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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed September 12, 2025. The application has been updated accordingly.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gemme et al. (2019/0061629) hereinafter Gemme, in view of Kot et al. (5,902,162) hereinafter Kot, and further in view of Nie et al. (2015/0108728) hereinafter Nie.
Gemme discloses:
Claim 1: A ladder comprising:
a first rail (Fig. 1; 50 left);
a second rail (Fig. 1; 50 right) spaced apart from the first rail;
a plurality of rungs (Fig. 1; 54) extending between and coupled to the first rail and the second rail; and
a walkthrough device (Fig. 1; 202), comprising:
a sleeve (Fig. 4; 182 upper);
a pole (Fig. 1; 170) slidably coupled to the sleeve and displaceable relative to the sleeve (Fig. 1; Para. [0046]), the pole including a cap member (Fig. 1; 198), the pole including at least one pole aperture (Fig. 19; where the 214 passes through 170);
an adjustment mechanism (Fig. 19; 210), the adjustment mechanism comprising an engagement post (Fig. 19; 214) selectively insertable into the at least one pole aperture (Fig. 19; where the 214 passes through 170) to lock a position of the pole relative to the sleeve (Fig. 19; 214, Para. [0046]);
Gemme fails to disclose a sleeve aperture and a keyed sleeve mating surface; a pole cap member having a keyed pole mating surface, an adjustment mechanism with an engagement post selectively insertable into the at least one sleeve aperture and positioned adjacent to an end portion of the sleeve;
wherein upon mating of the keyed sleeve mating surface and the keyed pole mating surface, the at least one sleeve aperture and the at least one pole aperture are aligned and configured to receive the engagement post; and
wherein the keyed sleeve mating surface and the keyed pole mating surface include undulating portions that, when misaligned and in contact with each other, cause the pole to rotate relative to the sleeve to press the undulating portions together in response to application of a force to move the pole relative to the sleeve.
However, Kot discloses a keyed sleeve mating surface (Fig. 1c; 5) and the keyed pole mating surface (Fig. 1c; 6) include undulating portions (Fig. 2a; 5 and 6 are depicted with undulating surfaces) that, when misaligned and in contact with each other, cause the pole to rotate relative to the sleeve to press the undulating portions together in response to application of a force to move the pole relative to the sleeve (Fig. 2a; Col. 3, Lines 45-50).
Therefore, 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 device of Gemme to include the keyed mating surfaces, as taught by Kot, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would cause the pole and sleeve to be automatically aligned when collapsing the pole after use.
Additionally, Nie discloses an adjustment mechanism (Fig. 2; 100) and sleeve (Fig. 2; 10) with an engagement post (Fig. 5; 12b) selectively insertable into an aperture (Fig. 5; where 12b passes through 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the adjustment mechanism and sleeve, and relocate the aperture of Gemme with the adjustment mechanism and sleeve, as taught by Nie, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow a user to adjust the pole to the desired height while at an elevated position on the ladder.
Thus, in combination Gemme, Kot and Nie disclose he adjustment mechanism positioned adjacent to an end portion of the sleeve, of Nie, the adjustment mechanism comprising an engagement post selectively insertable into the at least one sleeve aperture, of Nie, and into the at least one pole aperture, of Gemme (where the aperture is located nearer to the cap) to lock a position of the pole relative to the sleeve; wherein upon mating of the keyed sleeve mating surface and the keyed pole mating surface, of Kot, the at least one sleeve aperture, of Nie, and the at least one pole aperture, of Gemme, are aligned and configured to receive the engagement post, of Nie.
Claim 2: Gemme, Kot and Nie disclose the ladder of claim 1, wherein the keyed sleeve (Nie - Fig. 2; 100) mating surface (Kot – Fig. 1c; 5) is positioned on a collar (Nie - Fig. 6; 10a) extending around the sleeve (Nie - Fig. 2; 10).
Claim 3: Gemme, Kot and Nie disclose the ladder of claim 1, wherein in response to sliding engagement of the keyed sleeve mating surface (Kot – Fig. 1c; 5) against the keyed pole mating surface (Kot – Fig. 1c; 6), the pole rotates relative to the sleeve to align the at least one sleeve aperture and the at least one pole aperture (the keyed surfaces of Kot, once combined with Gemme and Nie, allow the apertures to be lined up on the pole and sleeve).
Claim 5: Gemme, Kot and Nie disclose the ladder of claim 1, wherein upon insertion of the engagement post (Nie - Fig. 5; 12b) into the at least one sleeve aperture (Nie - Fig. 5; where 12b passes through 10) and the at least one pole aperture (Gemme - Fig. 19; where the 214 passes through 170, where the aperture is located nearer to the cap), the first mating surface and the second mating surface are maintained in contact with each other (Kot - Fig. 2c; 5 and 6).
Claim 6: Gemme discloses the ladder of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising:
an insert member disposed at least partially inside the sleeve and around the pole; and an additional cap member positioned at an end portion of the pole opposite the cap member.
However, Nie disclose an insert member partially inside the sleeve (Fig. 3; 21).
Therefore, 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 pole of Gemme to include the insert, as taught by Nie, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow further extension of the pole with additional stability.
While Gemme fails to disclose a second cap member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the number of the number of components and locate the second cap at the opposite end of the pole from the first cap, since it has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. The examiner contends that the duplication of the cap would not produce an unexpected result, as it would not change the purpose or function of the pole assembly. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) – Duplication of Parts.
Claim 7: Gemme, Kot and Nie disclose the ladder of claim 6, wherein: the insert member comprises a third mating surface (Nie - Fig. 2; edge of 21 facing away from 10); and
the additional cap member comprises a fourth mating surface (Gemme – where the additional 198 would be located at the lower end of 170, the mating surface would be located where 198 and 170 meet).
Claim 8: Gemme, Kot and Nie disclose the ladder of claim 7, but fail to disclose wherein: the third mating surface comprises a third keyed surface edge; and
the fourth mating surface comprises a fourth keyed surface edge.
However, Kot discloses a keyed mating surfaces (Fig. 1c; 5 and 6).
Therefore, 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 device of Gemme to include the keyed mating surfaces, as taught by Kot, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would cause the pole and sleeve to be automatically aligned when collapsing the pole after use.
Claim 9: Gemme, Kot and Nie disclose the ladder of claim 8, wherein in response to sliding engagement of the third keyed surface edge with the fourth keyed surface edge, the pole rotates relative to the sleeve to an additional aligned position with the third keyed surface edge mating against the fourth keyed surface edge such that the at least one sleeve aperture and the at least one pole aperture are aligned to receive the engagement post (the keyed surfaces of Kot, once combined with Gemme and Nie, allow the apertures to be lined up on the pole and sleeve – see the rejection of claim 3).
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margolies (4,798,262), in view of Nie et al. (2015/0108728) hereinafter Nie.
Claim 16: A walkthrough device for use with a ladder (Fig. 1; 10), the walkthrough device comprising:
a sleeve (Fig. 2; 51) defining a first aperture (Fig. 2; where 62 passes through 51) and attachable to a rail of a ladder (Fig. 2; 51 is attached to 14);
a pole (Fig. 2; 40) slidably coupled to the sleeve and configured for longitudinal displacement (Fig. 2; denoted by the double arrows located near 61) and rotational displacement relative to the sleeve (Fig. 2; because 40 and 51 are circular profiles, 40 is capable of rotational displacement relative to 51), but fails to disclose the pole defining a second aperture; and
an adjustment mechanism, comprising:
a clamp coupled to the sleeve and positioned at least partially around the pole, the clamp defining a third aperture;
a lever to engage and disengage the clamp; and
an engagement post protruding from the lever, the engagement post being sized and shaped to extend through the first aperture, the second aperture, and the third aperture to selectively lock the pole at a position relative to the sleeve.
However, Nie discloses a second aperture (Fig. 3; 22c) a clamp (Fig. 2; 100) defining a third aperture (Fig. 5; where 12b passes through 10) a lever to engage and disengage the clamp (Fig. 3; 12) with an engagement post protruding from the lever (Fig. 5; 12b).
