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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster et al. (9,551,184) in view of White (4,592,446).
Regarding claim 1, Webster discloses, a telescoping climbing device comprising: a plurality of pole segments (31a and 31b; fig 7 and lines 59); a rung (32) operatively associated with each pole segment; and a hook (20) attached to a distal-most pole segment of the plurality of pole segments, but while the pole segments are detachable and movable relative to each telescoping pole segments movable between a collapsed condition and an extended condition are not disclosed.
However, White teaches that it is known to have climbing devises with telescoping pole segments (22-25) movable between a collapsed condition (figure 6) and an extended condition (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the segments of Webster to be collapsible and telescoping similar to that disclosed by White, this would allow for the device to be more easily transported to a needed location and also save space while being stored in the collapsed condition.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (4,592,446) in view of Webster et al. (9,551,184).
Regarding claim 1, White discloses, a telescoping climbing device comprising: a plurality of pole segments (at least two of 22-25) movable between a collapsed condition (figure 6) and an extended condition (figure 1); a rung (35) operatively associated with each pole segment of the plurality of pole segments, but lack specifically disclosing a hook attached to a distal-most pole segment.
However, Webster teaches that it is known to have climbing devises with a hook (20) attached to a distal-most pole segment of the plurality of pole segments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the top seat of White with a hook similar to that disclosed by Webster, this would allow for the device to be used in roof repairs and add addition safety. It has also been held that substituting one known element (seat) for another (hook) would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if it yields predictable results (i.e. the device would be applicable for roofs).
Regarding claim 2, White discloses each rung (35) cantilevers from its respective pole segment.
Regarding claim 4, White discloses a release (39) associated with each pole segment that moves the pole segment between a slidably engagement and a locked engagement with an adjacent pole segment.
Regarding claim 5, Webster discloses a hook support (24) laterally extending from a terminus of the hook for stabilizing the hook on an inclined surface.
Regarding claim 6, Webster discloses a roller (29) rotatably connected to a rear portion, opposite a terminus, of the hook so that the roller rolls in a direction parallel with a longitudinal axis of the plurality of pole segments.
Regarding claim 7, Webster discloses a hook post (61) removably connecting the hook to said distal-most pole segment.
Regarding claim 8, White discloses a foot (22) coupled to a proximal-most pole segment (23) of the plurality of pole segments.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Galloway et al. (8,807,278) discloses the concept of telescoping movable pole segments on a climbing device and could be applied in place of White in the Webster et al. (9,551,184) in view of White (4,592,446) rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are allowed.
Claim 3 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of Wheeler (4,577,726); McCoolidge (2009/0107768); and Seiler (1,918,293) all disclose that it is know in the to include straps along the top of rungs/steps on climbing devices, but the prior art fails to disclose straps along the lateral face of each rung as required by claims 3 and 9.
Claim 10 is allowed as it requires all the limitations of claim 9.
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