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 04/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 9-20 have been amended. Claims 5-7 are withdrawn, therefore, claims 1-4 and 9-20 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference numeral 23 is used to refer to both the upper slot and the lower slot in the specification submitted 04/09/2026.
There are discrepancies between the reference numerals used to refer to elements in fig. 10 versus numerals used to refer to the same elements in fig. 13.
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 first set of latches” and “a second set of latches” claim 4 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.
Specification Objections
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 limitations: “a first set of latches” and “a second set of latches” lacks antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 11 recites “a shaft attached to the side rail and catch element attached ...”; it appears that article “a” is missing to precede the limitation “catch element”. Similarly, claim 1 line 11-12 recites “catch element attached to extending generally perpendicularly from the shaft” appears that the word “and” is missing between “attached to” and “extending generally perpendicularly”.
Claim 2 line 1-2 recites “wherein the adjustable height platform wherein the at least one latch comprises a pair of latches”; it appears that applicant meant to further limit the “adjustable height platform”; generally, the recitation above appears to be linguistically missing phrases.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 8-20 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 1 recites “an engaged position in which the catch element extends over the top surface of the deck and engages with a respective recess in the deck so that the catch element is flush with or below the surface of the deck”; indefiniteness arises due to the direct contradiction present within the above clause. In other words, the claim language requires that in the engaged position the catch element is both: (a) “extends over the top surface of the deck” and (b) “flush with or below the surface of the deck”. It is not clear how can the catch element be both extending above as well as flush with or below the surface of the deck. This limitation will be examined as best understood.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wyse, US (6471003).
In regards to claim 1 Wyse discloses:
A scaffold (10; fig. 1) comprising:
first and second ladder frames (near and far ladder frames formed by pair of legs 12s and cross bars 26s);
an adjustable height platform (platform 16 adjustable via apertures 28) configured to be supported between the first and second ladder frames (as shown in fig. 1) at a user selected height in an adjustment range (range of the holes 28; fig. 1), the adjustable height platform comprising:
a pair of spaced-apart side rails (14) extending between the ladder frames (fig. 1);
a deck (16) supported on opposing sides by the side rails (as shown in fig. 1), the deck including at least one recess in a top surface of the deck (recess 32 through which pin 20 passes as shown in fig. 3) adjacent one of the opposing sides of the deck (two recess adjacent each edge of deck 16 as shown in fig. 1); and
at least one latch (latch 22, 70, 20; note that the latch is considered to have 22, pin 70 and pin 20 as part of the latch; fig. 3) rotatably mounted to each side rail (where 22 is rotatable with respect to 70 at least as spring 71 is compressed; fig. 3), the at least one latch including a shaft (70) attached to the side rail (as shown in fig. 3) and [a] catch element (20, 22) attached to [and] extending generally perpendicularly from the shaft (20 perpendicular to shaft 70 as shown in fig. 3 as well as portion of 22 behind spring 71 is perpendicular to 70; and attached either directly with regards to portion of 22 or at least via portions 57 and 56) for engagement with the recess in the top surface of the deck to secure the deck on the side rails (20 passing through 32 and engaging top surface of 16; as shown in fig. 3); and
wherein the latch is movable between a disengaged position (when 22 is pulled away per compressing spring 71 and 20 is pulled out of 32) allowing the deck to be installed or removed from the side rails (when 22 is pulled away per compressing spring 71 and 20 is pulled out of 32) and an engaged position (position shown in fig. 3) in which the catch element extends over the top surface of the deck and engages with a respective recess in the deck so that the catch element is flush with or below the surface of the deck (as best understood, see contradictory language indefiniteness above; where at least portions of 22 engaging 70 as well as portions of 20 are below the surface of 16; note that the claim does not require the entirety of the catch to be below the surface of the deck).
PNG
media_image1.png
843
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
642
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2 Wyse discloses the adjustable height platform wherein the at least one latch comprises a pair of latches (set of 22/20/70 at four corners of platform 16 as shown in fig. 1) mounted to respective side rails (two on each side of the platform; fig. 16) and wherein the at least one recess comprises a pair of corresponding recesses (a recess corresponding to each latch through which 20 passes) adjacent each of the opposing sides of the deck for engagement with respective latches (as shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 3 Wyse discloses each side rail is configured to be supported between the ladder frames in first and second orientations (intended use limitation; orientation shown in fig. 1 and when the rails are turned 180 degrees about the horizontal plane), and wherein each side rail comprises first and second support surfaces (57 and 60) for supporting the deck (16) of the scaffold in the first and second orientations respectively.
In regards to claim 4 Wyse discloses wherein the at least one latch comprises a first set of latches (pair of catches 22/70/20 at one end of the deck) for holding the deck in place against the first support surfaces of the side rails in the first orientation (shown in fig. 1) and a second set of latches (pair of latches on opposite end of the deck 16) for holding the deck in place against the second support surfaces of the side rails in the second orientation (intended use limitation, also note that this is claimed broadly enough to include having the first and second sets of latches holding the deck against both first and second support surfaces in both orientations).
