This is a Final office action for serial number 18/324971.
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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the body is directly coupled with an adjustment mechanism of a rail of a ladder 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not clearly disclose how the body is directly coupled within an adjustment mechanism of a rail of a ladder therefore the claims is not supported by the specification or within the drawings. The applicant indicates within the specification that the adjustment mechanism 124 or 112 is used to adjustably retain components to the ladder but is silent of how body 138 is directly coupled with an the adjustment mechanism 124 or 112 therefore failing to comply with the description requirement.
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1)as being anticipated by Nauta 3,341,047. The applicant is reminded that the tool is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the tool
Nauta discloses claim:
18. A button for a locking mechanism, the button comprising: a body (20/22) having a first side surface, a second side surface positioned opposite the first side surface, and at least one lateral surface extending between the first side surface and the second side surface; a support arm 50 coupled with the body and pivotable relative to the body 20/22 about a pivot axis intersecting the at least one lateral surface, the support arm 50 being pivotable about the pivot axis between a deployed position (Figure 5) and a collapsed position (Figure 3); wherein in the collapsed position, the entire support arm lies between a first plane defined by the first side surface of the body and a second plane defined by the second side surface of the body; and wherein in the deployed position, the support arm extends from the second side surface in a direction extending away from the first side surface and is configured to support a portion of a tool hanging from the support arm.
20. A button for a locking mechanism, the button comprising: a body (20/22) having a first side surface attachable to a shaft, a second side surface positioned opposite the first side surface, and at least one lateral surface extending between the first side surface and the second side surface; a support arm coupled with the body and pivotable relative to the body about a pivot axis intersecting the at least one lateral surface, the support arm being pivotable about the pivot axis between a deployed position and a collapsed position; wherein in the deployed position, a substantially upward-facing portion of the at least one lateral surface limits rotation of the support arm about the pivot axis; and wherein the deployed position, the support arm is configured to support a portion of a tool.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Support arm 50)][AltContent: textbox (Collapsed position Figure 3)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second side)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First side)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lateral surface)]
PNG
media_image1.png
202
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pivot axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Deployed position
Figure 5)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
230
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 1-14, 16, 17, 18, and 19 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss et al. (Moss) 20090229918 in view of Nauta 3,341,047.
Moss discloses claims:
1. A ladder (100), comprising: a first assembly (left side of ladder includes rails 201 and rungs 203), including: a first pair of rails spaced apart from each other; a first set of rungs coupled to and extending between the pair of rails; a first pair of hinge portions coupled to the first pair of rails; a second assembly (right side of ladder includes rails and rungs), including: a second pair of rails spaced apart from each other; a second pair of hinge portions coupled to the second pair of rails; wherein the first pair of hinge portions (left hinge 200) and the second pair of hinge portions (right hinge 200) are pivotally coupled to each other to form a pair of hinges rotatable about a pivot axis; and at least one hinge mechanism (220, as disclosed in 4407045 which has been incorporated by reference herein in its entirety) movable between a first axial position (figure 4a of 4407045 which has been incorporated by reference herein in its entirety ) along the pivot axis and a second axial position (Figure 4B, of 4407045 which has been incorporated by reference herein in its entirety) along the pivot axis (see in 4407045 which has been incorporated by reference herein in its entirety), the first assembly being rotatable relative to the second assembly while the at least one hinge mechanism is in the first axial position, the first assembly being prevented from rotation relative to the second assembly by the at least one hinge mechanism while the at least one hinge mechanism is in the second axial position; wherein the at least one hinge mechanism includes: a body (228) movable relative to the pair of hinges between the first axial position and the second axial position;
(Claim 2) The ladder of claim 1, wherein the at least one hinge mechanism comprises a pin portion (see figure below) extending from the body into at least one of the pair of hinges.
(Claim 3) The ladder of claim 2, wherein the body (228) is reversibly removable from the pin portion.
(Claim 13) The ladder of claim 1, wherein the first pair of rails and the second pair of rails are movable relative to the pivot axis between at least a freestanding configuration and a collapsed configuration (see figure below since ladders conventionally move in a freestanding configuration in use position and a collapsed or closed configuration).
(Claim 14) The ladder of claim 13, wherein while the first pair of rails and the second pair of rails are in the freestanding configuration on a substantially horizontal support surface, the support arm extends substantially horizontally relative to the substantially horizontal support surface (conventional for a ladder to be open or closed configuration).
(Claim 17) The ladder of claim 1, wherein the at least one hinge mechanism (220) is movable between the first axial position and the second axial position in response to application of an axially-oriented force to a substantially axially-facing surface of the body (see figures 4A-5, of as disclosed in 4407045 which has been incorporated by reference herein in its entirety as stated within specification of Moss).
(Claim 19) wherein the body is directly coupled with an adjustment mechanism (104, as best understood) of a rail (101) of a ladder (100).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pin portion)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pivot axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Button body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st assembly rails 2nd assembly rails)]
PNG
media_image3.png
586
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First assembly rails second assembly rails shown in freestanding position)]
PNG
media_image4.png
448
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Moss discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for a support arm.
