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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “16” for the top cap in para. [0019] of the specification.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “70” in Figs. 6 and 8 has been used to designate both lugs and retention devices, respectively, see e.g., paras. [0024] and [0025] of the specification.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second segmented portion includes tapered side edges” of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It appears that Applicant intended in claim 12 for “second” to be “first”, see para. [0021] of the specification, “The first segmented portion 28 has a planer configuration and has width W that tapers inwardly at it extends from the platform 24”.
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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Specifically, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the “The present disclosure provides” is an implied phrase.
Also, in the last full line, “defining” should be replaced with “defines”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure further is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the last line of para. [0020], “or” should be inserted between “tape,” and “other”.
In line 3 of para. [0021], “at” should be replaced with “as”.
In the last line of para. [0023], the second incidence of “in” should be removed.
In line 8 of para. [0030], “have” should be inserted between “wall” and “a”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are replete with objectionable matters, the following are non-limiting examples:
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “ladder step having a step” should be replaced with “ladder having a step”.
Claims 1, 14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the second incidence of “second segmented portion” should be replaced with “first segmented portion”.
Claims 1 and 14 are further objected to because of the following informalities: “a” should be inserted between “which” and “step”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “on” should be replaced with “in”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “travers” should be replaced with “traverse”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is formed” should be replaced with “forms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: a period should be added at the end of the sentence.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “are” should be inserted between “and” and “adapted”.
Claims 9 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “position” should be inserted between “storage” and “is”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “member” should be replaced with “members”.
Claim 17, line 6, “first hinge, the first hinge” seems that it should be –second hinge, the second hinge--.
Claim 17 is further objected to because of the following informalities: “first and segmented” should be replaced with “first and second segmented”.
Claim 17 is further objected to because of the following informalities: “first and segmented portion” should be replaced with “first and second segmented portions”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a first and second extension members” should be replaced with “first and second extension members”.
Claim 18 is further objected to because of the following informalities: “first and extension member” should be replaced with “first and second extension members”.
Above are merely non-limiting examples, the applicant is required to find and address the issues above as well as any other similar issues not specifically pointed out.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 6, and 9 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 4 recites the limitation “the first and second extensions” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 4 should depend from claim 3.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the wall surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 6 should depend from claim 4.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the extension member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 9 should depend from claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peach (GB2362181).
Re claim 1, Peach discloses a step extension platform (Fig. 2) for attachment to a ladder step having a step (1) comprising: a main body (4) having a platform (3) for supporting a user thereon; a first segmented portion (11) secured to the platform (3) by a first hinge (7), the first hinge having an axis of rotation (9) extending along a width of the platform; a second segmented portion (19) secured to the second [first, see claim objection above] segmented portion (11) by a second hinge (21), the second hinge having an axis of rotation extending along a width of the platform (see e.g., pg. 1, line 27: “a pair of spaced-apart bolts 19); the platform (3), the first and second segmented portions being pivotal between an open storage position and a closed working position in which step channel, adapted to surround and accommodate the ladder step, is formed (surrounding step R in Fig. 2) ; and a bracket (17) secured to the second segmented portion and defining a space adapted to contain at least a portion of the ladder step (note rung R is contained within the space defined by bracket 17; note as claimed there are multiple ways to interpret the ‘bracket’ such that this limitation is met as so broadly claimed - note too that a first element can be ‘secured’ to a second element by elements in between; further note that “and defining a space” as claimed could be referring back to “A step extension platform” of line 1, etc.).
Re claim 4, the step extension platform as defined in claim 1, wherein the main body has a wall surface (15) for frictionally engaging the bracket (17) to secure the first (11) and second extensions (19) in the closed position.
Re claim 7, the step extension platform as defined in claim 1, wherein the bracket (17) includes at least two spaced elements each defining the space for containing the at least a portion of the step (see pg. 1, line 27 of Peach: “a pair of spaced-apart bolts 19 (only one of which is visible).
Re claim 8, the step extension platform as defined in claim 1, wherein the platform in the working position is generally parallel with the step surface (see Fig. 2, note that the adjustable platform of Peach may be even further aligned into parallel with the step surface) and the first and second segmented portions form an enclosed step channel having open ends and adapted to enclose a step therein (see Fig. 2, the end view shows that the step extension platform is open at both ends).
Re claim 12, the step extension platform as defined in claim 1, wherein the brackets (17) are adapted to engage the step when the platform is in the storage position (Note that even when the platform is rotated into the storage position, the brackets of Peach may be maintained in engagement (i.e. in operation) with the step).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peach (GB2362181) in view of Tokic (EP2218868).
Re claim 2, Peach fails to disclose the step extension platform as defined in claim 1, including a first extension member translatably secured to the main body and translatable between a retracted and an extended position, wherein the first extension member projects beyond a width of the platform.
Tokic teaches, in the context of step extension platforms for ladders, a first extension member (B, see Figs. B1.17, B1.18, and B1.19) translatably secured to the main body and translatable between a retracted and an extended position, wherein the first extension member projects beyond a width of the platform (A). It 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 to have included with the step extension of Peach a first extension member translatably secured to the main body and translatable between a retracted and an extended position, wherein the first extension member projects beyond a width of the platform according to the teachings of Tokic in order to “increase the surface area of the rungs . . so that the foot can stand securely and on a larger surface” (see para. [0004] of Tokic).
Re claim 3, Peach fails to disclose the step extension platform as defined in claim 1, including a second extension member translatably secured to the main body and translatable between a retracted and an extended position, the first and second extensions extendable on opposed directions along a common longitudinal transverse axis.
Tokic teaches, in the context of step extension platforms for ladders, a second extension member (B, see Figs. B1.17, B1.18, and B1.19) translatably secured to the main body and translatable between a retracted and an extended position, the first and second extensions extendable on opposed directions along a common longitudinal transverse axis (the axis defined by 4-4 in Fig. B1.18). It 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 to have included with the step extension of Peach a second extension member translatably secured to the main body and translatable between a retracted and an extended position, the first and second extensions extendable on opposed directions along a common longitudinal transverse axis according to the teachings of Tokic in order to “increase the surface area of the rungs . . so that the foot can stand securely and on a larger surface”. (see para. [0004] of Tokic).
Re claim 5, Peach in view of Tokic disclose the step extension platform as defined in claim 3, wherein the first and second extension members (see Fig. B1.17, each extension member is shown slightly extended from the main body) terminate in an end member (6), each end member having a lug (see below annotated Figs. B1.17 and B1.19 of Tokic) projecting therefrom, the lug adapted to engage at least an upper edge portion of the step.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
720
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 6, Peach in view of Tokic disclose the step extension platform as defined in claim 3, wherein the wall surface (15) is formed an acute angle with the platform (see Fig. 2 of Peach, note that the recess forms a range of angles with the platform, including an acute angle).
Re claim 9, Peach in view of Tokic disclose the step extension platform as defined in claim 8, wherein the platform in the storage is generally perpendicular to the step surface, and the extension member are extended to engage the ladder side rails. (Note that this feature is inherent to the disclosure of Peach in view of Tokic. Specifically, it necessarily follows from Peach in view of Tokic that if the platform is placed in the storage position, i.e., if the platform 3 of Peach in view of Tokic is rotated relative to the step R, then the extension members of Peach in view of Tokic may be extended into engagement with the side rails of the ladder).
Re claim 14, Peach discloses a step extension platform (Fig. 2) for attachment to a ladder step having a step comprising: a main body (4) having a platform (3) for supporting a user thereon; a first segmented portion (11) secured to the platform (3) by a first hinge (7), the first hinge having an axis of rotation (9) extending along a width of the platform; a second segmented portion (19) secured to the second (first, see claim objection above) segmented portion (11) by a second hinge (21), the second hinge having an axis of rotation (17) extending along a width of the platform (see e.g., pg. 1, line 27: “a pair of spaced-apart bolts 19”); a bracket (17) secured to the second segmented portion and defining a space adapted to contain at least a portion of the ladder step (note rung R is contained within the space defined by bracket 17); and the first and second segmented portions being pivotal between an open storage position and a closed working position in which step channel, adapted to surround and accommodate the ladder step, is formed (see rung R in Fig. 2), wherein the platform in the working position is generally parallel with the step surface (see Fig. 2, note that the adjustable platform of Peach may be even further aligned into parallel with the step surface), and the platform in the storage is generally perpendicular to the step surface (note that this feature is inherent to the disclosure of Peach, specifically, it necessarily follows from Peach that if the platform is placed in the storage position, i.e., if the platform 3 of Peach is rotated relative to the step R, then the platform will be generally perpendicular to the step surface).
