DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenman (US3140540) in view of Dieterle (DE3602331).
Re claim 1, Greenman discloses a ladder (20, see Fig. 1 and below annotated Fig. 2) comprising:
a rail (22) including a first flange (30) spaced from a second flange (30) by a web (26), the web having a first side and a second side; and
at least one rung coupled to the web of the rail via a beaded joint, the beaded joint includes a first bead and a second bead, the first bead is disposed the first side of the web and the second bead is disposed on the second side of the web, the first bead including a first flange portion and a second flange portion, the first flange portion directly abutting the first side of the web. (see below)
PNG
media_image1.png
534
397
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Greenman fails to disclose the at least one rung having a central segment with a flat portion and a rounded portion, the beaded joint being flared wherein at least a portion of the second flange portion is disposed at an angle relative to the first flange portion to flare an end of the at least one rung, wherein the flared beaded joint has a first flared section aligned with the flat portion of the at least one rung and a second flared section aligned with the rounded portion of the at least one rung, the second flange portion disposed at a first angle relative to the web of the rail in the first flared section and the second flange portion disposed at a second angle relative to the web of the rail in the second flared section.
Dieterle teaches, in the context of beaded joint ladder rungs, the at least one rung having a central segment (12, Fig. 4 of Dieterle) with a flat portion (20) and a rounded portion (23), a flared beaded joint wherein at least a portion of the second flange portion is disposed at an angle relative to the first flange portion to flare an end of the at least one rung (20, see below annotated Fig. 4 of Dieterle); wherein the flared beaded joint has a first flared section aligned with the flat portion of the at least one rung and a second flared section aligned with the rounded portion of the at least one rung (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Dieterle), the second flange portion disposed at a first angle relative to the web of the rail in the first flared section and the second flange portion disposed at a second angle relative to the web of the rail in the second flared section (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Dieterle labeled D-2).
PNG
media_image2.png
634
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 a flared beaded joint wherein at least a portion of the second flange portion is disposed at an angle relative to the first flange portion of the at least one rung in the ladder disclosed by Greenman according to the teachings of Dieterle in order to “combine a wide or relatively wide central section of the rung, and thus a wide or relatively wide tread surface on the rung for the feet of persons to be placed on it, with an absolutely secure, cost-effective mounting of the rungs in the holes of the stiles and with high bending stiffness of the ladder part in question, with relatively small cross-sectional dimensions of the stiles, in a structurally simple, cost-effective manner”, see para. [0023] of the MT of Dieterle.
Greenman in view of Dieterle appear to show the first angle being different than the second angle. However, Green in view of Dieterle fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first angle is smaller than the second angle. Nonetheless, per MPEP 2144.05.I, even where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap, i.e., the first angle being smaller than the second angle or vice versa, with the prior art but are merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, 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 first angle is smaller than the second angle as a routine expedient in the construction of the ladder.
Re claim 2, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the flared beaded joint has a flare that extends 360 degrees around a perimeter of the at least one rung (see Figs. 3-5 of Dieterle).
Re claim 3, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 1, wherein the first flange portion is disposed approximately parallel to the web (see annotated Fig. 4 of Dieterle above).
Re claim 4, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 1, wherein the second flange is disposed at an angle of between about 15 degrees and about 75 degrees relative to the web (see annotated Fig. 4 of Dieterle above, also note that the claimed range is sufficiently large such that the drawing, even though not to scale nonetheless meets the limitation ).
Re claim 5, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 1, wherein the first flange portion is an annular ring having an inner diameter that is approximately the same as an inner diameter of the at least one rung (see Fig. 2 of Greenman).
Re claim 6, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 1, wherein the first flange portion is an annular ring having an inner diameter that is greater than an inner diameter of the at least one rung (see “h” dimension in Fig. 3 of Dieterle and note that “instead of elongated holes, other holes can be provided for the retaining pins in the stiles, preferably circular or square or other suitable shaped holes”, para. [0028] of the MT of Dieterle. Thus, the annular ring of the first flange portion may be provided with a circular first flange portion having a diameter h in order to provide the rung with high bending stiffness).
Re claim 7, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 1, wherein the second flange portion is an annular ring (see Fig. 2 of Greenman).
Re claim 8, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 1, wherein the first side of the web is on an inner side of the rail, and wherein the second side of the web is on an outer side of the rail (see Fig. 2 of Greenman).
Re claim 9, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 1, wherein the at least one rung has a cross- sectional shape that is circular, oval, D-shaped, or triangular (see Fig. 3 of Dieterle).
Re claim 10, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 1, wherein the second bead includes a first flange portion and a second flange portion, the first flange portion directly abutting the second side of the web and the second flange portion directly abutting the first flange portion (see above annotated Fig. 2 of Greenman).