Nauta discloses claim:
(Claim 1) a support arm 50 coupled with and extending from the body 20.
(Claim 4) wherein the support arm 50 is pivotable relative to the body 20 between a deployed position and a collapsed position.
(Claim 5) wherein the support arm 50 is selectively biased into the deployed position (figure 5) and into the collapsed position (figure 3).
(Claim 6) wherein the deployed position (figure 3) is substantially perpendicularly offset from the collapsed position (figure 5).
(Claim 7) wherein the body (20) comprises a protrusion 40 limiting rotation away from the deployed position while the support arm is in the collapsed position.
(Claim 8) wherein the support arm 50 is substantially aligned with a plane perpendicular to the pivot axis while in the collapsed position (figure 3).
(Claim 9) wherein the support arm 50 forms a loop with the body while in the deployed position (figure 5).
(Claim 10) wherein the loop includes at least three linear segments (56, 58, 62, 64).
(Claim 11) wherein the body comprises at least one support surface engaging a downward-facing surface 62 or 64 the support arm 50 while the support arm is in the deployed position (figure 5).
(Claim 12) wherein the at least one support surface (surface of body) is pitched toward a centerline of the body.
(Claim 16) wherein the support arm is pivotable about an axis perpendicular to the pivot axis.
(Claim 18) A button for a locking mechanism, the button comprising: a body (20/22) having a first side surface, a second side surface positioned opposite the first side surface, and at least one lateral surface extending between the first side surface and the second side surface; a support arm 50 coupled with the body and pivotable relative to the body 20/22 about a pivot axis intersecting the at least one lateral surface, the support arm 50 being pivotable about the pivot axis between a deployed position (Figure 5) and a collapsed position (Figure 3); wherein in the collapsed position, the entire support arm lies between a first plane defined by the first side surface of the body and a second plane defined by the second side surface of the body; and wherein in the deployed position, the support arm extends from the second side surface in a direction extending away from the first side surface and is configured to support a portion of a tool hanging from the support arm;
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (aperture)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Support arm 50)][AltContent: textbox (Collapsed position Figure 3)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second side)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First side)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lateral surface)]
PNG
media_image1.png
202
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (aperture)][AltContent: textbox (aperture)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Deployed position
Figure 5
Loop formed with body )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Support surface)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
230
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pivot axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Deployed position
Figure 5)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
230
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Moss to have included the support arm as taught by Nauta for the purpose of providing a means for supporting tools, supplies, or for pulling out the button for locking the hinge means as a substitute for the magnet which is used to support a tool. Modified Moss in view of Nauta inherently discloses (Claim 1) a support arm coupled with and extending from the body, (Claim 4) wherein the support arm is pivotable relative to the body between a deployed position and a collapsed position, (Claim 5) wherein the support arm is selectively biased into the deployed position and into the collapsed position, (Claim 6) wherein the deployed position is substantially perpendicularly offset from the collapsed position, (Claim 7) wherein the body comprises a protrusion limiting rotation away from the deployed position while the support arm is in the collapsed position, (Claim 8) wherein the support arm is substantially aligned with a plane perpendicular to the pivot axis while in the collapsed position, (Claim 9) wherein the support arm forms a loop with the body while in the deployed position, (Claim 10) wherein the loop includes at least three linear segments, (Claim 11) wherein the body comprises at least one support surface engaging a downward-facing surface of the support arm while the support arm is in the deployed position, (Claim 12) wherein the at least one support surface is pitched toward a centerline of the body; (Claim 16) wherein the support arm is pivotable about an axis perpendicular to the pivot axis (Claim 19) wherein the body is directly coupled with an adjustment mechanism of a rail of a ladder.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss et al. (Moss) 20090229918 in view of Nauta 3,341,047 in view of Yeh 20190383099.
Moss in view of Nauta discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for wherein a top surface of the body comprises at least one aperture extending perpendicular to the pivot axis.
Yeh teaches that it is known to have a body comprises at least one aperture extending perpendicular to the pivot axis.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pivot pin)][AltContent: textbox (Aperture of body
Pivot axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
420
672
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Moss in view of Nauta to have included wherein a top surface of the body comprises at least one aperture extending perpendicular to the pivot axis for the purpose of providing a means to reduce the material of the body for cost effectiveness as well as a means to attach the shaft of the pin pivot to the body.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that Nauta is not capable of supporting a portion of a tool, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., tool, since the claim states configured to support a portion of a tool therefore not positively claiming the tool) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim does not disclose the type of tool or
In response to applicant's argument that Nauta is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Nauta is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem to which the inventor is concerned with which is a body including a support arm for pivoting relative to the body in a deployed position and a collapsed position as disclosed within the applicant’s specification of paragraph 0010 as claimed therefore being analogous art.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection using Moss and Nauta does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights