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 data 10/17/2025 has they correct some of the previous issues however further objections are indicated below.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "112" and "108" have both been used to designate the same element in the figures. It appears that 108 is the top rung of the ladder device; however the specification indicates 112 as the lip of the duck blind. Regarding claim 20, it is unclear how the hooks would secure the ladder to “the lip of the duck blind” indicated as 112 is shown in the drawings. 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. 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 1-3, 8-15, and 18-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, they all require the device to stand upright without support, it is unclear how a device would be able to stand upright without support as the bottom step would be supporting the device. It is suggested that the claim is changed the bottom step is configured to allow the device to stand upright without additional support, to correct the issue.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jenkins (5,704,448).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Jenkins discloses a device capable of helping hunters navigate in and out of a duck blind, the device comprising: a body component comprising two parallel end-rail components (11, 12, 21, and 22) and a plurality of rung rails (23, 13 and 14); wherein the plurality of rung rails are disposed between the two parallel end-rail components and secured to create a ladder configuration (e.g. fig 1A); and wherein the plurality of rung rails have a substantially horizontal orientation and ends of the plurality of rung rails engage the two parallel end-rail components to create the ladder configuration (e.g. fig 1A); and further wherein the plurality of rung rails provide weight bearing support capable of having a user to climb up and down the ladder device and into and out of a duck blind wherein the plurality of rung rails each comprise a non-slip material tread component (17); and wherein the ladder device further comprises a bottom step (42 and 43) extending outward from the parallel end-rail components which allows the duck blind ladder device to stand upriqht without support.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Jenkins discloses a removable handle (35 and/or 36) which are ultimately secured to the 11 and 12.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barzilai (8,813,913).
Regarding claim 14, Barzilai discloses a device comprising: a body component comprising two parallel end-rail components (fig. 1), a plurality of rung rails (fig. 1), a bottom step (102 or 124), a removable handle (294 and/or 127), and two right- angle hooks (104 or 125); wherein the plurality of rung rails are disposed between the two parallel end-rail components in a substantially horizontal orientation and secured to create a ladder configuration; wherein the plurality of rung rails provide weight bearing support for a user to climb up and down the duck blind ladder device and into and out of a duck blind; wherein the bottom step (102 or 124) extends outward from the parallel end-rail components and allows the ladder device to stand upright without support; wherein the removable handle is secured to one or both of the two parallel end-rail components during use; and wherein the two right angle hooks are capable of fitting over a lip of the duck blind, to secure the ladder device within the duck blind.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 8-11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barzilai (8,813,913) in view of Jenkins (5,704,448).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 18, Barzilai device capable of helping hunters navigate in and out of a duck blind, the device comprising: a body component comprising two parallel end-rail components and a plurality of rung rails (e.g. fig 1A); wherein the plurality of rung rails are disposed between the two parallel end-rail components and secured to create a ladder configuration (e.g. fig 1A); and wherein the plurality of rung rails have a substantially horizontal orientation and ends of the plurality of rung rails engage the two parallel end-rail components to create the ladder configuration (e.g. fig 1A); and further wherein the plurality of rung rails provide weight bearing support capable of having a user to climb up and down the ladder device and into and out of a duck blind; and wherein the duck blind ladder device further comprises a bottom step (102 or 124) extending outward from the parallel end-rail components which allows the ladder device to stand upriqht without support, but lacks specifically disclosing wherein the plurality of rung rails each comprise anon-slip material tread component.
Jenkins teaches that it is known in the art to use non-slip material (17) on the steps of ladder devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use non-slip material similar to Jenkins in the device of Barzilai to increase safety.
Regarding claim 3, Barzilai in view of Jenkins discloses a device that inherently has size, but lacks disclosing the specific sizes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the claimed sizes since it has been held that scaling size is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over prior art. It is also noted that relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art. (See MPEP 2144.04 IV A)
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Barzilai discloses a removable handle (294 and/or 127).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Barzilai discloses two right angle hooks (figure 1 and 2a) capable of fitting over the lip of a duck blind.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barzilai (8,813,913) in view of Jenkins (5,704,448) in further view of Desai (2013/0140111).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Barzilai and Jenkins disclose the invention as described
previously, but lack the batter powered lights.
Desai discloses ladder device comprising battery (16) powered lights (19; fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention use lights on the ladder as taught by Desai in the device of the combination, to increase safety (abstract).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barzilai (8,813,913) in view of Jenkins (5,704,448) in view of Oswalt ( 8,776,949).
Regarding claim 13, Barzilai and Jenkins disclose the invention as described previously, but lack specifically disclosing indicia.
Oswalt discloses ladder device comprising indicia (fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention use indicia on the ladder as taught by Oswalt in the device of
Barzilai and Jenkins, to provide a means to advertise or provide notifications that could increase profits and brand recognition.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barzilai (8,813,913) in view of Oswalt ( 8,776,949).
Regarding claim 13, Barzilai discloses the invention as described previously, but lack specifically disclosing indicia.
Oswalt discloses ladder device comprising indicia (fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention use indicia on the ladder as taught by Oswalt in the device of
Barzilai, to provide a means to advertise or provide notifications that could increase profits and brand recognition.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barzilai (8,813,913) in view of Desai (2013/0140111).
Regarding claims 19, Barzilai discloses the invention as described
previously, but lack the batter powered lights.
Desai discloses ladder device comprising battery (16) powered lights (19; fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention use lights on the ladder as taught by Desai in the device of the combination, to increase safety (abstract).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (5,371,966) in view of Barzilai (8,813,913).
Regarding claim 20, Hall discloses a ladder device (60) for attaching to the rim of a duck blind (figure 3), but fails to disclose the specific limitations of the ladder device.
Barzilai discloses the ladder device (fig. 1a) as claimed and articulated in the rejections above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the ladder device of Hall with that of Barzilai, since it has been held the replacing one know element for another is obvious if the results would be predictable. The replacement would only involve routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
The bottom support to hold the ladder upright is disclosed by both Jenkins and Barzilai as explained above. Further prior art not applied that discloses this aspect of the applicant’s disclosure is Hoffmann (2020/0370372) and Aral Diaz (9,320,955). Other aspects such as the hooks and handle were considered for allowable subject matter, but these elements are well known in the ladder art and obvious to include in many of the references that lack them for obvious reasons to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 DANIEL TROY whose telephone number is (571)270-3742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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 Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637