Peach fails to disclose an extension member translatably secured to the main body and translatable between a retracted and an extended position, wherein the first extension member projects beyond a width of the platform.
Tokic teaches, in the context of step extension platforms for ladders, a first extension member (B, see Figs. B1.17, B1.18, and B1.19) translatably secured to the main body and translatable between a retracted and an extended position, wherein the first extension member projects beyond a width of the platform (A). It 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 to have included with the step extension of Peach a first extension member translatably secured to the main body and translatable between a retracted and an extended position, wherein the first extension member projects beyond a width of the platform (A) according to the teachings of Tokic in order to “increase the surface area of the rungs . . so that the foot can stand securely and on a larger surface” (see para. [0004] of Tokic).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peach (GB2362181) in view of Tokic (EP2218868) and further in view of Knuth (US1714028).
Re claim 10, Peach in view of Tokic fail to disclose the step extension platform as defined in claim 8, wherein the extension members (B) each include an end plate secured to a distal end thereof, a latching member is pivotally secured to each endplate, the latching members include a portion extending outwardly beyond the end plate.
Knuth teaches, in the context of step extension platforms, wherein the extension members (22) each include an end plate (11) secured to a distal end thereof, a latching member (12) is pivotally secured to each endplate (11), the latching members (12) include a portion (21) extending outwardly beyond the end plate (11). It 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 to have included the extension members each included an end plate secured to a distal end thereof, a latching member is pivotally secured to each endplate, the latching members include a portion extending outwardly beyond the end plate in a step extension platform according to Peach in view of Tokic in order to provide a “clamp or clip which while easily applied and removed, nevertheless forms a rigid and safe support for a step member” (lines 26-29 of Knuth).
Re claim 15, Peach in view of Tokic fail to disclose the step extension platform as defined in claim 14, wherein the extension member (B) includes a distal end and a latching member is pivotally secured to the distal end, the latching member includes a portion projecting outwardly beyond the end plate that is adapted to engage a ladder side rail.
Knuth teaches, in the context of step extension platforms, wherein an extension member (22) includes a distal end (11) and a latching member (12) is pivotally secured to the distal end (11), the latching member (12) including a portion (21) projecting outwardly beyond the end plate (11) that is adapted to engage a ladder side rail. It 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 to have included wherein the extension member (B) includes a distal end and a latching member is pivotally secured to the distal end, the latching member includes a portion projecting outwardly beyond the end plate that is adapted to engage a ladder side rail according to Peach in view of Tokic in order to provide a “clamp or clip which while easily applied and removed, nevertheless forms a rigid and safe support for a step member” (lines 26-29 of Knuth).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peach (GB2362181) in view of Prest (US20170226759).
Re claim 11, Peach fails to disclose the step extension platform as defined in claim 1, further including a spacer disposed between the platform and the second segmented portion, the spacer being adapted to be inserted below the ladder step.
Prest discloses a spacer (24) disposed between the platform and the second segmented portion, the spacer being adapted to be inserted below the ladder step. It 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 to have included the spacer taught by Prest in the step extension platform disclosed by Peach in order to provide a cover for a step (see e.g., para. [0008] of Prest).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peach (GB2362181) in view of Harden (US5931257).
Peach fails to disclose the step extension platform as defined in claim 1, wherein the second segmented portion includes tapered side edges. Harden teaches, in the context of step extension platforms, wherein the second segmented portion (54) includes tapered side edges (60). It 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 to have included the tapered side edges of Harden in the step extension platform of Peach in order to provide a “stable supporting surface that can be quickly clamped on a horizontal tubular member of a scaffold” (see col. 1, lines 29-30 of Harden).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peach (GB2362181) in view of Tokic (EP2218868) and further in view of Prest (US2017226759).
Re claim 16, Peach in view of Tokic fails to disclose the step extension platform as defined in claim 14, further including a spacer disposed between the platform and the second segmented portion, the spacer being adapted to be inserted below the ladder step.
Prest discloses a spacer (24) disposed between the platform and the second segmented portion, the spacer being adapted to be inserted below the ladder step. It 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 to have included the spacer taught by Prest in the step extension platform disclosed by Peach in order to provide a cover for a step (see e.g., para. [0008] of Prest).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ben Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571) 272-9656. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 7 to 5.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571) 272-9617. 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.
BAP Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634