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 are objected to because:
None of the recited limitations have reference numerals in the specification.
None of the figures illustrated have any reference numerals.
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 manner/mechanism in which “the triangular supports are pivotally attached to the curved metal support” claims 4, 9 and 14 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 Objections
Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 6 and 11 recite the limitation “a distally attached curved metal support”; keeping in mind that the ladder is part of the ladder stabilizer, what is the term “distally” referring to. In other words which element is it distal from?
Claims 2, 7 and 12 recite “the high friction coefficient surface is affixed to the triangular supports”; since claim 1, 6 and 11 from which claims 2, 7 and 12 depend from respectively, establishes only one high friction coefficient surface, are claims 2, 7 and 12 requiring that the one single high friction coefficient surface is affixed to both triangular supports?
Claims 3, 8 and 13 recite “rubber, silicone, or other substance”; it appears that the disclosure only has support for rubber, silicone or a layer of asphalt, hence the term “other substance” is too broad to include materials which are not disclosed/described/supported.
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 6-15 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 6 recites “A method of manufacturing a ladder stabilizer comprising …”; the claim is indefinite because while the claim is directed to a method of manufacturing, it does not recite any method step. It appears that the claim only contains limitations of the ladder stabilizer, while the claim is a method claim. Applicant is reminded that amendment to the claim cannot include new matter and that there is no method steps disclosed in the specification. The same issue re-occurs and applies to claim 11 which recites “A method of using a ladder stabilizer comprising …”.
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 Johnson, US (2023/0023715).
In regards to claim 1 Johnson discloses:
A ladder stabilizer (assembly of fig. 1, 2) comprising of a ladder (200), a distally attached curved metal support (110, curved at 114; fig. 4), two triangular supports (134, 154; figs. 3-5,), and a high friction coefficient surface (136, 156; fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2 Johnson discloses the high friction coefficient surface is affixed to the triangular supports (136, 156 affixed to 134, 154 respectively as shown in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 3 Johnson discloses the high friction coefficient surface comprises of rubber, silicone, or other substance (136, 156 are rubber pads; paragraph [0029]).
In regards to claim 4 Johnson discloses the triangular supports are pivotally attached to the curved metal support (at pivot pins 140, 160; fig. 5).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson, US (2023/0023715).
In regards to claim 6 (as best understood per lack of method steps) Johnson discloses:
A method of manufacturing a ladder stabilizer (as best understood; at least the assembling and/or manufacturing of the components of the assembly shown in figs. 1, 2, 5) comprising of a ladder (200), a distally attached curved metal support (110, curved at 114; fig. 4), two triangular supports (134, 154; figs. 3-5,), and a high friction coefficient surface (136, 156; fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7 Johnson discloses the high friction coefficient surface is affixed to the triangular supports (136, 156 affixed to 134, 154 respectively as shown in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 8 Johnson discloses the high friction coefficient surface comprises of rubber, silicone, or other substance (136, 156 are rubber pads; paragraph [0029]).
In regards to claim 9 Johnson discloses the triangular supports are pivotally attached to the curved metal support (at pivot pins 140, 160; fig. 5).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson, US (2023/0023715).
In regards to claim 11 (as best understood per lack of method steps) Johnson discloses:
A method of using a ladder stabilizer (as best understood; at least the placing/transporting of the assembly shown in figs. 1, 2) comprising of a ladder (200), a distally attached curved metal support (110, curved at 114; fig. 4), two triangular supports (134, 154; figs. 3-5,), and a high friction coefficient surface (136, 156; fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12 Johnson discloses the high friction coefficient surface is affixed to the triangular supports (136, 156 affixed to 134, 154 respectively as shown in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 13 Johnson discloses the high friction coefficient surface comprises of rubber, silicone, or other substance (136, 156 are rubber pads; paragraph [0029]).