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 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gealy, US (9388588) in view of Hess, US (4427191).
In regards to claim 1 Gealy discloses:
A scaffold (entire assembly shown in fig. 2) comprising:
first and second ladder frames (end assemblies 2a and 2b);
an adjustable height platform (platform 4, 1a, 1b; adjustable via holes 17) configured to be supported between the first and second ladder frames (as shown in fig. 2) at a user selected height in an adjustment range (adjusted via holes 17), the adjustable height platform comprising:
a pair of spaced-apart side rails (first and second side brace assemblies 1a and 1b; fig. 2) extending between the ladder frames (fig. 1);
a deck (4) supported on opposing sides by the side rails (as shown in fig. 2) ... at least one latch (latch pins 5 which hold a deck 4 onto the side braces).
PNG
media_image3.png
613
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1 Gealy does not disclose the details of the latch i.e., the latch rotatably mounted to each side rail and including a catch element for engagement with the recess in the top surface of the deck to secure the deck on the side rails.
Hess teaches the deck (boards 91 along with collectively the plurality of top jaw members 5s is considered the deck in Hess; where a person can stand; fig. 5) including at least one recess (57) in a top surface of the deck (top surface of 5; fig. 3) adjacent one of the opposing sides of the deck (recess on both sides; fig. 5); and
at least one latch (41, 61) rotatably mounted to each side rail (rotatable at tubular cylinder 43), the at least one latch including a shaft (41) attached to the side rail (as shown in figs. 1) and [a] catch element (61) attached to [and] extending generally perpendicularly from the shaft (61 extending in the horizontal direction perpendicularly to 41 as shown in fig. 3) for engagement with the recess (57) in the top surface of the deck to secure the deck on the side rails (in the secured configuration shown in fig. 1);
wherein the latch is movable between a disengaged position (position shown in fig. 3) allowing the deck to be installed or removed from the side rails (where two interpretations apply i.e., boards 91 would be removable as well as at least the end of 5 that is coupled by 41 can be disengaged) and an engaged position (position shown in figs. 1 and 5) in which the catch element extends over the top surface of the deck (figs. 1 and 5) and engages with a respective recess (57; figs. 1 and 5) in the deck so that the catch element is flush with or below the surface of the deck (as best understood, see contradictory language indefiniteness above; portions of 41 below the surface of the deck and at least the bottom surface of 61 flush with top surface of 5; note that the claim does not require the top most surface of the catch to be flush with the surface of the deck).
PNG
media_image4.png
416
402
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 utilize the latching mechanism taught by Hess to hold the deck onto the side braces of Gealy, since Gealy does not describe the details of the latching nature of latch pin 5; one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the latching mechanism of Hess for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for an easy attach/detach mechanism to secure the deck to the side braces and remove when in need for replacement, cleaning, maintenance or refurbishing.
In regards to claim 2 Gealy as modified by Hess teaches the adjustable height platform wherein the at least one latch comprises a pair of latches (plurality of latches as shown in fig. 5; Hess) mounted to respective side rails (fig. 5; Hess) and wherein the at least one recess comprises a pair of corresponding recesses (respective recesses 57; Hess) adjacent each of the opposing sides of the deck for engagement with respective latches (as shown in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 3 Gealy as modified by Hess teaches each side rail is configured to be supported between the ladder frames in first and second orientations (intended use limitation; orientation shown in fig. 2 Gealy and when the rails are turned 180 degrees about the horizontal plane), and wherein each side rail comprises first and second support surfaces (top and bottom surface of bottom jaw 7) for supporting the deck of the scaffold in the first and second orientations respectively (intended use, also note that this is claimed broadly enough to include having the first and second support surfaces support the side rails in both orientations).
In regards to claim 4 Gealy as modified by Hess teaches wherein the at least one latch comprises a first set of latches (set of 2 closer to viewer; fig. 5; Hess) for holding the deck in place against the first support surfaces of the side rails in the first orientation (intended use limitation; fig. 5; Hess) and a second set of latches (set of 2 farther from viewer; fig. 5; Hess) for holding the deck in place against the second support surfaces of the side rails in the second orientation (intended use limitation, also note that this is claimed broadly enough to include having both the first and second sets of latches holding the deck against both first and second support surfaces in both orientations).
In regards to claim 8 Gealy as modified by Hess teaches each side rail further includes first and second vertically aligned slots (slots 51, 53; fig. 3; Hess) formed in respective opposing surfaces of the side rails (figs. 1-3).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gealy and Hess as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Stegath, US (5099953).
In regards to claim 9 Gealy as modified by Hess teaches each latch (41; Hess) is configured to be removably engaged with the first and second slots (51, 53; fig. 3; Hess) of a respective one of the side rails (7) in both the first and second orientations (intended use limitation, each latch removably engage 91 as shown in fig. 5 and when rotated 180 along horizontal plane).
