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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 7, 10, 12, ad 18 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 7 recites the limitation "the recesses or projections". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 10 third and fourth stringers are claimed before first or second stringers are mentioned.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the recesses or projections”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 depends from claim 7 and is subsequently rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0000848 (hereinafter EP ‘848) in view of Krause US 5,074,377.
Regarding claim 1, EP ‘848 discloses ladder (EP ‘848, Figure 11), comprising: a step leg (EP ‘848, Figure 11); and a support leg (EP ‘848, Figure 11) connected to the step leg via a joint (EP ‘848, Figure 5), wherein the joint is adjustable (EP ‘848 translation: ), and wherein the ladder latches automatically with the joint only in the angular positions at 0°, between 25° and 45°, between 100° and 120° and at 180°, and wherein the ladder is an offset ladder (EP ‘848, Figure 11).
EP ‘848 fails to disclose the support leg being adjustable in length in a predetermined grid dimension.
Krause discloses a ladder (Krause, Figure 1), comprising: a step leg (1); and a support leg (1) connected to the step leg via an adjustable locking joint (Krause, column 4: lines 22-26), with the support leg being adjustable in length in a predetermined grid dimension (Krause, column 5: lines 1-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the ladder of EP ‘848 so that the support leg was adjustable in length as taught by Krause as to provide a ladder that was adjustable to different operating lengths (Krause, abstract).
Regarding claim 2, EP ‘848 in view of Krause further discloses the support leg being adjustable in length with a latching device including latching elements (Krause, column 5: lines 1-16).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, EP ‘848 in view of Krause further discloses the support leg having a first ladder part (2) arranged close to the joint and a second ladder part (4) arranged remote from the joint, wherein one of the first and second ladder parts has a first stringer and a second stringer, wherein at least one of the first and second ladder parts defines a row of recesses or projections (Krause, Figures 4 and 5), wherein the recesses or projections are spaced apart from one another by less than half a distance between treads or connecting elements of the ladder (Krause, Figure 1), wherein another of the first and second ladder parts includes a latching device (10), with the latching device having at least one latching element which can be introduced into a recess of the row of recesses or projections on the at least one of the first and second stringers (Krause, Figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, EP ‘848 in view of Krause further discloses the latching device having two latching elements, wherein the first stringer defines a first row of recesses or projections (Krause, Figures 4 and 5), wherein the second stringer defines a second row of recesses or projections, wherein a first of the two latching elements acts on the first stringer and a second of the two latching elements acts on the second stringer (Krause, column 5: lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 5, EP ‘848 in view of Krause further discloses wherein both of the two latching elements of the latching device are guided in or along a common guide (3).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, EP ‘848 in view of Krause further discloses the recesses or projections being spaced apart from one another at a predetermined recess grid dimension (Krause, column 5: lines 1-16).
Krause fails to disclose the range of grid. However determining an operating range of the grid would be able to be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success for the predetermine recess grid of EP ‘848 in view of Krause to be 1-10cm depending on the desired spacing of the treads.
Regarding claim 9, EP ‘848 in view of Krause further discloses the support leg able to be pivoted with the joint into a position spread by more than 90 degrees relative to the step leg (EP ‘848, Figure 9).
Regarding claim 10, EP ‘848 in view of Krause further discloses the joint having a joint latching device (13), with which the pivoting angle of the joint can be adjusted and fixed (EP ’848 translation: ¶0030), and wherein the support leg having first and second stringers (Krause, Figure 4) and connecting elements or second treads (8) arranged between the first and second stringers (7).
Regarding claim 11, EP ‘848 in view of Krause further discloses the recesses or projections in the at least one of the first and second ladder parts being configured in an inner wall of the at least one of the first and second stringers facing the treads or connecting elements (Krause, Figure 4).
Regarding claim 19, EP ‘848 in view of Krause further discloses the support leg being able to be pivoted with the joint into a horizontal position when the ladder is leant (EP ‘848, Figure 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17 and 20-22 are 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.
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the at least two latching elements being preloaded towards the first and second stringers by a plurality of springs, wherein at least one spring presses both latching elements away from each other; an actuating device acting jointly on two latching elements or being configured for single-handed actuation; or projections and recesses being in the stringers facing away from treads.
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 KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 571.272.1467. 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.
/KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights