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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 8,191,682 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue declaration filed February 20, 2025, is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because the wrong title is given for the patent for reissue. This reissue application is for US Patent No. 8,191,862 titled “A-FRAME LADDER WITH A FLEXIBLE GATE/BARRIER.” A new reissue oath/declaration is required which includes the correct title of the invention.
In addition, the reissue declaration must be signed by a party authorized to act on behalf of the assignee of the entire interest. See MPEP § 1410.01, subsection I. The person who signed the reissue declaration filed February 20, 2025, Connie Confer, is different from the person who signed the Consent of Assignee and the original reissue declaration previously filed on June 5, 2023. It is not apparent from the present record that Connie Confer has authority to act on behalf of the assignee. This issue could be remedied by submitting a new reissue declaration signed by Kelly O’Hara (listed as VP Administration, Finance and Partner Development on the previously filed Consent of Assignee) or by submitting a clear statement on the record that Connie Confer is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee.
Applicant is reminded that the new reissue oath/declaration should be signed and dated in accordance with 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.01 and should also indicate that the specification of the patent was filed on June 5, 2023, as reissue application number 18/205,909.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - Reissue Declaration
Claims 1-20 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defects in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Drawings
The drawing amendments filed February 20, 2025, are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3), because the amended drawing sheets are not properly labeled as Replacement Sheets. Each drawing sheet that is being amended should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” at the top of the sheet, and each individual figure that is being amended should be labeled “Amended” below the figure.
The drawings are also objected as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference numbers mentioned in the specification: “62a, 62b, 62c, and 62d” (col. 10:57).
The drawings are also objected as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(e) because, in Fig. 7b, reference number “200” has been partially erased.
Figs. 9a-c are also objected to because they remain inconsistent with the invention shown in Figs. 5-8b due to an inaccurate rendering of the sectional views. The amendment to Figs. 9a-c does not overcome the objection set forth in the non-final Office action mailed August 20, 2024 (hereinafter, the Non-final) because simply removing the hatching from the walls of the locking section (320) does not yield an accurate elevational view of those walls. See Non-final, pg. 5-7. The double lines outlining areas of the locking section (320) appear in light of the patent disclosure to be an inaccurate representation of the invention. In addition, it appears that the portion of the rail structure (30a) below the locking area (320) should be shown in section view (i.e., showing the walls of the blow-molded rail structure 30a in section).
As a rough sketch solely for the purpose of illustrating the examiner’s position, it appears to the examiner that Figs. 9a-c should be amended to look something like this:
PNG
media_image1.png
328
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
312
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
If Applicant believes that the examiner is mistaken in this interpretation of Figs. 9a-c in light of the patent disclosure, then the examiner requests that Applicant explain what is being illustrated by the double lines in Figs. 9a-c and point out where support for that feature is found in the original disclosure.
New corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not prepare new drawings. Amendments in reissue applications are different from standard utility application practice and are governed by 37 CFR 1.173. In particular, 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3) reads, with emphasis:
Drawings. One or more patent drawings shall be amended in the following manner: Any changes to a patent drawing must be submitted as a replacement sheet of drawings which shall be an attachment to the amendment document. Any replacement sheet of drawings must be in compliance with § 1.84 and shall include all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. Amended figures must be identified as "Amended," and any added figure must be identified as "New." In the event that a figure is canceled, the figure must be surrounded by brackets and identified as "Canceled." All changes to the drawing(s) shall be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet accompanying the papers including the amendment to the drawings.
(i) A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be included. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as "Annotated Marked-up Drawings" and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings.
(ii) A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, must be provided when required by the examiner.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. See also MPEP 1453.
Specification
The specification amendments filed February 20, 2025, are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(1). Changes to the specification must be made by submission of the entire text of an added or rewritten paragraph, including markings pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(d), except that an entire paragraph may be deleted by a statement deleting the paragraph, without presentation of the text of the paragraph. The precise point in the specification where any added or rewritten paragraph is located must be identified by column and line number in the patent.
In addition, the instruction to delete two occurrences of the word “dash-dot” and one occurrence of the word “diagonal” from col. 6, lines 43-47 and 57 are unclear because those words do not appear in that location of the patent specification. It appears that Applicant may have intended to refer to col. 7, lines 16-20, which includes one occurrence of the word “dash-dot” and one occurrence of the word “diagonal,” as noted by the examiner in the objection to the specification set forth in the Non-final (pg. 9). Moreover, the examiner notes that simply deleting the words “dash-dot” and “diagonal” would not clarify the specification at col. 7, lines 16-20, because the remaining text at that section would read “the lines indicate the rail material … and lines indicate the locking area’s narrow section,” without explaining what lines are referred to. The language of the specification at col. 7, lines 16-20, should be carefully reviewed and thoughtfully amended to ensure clarity and consistency with the patent drawings.
The specification is also objected to for the following informalities:
In col. 3, line 8, “7-7” should read --7a-7a--, and in line 12, “8-8” should read --8a-8a--, consistent with the amendment of Fig. 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, the word --comprising-- should be inserted after “An A-frame ladder”
In claim 4, line 2, “gate/barrier” should read --gate barrier--
In claim 10, line 1, the word --comprising-- should be inserted after “An A-frame ladder”
In claim 10, line 14, “gate/barrier” should read --gate barrier--.
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 10-20 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 10 recites the limitations “the first rail” and “the first rail’s” (line 8), “the third rail” and “the third rail’s” (line 9), “the second rail” and “the second rail’s” (lines 11-12), and “the fourth rail” and “the fourth rail’s” (lines 12-13). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Each instance of “rail” in these limitations should read --rail structure--, consistent with claim 10, lines 2 and 4-5. Claims 11-20 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if a new reissue oath/declaration is filed to correct the errors noted above. Claims 10-20 would be allowable if the new reissue oath/declaration is filed and if claim 10 is rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The examiner’s reasons for allowance are set forth in the Non-final, see pg. 11-13.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s Remarks filed February 20, 2025, the examiner notes that the amendments to Figs. 9a-c to simply remove the hatching do not overcome the drawing objections set forth in the Non-final because the remaining double lines (from which the hatching was removed) do not appear to accurately represent the invention, as discussed in detail above.
With respect to the reissue declaration, the examiner acknowledges that the reissue declaration filed February 20, 2025, corrected the previous mistake in the patent number; however, this reissue declaration raised new issues as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. 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, Patricia L. Engle can be reached on (571)272-6660. 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.
/Laura Davison/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/JOSHUA KADING/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights