Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This office action is in response the amendment electronically filed 3:06:23 ET on 11/24/25. Note that what appears to be a substantially duplicate amendment was electronically filed on 11/24/25 at 3:01:14 ET. It is not clear why the amendment was filed two times. Nonetheless the examiner has acted upon the later of the two amendments in case there was a difference which was not readily apparent. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending. Claim 4 has been canceled. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The replacement drawing sheets filed 11/24/25 are approved.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 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.
In claims 1, 3, 5, 12, 16, 17 and 19 it is not clear which spreader arm “the spreader arm” references as a pair of spreader arms have been introduced. The examiner suggests amending to “each spreader arm” or “the spreader arms” accordingly.
In claims 6 and 20 it is not clear which spreader pivot “the spreader pivot” refences as a pair of spreader pivots have been introduced. Th examiner suggests amending to “each spreader pivot” or “the spreader pivots” accordingly.
It is not clear how claim 5 further limits claim 1 from which it depends?
Claims 1-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 10,487,576 to Ballard et al.
Ballard provides a step ladder 100 having a top cap 110, a pair of front rails105 fixedly connected to the top cap and each having front face, a pair of rear rails 111 pivotably coupled to the top cap 11 and a spreader mechanism 112 including a platform 116 having one pivotably coupled to the front rails and a second end pivotably coupled to strut(s) or “spreader arm(s)” 114 (column 5, lines 1-24).
As shown in at least Fig.1, each spreader arm longitudinal axis and platform top surface are oriented generally parallel to the top can top surface when the stepladder is in the open position.
With respect to claims 2 and 15, the ladder is inherently limited in the open position by the spreader mechanism.
With respect to claims 3 and 19, each strut 114 is shown as a single unibody construction.
With respect to claims 4-5 and 12, at least figure 1, shows the struts 114 and platform top as parallel to the top cap top surface and a surface upon which the ladder is located in the open position.
With respect to claims 6 and 20, at least figure 1 shows spreader pivot distal to an interior wall.
With respect to claim 7, see handle 118.
With respect to claims 8, 13 and 18, at least figure 1 shows the platform 116 as single unibody construction.
With respect to claim 9, at least figure 1 shows the platform front face adject to the front rail front faces.
With respect to claim 10, while not shown or described, it is inherent that the platform top surface would be generally coplanar to the front rail front faces at least above rung 107 when in the folded/closed position.
With respect to claims 11 and 16, the space between the side walls of platform 116 meets the limitation of a channel.
With respect to claim 14, at least figures 1-2 shown a cross bar coupled between the rear rails.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The replacement sheets and amendments overcome the prior drawing objection and rejections under 35 USC 112(b). However, new issues under 35 USC 112(b) have been raised as noted above.
The arguments concerning the prior art rejection of claims under U.S. Patent 2,234,944 to Rich et al. are found persuasive and rejection is withdrawn.
Arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claims under U.S. Patent 10,487,576 to Ballard are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ballard et al. fails to teach a platform pivotally coupled to a pair of front rails as claimed by amended independent claims 1, 12, and 17. Ballard et al. teaches a spreader mechanism 112 in which the platform 116 is pivotally coupled to a rung 107 associated with outer rails 105 or a rung 103 associated with inner rails 101 (column 5, lines 5-15). Nothing suggests that the platform of Ballard et al. is pivotally coupled to rails. For at least this reason, claims 1, 12, and 17 are patentable over Ballard et al. Claims 2-11, 13-6, and 18-20 depend from independent claims 1, 12, and 17, respectively, and, therefore, include the same limitation and are, likewise, patentable over Ballard et al.
This is not persuasive. First, the cited passage does not recite that the platform 116 is pivotally coupled to the rung 107 as argued. It recites that “The platform 112 is located and positioned so that it extends inwardly from a rung”. This passage defines a direction only. Lines 5-8 of column 5 recite “The spreader mechanism 112 further includes a platform 116 or step that has one end pivotally coupled with the first assembly 102” where the first assembly 102 is defined as “a first assembly 102 including inner rails 101 and one or more rungs 103 extending between” at column 4, lines 11-13. Further, column 5, lines 15-21 recite “ In one embodiment, the platform 116 may take the place of a rung 103 associated with the inner rails 101 (e.g., the uppermost rung 103 associated with the inner rails 101 of the first assembly 102). Thus, the platform 116 provides an expanded area for a user to stand on when standing at the height of the spreader mechanism 112.”
Thus, the platform is pivotally coupled to the rails as the rails are an element of the first assembly 102. And in the “one embodiment” the platform functions in lieu of rung 103 as such it inherently must pivotally couped to the rails so the ladder may fold to the closed position. Further, note that there is nothing in applicant’s claims requiring a direct pivotable coupling of the platform to the rails though the examiner believes this is provided when the first paragraph of column 5 is considered in its entirety.
Assuming arguendo that the platform is directly pivotally coupled to the rung 107 (which is not what is disclosed), the platform would still be pivotally coupled to the rails as the rung is affixed to the rails.
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 ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636