detents are 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 one or more utility modules (end members 36 including arms 38/42), wherein the first utility module 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 the ladder, the headstock providing the bore (bore extending through support member 12) extending at least partially therethrough for receiving the elongate support member (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.
Claims 46 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazarus as applied to claim 44 above, or over Lazarus and further in view of Ohrstrom, US (11268284).
In regards to claims 46, it is submitted that the apertures 32 of Lazarus indeed fulfils the definition of spline “splined” as obtained from Spline - definition of spline by The Free Dictionary ; see definition below, however, if for any reason it was found that Lazarus does not disclose splined mounting region for the elongate support member, Ohrstrom teaches mounting region (132, 133) of each of the pair of elongate support members (130) is axially splined (splines 136; fig. 3) to prevent rotation relative to the bore (when inserted in the bore within 140).
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 splines as taught by Ohrstrom onto the mounting region of the elongate support member of Lazarus for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to have a tight connection between the support member and the bore to prevent relative movement due to tolerances between the fitted tubes to prevent wear and tear resulting from such relative movements.
In regards to claim 47, note that the claim is solely directed to further narrowing the second option (b) of claim 46 from which it depends, hence by addressing the first option (a) of claim 46, claim 47 is now treated as only further narrowing the option that was not addressed in the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 50 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “Lazarus fails to teach a first releasable detent within the mounting region to secure the elongate support member within the bore extending between a pair of spaced apart stiles of a ladder. Lazarus likewise fails to disclose first and second releasable detents as required by proposed independent claim 41”; examiner respectfully disagrees and refers applicant to the rejection as it applies to the amended / argued recitation in the rejection above, where examiner asserts that Lazarus indeed discloses a first releasable detent (pin 26 inserted into 12 and portion of 30 inserted into 12 as shown in fig.1 and in phantom in fig. 4; see pin with reference line numeral 26) within the mounting region (portion of 30 inserted into 12) to secure the elongate support member within the bore (as described in paragraph [0029]; highlighted excerpt under rejection above), and a second releasable detent (unnumbered pin next to and similar to 26 inserted into 38 and the exposed portion of 30; see fig. 1 and in phantom in fig. 4; see annotated drawings under rejection above) within the working region to secure the elongate support member to the one or more utility modules (to secure 30 to 42, 38 being part of 42 as shown in fig. 1).
Applicant argues “none of the alleged releasable detents (i.e., the pins 26 as set forth in the Office action), of Lazarus can be said to selectively allow/prevent longitudinal movement of the support member (12) relative to the sleeve members (16) as these features are rigidly attached in a single-piece construction”; examiner respectfully disagrees and refers applicant to the rejection as it applies to the amended / argued recitation in the rejection above, where examiner asserts that Lazarus indeed discloses 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 first releasable detent selectively 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]). Note that it is not clear why applicant is considering movement between the support member and the sleeve members, examiner draws attention to that the exact claim language is: “the first releasable detent selectively prevents longitudinal movement of the elongate support member relative to the bore” which does not mention preventing relative movement with respect to the sleeve members, instead it is relative movement between the support member and the bore.
Regarding applicant’s arguments concerning claim 47, (which appears to be more suitable for claim 46); examiner provides/clarifies that it is apertures 32 that the examiner is referring to that fulfils the definition provided from Spline - definition of spline by The Free Dictionary., not the pins, and that at least definition 1b stating that it can be grooves or slot for the projections indeed is met by apertures 32. However, note examiner’s supplemental 103 rejection provided utilizing reference Ohrstrom, in case for any reason it was found that the apertures of Lazarus does not meet the definition of “Spline”.
Applicant’s amendments / arguments regarding claim 50 were found persuasive, claim rejection has been withdrawn.
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 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
Prosecution Insights