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 Objections
Claims 2-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 of claims 2-11 reads “a foldable ladder”. However, the foldable ladder was introduced in claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-11 should read “the foldable ladder”. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 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 regard to claim 1, lines 7-8, the invention is described with respect to elements that have not been positively claimed. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. The connecting line should be described with respect to the plate body. The plate body could be described as having a front edge, back edge, right edge, and left edge, wherein the front and back edges are longer than the left and right edges. Then, the connecting line could be said to extend from the left to right edge or be parallel to the front and back edge. The claim will be examined as best understood until further correction is provided.
In regard to claim 1, lines 9-10, the invention is described with respect to the face of a user. This is improper and makes the scope of the claim unclear because it is not proper to claim a direction with respect to a user since a person cannot be claimed. The claim can merely claim a front edge, back edge, right edge, and left edge as mentioned above. Then, the front-to-rear direction could be the direction from the front edge to the back edge. This is how the claim limitation will be examined until further correction is provided.
In regard to claim 1, line 15, the scope of the claim is unclear because the claim recites “the plurality of protruding strips are a hollow structure”. How can a plurality of protruding strips be one hollow structure? It is believed that the claim should read “the plurality of protruding strips are each a hollow structure”. This is so because the specification describes elements 221 as the protruding strips and each of members 221 is hollow, i.e. multiple hollow structures and not “a” or one hollow structure. The claim will be examined as such until further clarification is provided.
In regard to claim 2, the same problem exists with respect to “a blocking wall” in line 3 of the claim. The claim recites “a left side and a right side of the plate body symmetrically and respectively comprise a blocking wall”. Again, how can two opposite sides define one wall. The claim should read “a left side and a right side of the plate body each symmetrically and respectively comprise a blocking wall”. The claim will be examined as such until further clarification is provided.
Further, if that change is made, line 4 would also have to read “the blocking walls [is] are hollow structures”.
Also, lines 5-6 and 7-8 have issues with the third and fourth inserting pins. One pin cannot be located at the left AND right ends. This is not clear. Therefore, it is believed that the claim should read “…comprise [a] third inserting pins configured to…” and “comprise [a] fourth inserting pins configured to…”.
If that change is made, then line 9 should be amended to change “pin” (both occurrences) to “pins”.
If the changes above are made, claim 3, lines 2 and 4 should be changed to “…half part of each of the blocking walls…”
Also, claim 3, lines 6, 8, and 9 should be changed to “..hanging grooves [is] are…”
Likewise in claim 4, line 2 should read “…a distal end of each of the third inserting pins of the front end cap…” and line 4 should read “…the first C-shaped buckle holes [is] are buckled…”
Finally, in claim 5, line 2, the claim should read “…a distal end of each of the fourth inserting pins…” and lines 4-5 should read “…the second C-shaped buckle holes [is] are buckled to the linkage rod when the fourth inserting pins [is] are inserted into the blocking wall.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the prior art references of record show similar features of the claimed invention, they fail to show or teach the combination of elements as set forth in independent claim 1. Specifically, the prior art references of record do not show the use of a plurality of protruding strips projecting from the bottom of the plate body and extending in the front-and-rear direction, wherein the front and rear end caps comprise a plurality of connecting pins that are inserted into the protruding strips. References 7090053; 4716988; 4496988 are considered the closest teaching to this feature, but while they teach pins protruding into hollow members, the hollow members are not protruding from the bottom of the plate. The hollow members are inside the center of the plates. Also, these are all caps being attached to the ends of a plate member and not the front or rear. Therefore, the examiner contends that these limitations, in combination with the other limitations specifically set forth in claim 1, would not be obvious without relying on hindsight reconstruction to produce applicant’s claimed device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633