In regards to claim 9 Gealy and Hess do not teach a biasing member.
Stegath teaches a biasing member (74) to bias the catch element (70 of locking pin 52/60) into engagement with the deck (46) and secure the deck against one of the support surfaces of a respective one of the side rails depending on the orientation (intended use limitation).
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 biasing member taught by Stegath onto the locking tab of the locking pin of Hess for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to maintain the engagement of the lock pin 41/43/61/59 in the engaged position prior to the tightening of handle 59, since several of the assemblies shown in fig. 3 is used as shown in fig. 5, a worker would want to place all assemblies in the engaged position, and then go back to tightening their respective handles during which it would be advantageous to have the pins maintained in the engaged position. One of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the pin 52/60 with the stop 70 in the manner shown in Stegath i.e., by pulling onto handle 76 to easily place the pin into the slots then letting go to have the spring 74 pull down on the pin and hence create resistance (between 61 and upper surface of 5) against the pivoting of the pin out of engagement with slots 55/57 of Hess. Subsequently, the modification above teaches the biasing member (74; Stegath) to bias a locking tab (70 of locking pin 52/60; Stegath) into engagement with the deck and secure the deck against one of the support surfaces (Hess) of the side rail depending on the orientation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “Wyse does not disclose a latch having a catch element that extends over the deck and engages with a recess in the top surface of the deck ... the through hole in Wyse is not a 'recess' as that term is normally understood ... the rejection maps clip 24 and pin 20, two distinct structural elements, into a single claim element, i.e., the latch”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that: (A) examiner re-asserts that Wyse discloses wherein the latch is movable between a disengaged position (when 22 is pulled away per compressing spring 71 and 20 is pulled out of 32) allowing the deck to be installed or removed from the side rails (when 22 is pulled away per compressing spring 71 and 20 is pulled out of 32) and an engaged position (position shown in fig. 3) in which the catch element extends over the top surface of the deck, where on one hand as shown in fig. 3 pin 20 is in contact with top surface of 16 and on the other hand even if one were to assign the interpretation of interlocking (although not required), also as can be seen in fig. 3 20 is interlocked via the aperture through which is passes to the top surface of the deck 16. (B) examiner provides that while the recess of Wyse extends through the deck, it is maintained that it is indeed a “recess” at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, where there is nothing neither in the convention definition not a special definition the specification that precludes it from being a through recess. And finally, (C) it is provided that there is also nothing that precludes having more than one element to form a “latch”; in fact, elements 20 and 22 as shown in fig. 3 of Wyse cooperate to attach/detach the deck from the rail by the compression of spring 71 which dictates to a person of ordinary skill in the art that they are indeed a mechanism unit i.e., latch.
Applicant argues against the specification and drawings objection that: “while, the phrase "first set of latches" and "second set of latches" is not used in the Detailed Description, claim 6 makes clear that the first set of latches and second set of latches correspond respectively to the to the upper and lower latches in Figures 4A and 4B”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that applicant is pointing to non-elected embodiment. Examiner directs applicant’s attention to the restriction/election detailed in the office action of 01/12/2026. Therefore, the drawings and specification objections are maintained.
Applicant argues “Neither Gealy nor Hess teach or suggest a recess in a top surface of the deck that is engaged by a catch element so that the catch element is flush with or below the surface of the deck. Gealy discloses a scaffold with a deck held down by latches but does not disclose the claimed recess in the top surface of the deck ... At one point, the Examiner asserts that the panel comprises a deck, but the panel in Hess does not include recesses as recited in the claims ... it is unclear why anyone of ordinary skill in the art of scaffolds would look to the clamp art of Hess when contemplating a safety latch for a scaffold. The clamp art is not analogous art. Second, the Examiner has failed to explain why a person skilled in the art would be motivated to substitute the complex screw mechanism in Hess for the simple latch in Gealy”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that (A) examiner reasserts that Gealy as modified by Hess teaches the latch is movable between a disengaged position (position shown in fig. 3) allowing the deck to be installed or removed from the side rails (where two interpretations apply i.e., boards 91 would be removable as well as at least the end of 5 that is coupled by 41 can be disengaged) and an engaged position (position shown in figs. 1 and 5) in which the catch element extends over the top surface of the deck (figs. 1 and 5) and engages with a respective recess (57; figs. 1 and 5) in the deck so that the catch element is flush with or below the surface of the deck (portions of 41 below the surface of the deck and at least the bottom surface of 61 flush with top surface of 5; note that the claim does not require the top most surface of the catch to be flush with the surface of the deck). (B) examiner has indeed articulated the motivation that: “since Gealy does not describe the details of the latching nature of latch pin 5; one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the latching mechanism of Hess for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for an easy attach/detach mechanism to secure the deck to the side braces and remove when in need for replacement, cleaning, maintenance or refurbishing”. (C) Finally, it is presented that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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