Therefore, 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 assembly of Margolies to include the adjustment mechanism and second aperture, as taught by Nie, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow a user to adjust the pole to the desired height while at an elevated position on the ladder.
Thus, in combination Margolies and Nie disclose the adjustment mechanism, of Nie, comprising:
the clamp, of Nie, coupled to the sleeve and positioned at least partially around the pole, of Margolies, the clamp defining a third aperture, of Nie;
a lever to engage and disengage the clamp, of Nie; and
an engagement post, of Nie, protruding from the lever, the engagement post being sized and shaped to extend through the first aperture, of Margolies, the second aperture, of Nie, and the third aperture, of Nie, to selectively lock the pole, of Margolies, at a position relative to the sleeve, of Margolies.
Claim 17: Margolies and Nie disclose the walkthrough device of claim 16, wherein the lever comprises a cammed lever (Fig. 4; see detail) rotatable about a pivot point (Fig. 4; see detail) positioned at a first end of the lever (Fig. 4; see detail).
PNG
media_image1.png
751
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 19: Margolies and Nie disclose the walkthrough device of claim 16, wherein the engagement post extends perpendicular to the lever (Nie - Fig. 5; 12b) between a first end of the lever and a second end of the lever, the second end being opposite the first end (Nie - Fig. 4; post 12b is depicted in the center of a perpendicular to 12).
Claim 20: Margolies and Nie disclose the walkthrough device of claim 16, wherein the clamp is adjustable (Nie – Fig. 4; via 12) to an engaged position (Nie – Fig. 5; via 12) in which the clamp holds the pole (Margolies – Fig. 2; 40) in position relative to the sleeve (Margolies – Fig. 2; 51).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margolies (4,798,262), in view of Nie et al. (2015/0108728) hereinafter Nie, and further in view of Maki et al. (2018/0036868) hereinafter Maki.
Claim 18: Margolies and Nie disclose the walkthrough device of claim 17, but fail to disclose further comprising a threaded pin coupling ends of the clamp, the cammed lever being configured to apply and release a tensile force upon the threaded pin to correspondingly tighten and loosen the clamp.
However, Maki discloses a threaded pin (Fig. 9B; see detail).
PNG
media_image2.png
544
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 clamp of Nie to include the threaded pin configuration and the outer collar, as taught by Maki, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the clamp tightness to be fine-tuned around the pole.
Thus, in combination Margolies, Nie and Maki disclose the threaded pin, of Maki, coupling ends of the clamp, of Nie modified by Maki, the cammed lever, of Nie, being configured to apply and release a tensile force upon the threaded pin, of Maki, to correspondingly tighten and loosen the clamp, of Nie.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 14-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the primary reason for allowance of independent claim 10 is the overall combination of components, their construction and their arrangement with respect to one another regarding the pole and sleeve arrangement.
More specifically, independent claim 10 clearly outlines and details the features of the sleeve being positioned around the pole and comprising a first keyed end and a second keyed end, the pole being configured to rotate within the sleeve allowing at least one of the first pole end to rotationally align with the first keyed end or the second pole end to rotationally align with the second keyed end in a way that is not anticipated or made obvious by any known prior art.
Analogous art, such as Kot et al. (5,902,162) hereinafter Kot, discloses a pole and sleeve with keyed mating surfaces (Fig. 1c; 5/6). However, art such as Kot fails to disclose the pole being configured to rotate within the sleeve allowing at least one of the first pole end to rotationally align with the first keyed end or the second pole end to rotationally align with the second keyed end.
While various pole and sleeve arrangements are known in the art, none alone or in combination anticipate or make obvious all of the claimed features and limitations as set forth by the applicant in independent claim 10. No reasonable combination of prior art can be made without significant hindsight and/or reconstruction.
For at least these reasons claims 10-12 and 14-15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed September 12, 2025 regarding claim 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Nie’s inner and outer tubes are non-circular in a manner that would prevent rotational displacement of the tubes relative to each other or relative to the clamp, this argument is not persuasive because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Nie was cited for the second aperture, a clamp defining a third aperture, a lever to engage and disengage the clamp with an engagement post protruding from the lever, not the inner and outer tubes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635