In regards to claim 14 Johnson discloses the triangular supports are pivotally attached to the curved metal support (at pivot pins 140, 160; fig. 5).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrews, US (2023/0023715).
In regards to claim 1 Andrews discloses:
A ladder stabilizer (assembly of fig. 12) comprising of a ladder (5), a distally attached curved metal support (14; fig. 6), two triangular supports (56, 66, triangular in cross-section as shown in annotated fig. 3 below), and a high friction coefficient surface (56 and 66 being made of rubber; paragraph [0051).
PNG
media_image2.png
512
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
216
274
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
692
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2 Andrews discloses the high friction coefficient surface is affixed to the triangular supports (supports being made of rubber; the surface would be part of the legs).
In regards to claim 3 Andrews discloses the high friction coefficient surface comprises of rubber, silicone, or other substance (rubber as described in paragraph [0051]).
In regards to claim 4 Andrews discloses the triangular supports are pivotally attached to the curved metal support (pivots at pins 70 as shown in the pivoted configuration in fig. 6).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrews, US (2023/0023715).
In regards to claim 6 (as best understood per lack of method steps) Andrews discloses:
A method of manufacturing a ladder stabilizer (as best understood; at least the assembling and/or manufacturing of the components of the assembly shown in figs. 2, 3, 6, 12) comprising of a ladder (5), a distally attached curved metal support (14; fig. 6), two triangular supports (56, 66, triangular in cross-section as shown in annotated fig. 3 below), and a high friction coefficient surface (56 and 66 being made of rubber; paragraph [0051).
PNG
media_image2.png
512
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
216
274
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
692
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7 Andrews discloses the high friction coefficient surface is affixed to the triangular supports (supports being made of rubber; the surface would be part of the legs).
In regards to claim 8 Andrews discloses the high friction coefficient surface comprises of rubber, silicone, or other substance (rubber as described in paragraph [0051]).
In regards to claim 9 Andrews discloses the triangular supports are pivotally attached to the curved metal support (pivots at pins 70 as shown in the pivoted configuration in fig. 6).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrews, US (2023/0023715).
In regards to claim 11 (as best understood per lack of method steps) Andrews discloses:
A method of using a ladder stabilizer (as best understood; at least the placing/transporting of the assembly shown in fig. 12) comprising of a ladder (5), a distally attached curved metal support (14; fig. 6), two triangular supports (56, 66, triangular in cross-section as shown in annotated fig. 3 below), and a high friction coefficient surface (56 and 66 being made of rubber; paragraph [0051).
PNG
media_image2.png
512
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
216
274
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
692
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12 Andrews discloses the high friction coefficient surface is affixed to the triangular supports (supports being made of rubber; the surface would be part of the legs).
In regards to claim 13 Andrews discloses the high friction coefficient surface comprises of rubber, silicone, or other substance (rubber as described in paragraph [0051]).
In regards to claim 14 Andrews discloses the triangular supports are pivotally attached to the curved metal support (pivots at pins 70 as shown in the pivoted configuration in fig. 6).
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 5, 10 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson as applied to claims 1, 6 and 11 respectively above.
In regards to claims 5, 10 and 15 Johnson does not disclose the triangular supports are 6 to 8 inches in width. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the structure of the triangular supports to be 6 to 8 inches in width since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the supports. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the triangular supports to be 6 to 8 inches in width to provide for enough surface area contact between the supports and the surface against which the supports rests to ensure/enhance grip and overall safety and prevent/minimize chances of slippage.
Claims 5, 10 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews as applied to claims 1, 6 and 11 respectively above.
In regards to claims 5, 10 and 15 Andrews does not disclose the triangular supports are 6 to 8 inches in width. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the structure of the triangular supports to be 6 to 8 inches in width since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the supports. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the triangular supports to be 6 to 8 inches in width to provide for enough surface area contact between the supports and the surface against which the supports rests to ensure/enhance grip and overall safety and prevent/minimize chances of slippage.
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