Re claim 11, Greenman discloses a ladder (20, see Fig. 1 and above annotated Fig. 2 of Greenman) comprising:
a rail (22) including a web (26), the web having a first side and a second side; and at least one rung coupled to the web of the rail via a beaded joint, the beaded join including a first bead on the first side of the web and a second bead on the second side of the web, the first bead including a first annular flange portion (see first annular flange portion in above annotated Fig. 2 of Greenman) that directly abuts the first side of the web and a second annular flange portion.
Greenman fails to disclose the at least one rung having a central segment with a flat portion and a rounded portion and the second annular flange portion including a first section and a second section, wherein the first section is aligned with the flat portion of the at least one run and disposed at a first angle relative to the first annular flange portion wherein the second section is aligned with the rounded portion of the at least one rung and is disposed at a second angle relative to the first annular portion. Dieterle teaches, in the context of beaded joint ladder rungs, the at least one rung having a central segment with a flat portion and a rounded portion (see Fig. 3 of Dieterle) and the second annular flange portion including a first section and a second section, wherein the first section is aligned with the flat portion of the at least one run and disposed at a first angle relative to the first annular flange portion wherein the second section is aligned with the rounded portion of the at least one rung and is disposed at a second angle relative to the first annular portion (see Fig. 3 of Dieterle and above annotated Fig. 4 of Dieterle labeled D-2). 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 at least one rung having a central segment with a flat portion and a rounded portion and the second annular flange portion including a first section and a second section, wherein the first section is aligned with the flat portion of the at least one run and disposed at a first angle relative to the first annular flange portion wherein the second section is aligned with the rounded portion of the at least one rung and is disposed at a second angle relative to the first annular portion in the ladder disclosed by Greenman according to the teachings of Dieterle in order to “achieve high bending stiffness of the ladder section with relatively wide central sections of the rung”, see para. [0013] of the MT of Dieterle.
Greenman in view of Dieterle appear to show the first angle being different than the second angle. However, Green in view of Dieterle fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first angle is smaller than the second angle. Nonetheless, per MPEP 2144.05.I, even where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap, i.e., the first angle being smaller than the second angle or vice versa, with the prior art but are merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, 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 first angle is smaller than the second angle as a routine expedient in the construction of the ladder.
Re claim 12, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 11, wherein the second section is disposed opposite the first section (note in the cross sectional view of the above annotated Fig. 4 of Dieterle that the second angle is located at a second section of the second flange section opposite the first section, i.e. top and bottom of the rung).
Re claim 13, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 12, wherein the first angle is different than the second angle and the at least one rung has a first cross section disposed adjacent the web of the rail and a second cross section disposed a distance from the web, wherein the first and second cross sections are different from one another (see above annotated Figure 4 of Dieterle, also see Fig. 2, flared section 20’ versus rung section 20).
Re claim 14, Greenman in view of Dieterle and further in view of Lieblein disclose the ladder of claim 12, wherein the first angle is between about 30 degrees and about 60 degrees, and wherein the second angle is between about 5 degrees and about 35 degrees (see above annotated Figure 4 of DieterleExaminer notes MPEP 2125.II: “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value”).
Re claim 15, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 12, wherein the first section is disposed on a top side of the at least one rung, and wherein the second section is disposed on a bottom side of the at least one rung (see above annotated Figure 4 of Dieterle, also see Fig. 3 of Dieterle, see also para. [0038] of the MT of Dieterle: “central section 23, which extends almost over the clear distance between the two stiles from position 20' to position 2 and forms the tread surface 20 of this rung 12 on its upper side, which is to be entered by the feet of persons, has a constant, approximately triangular profile over its length, wherein the sides of the triangle are slightly convex according to Fig. 3 and are of equal width and merge into each other via rounded corners”.).
Re claim 16, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 11, wherein the first annular flange portion has an inner diameter that is greater than an inner diameter of the at least one rung (see “h” dimension in Fig. 3 of Dieterle and note that “instead of elongated holes, other holes can be provided for the retaining pins in the stiles, preferably circular or square or other suitable shaped holes”, para. [0028] of the MT of Dieterle. Thus, the annular ring of the first flange portion may be provided with a circular first flange portion having a diameter h in order to provide the rung with high bending stiffness).
Re claim 17, Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 11, wherein the first annular flange portion has an inner diameter that is approximately the same as the inner diameter of the at least one rung (see Fig. 2 of Greenman).
Re claim 18, Greenman discloses a ladder (20, see Fig. 1) comprising: a first rail (22) having a first web (26, see Fig. 2); a second rail (see Fig. 1) parallel to and spaced from the first rail, the second rail having a second web (Fig. 1); and at least one rung (24) having a first end and a second end the first end coupled to the first web via a first beaded joint (32) and the second end coupled to the second web via a second beaded joint (Fig. 1), the first beaded joint having a first outer flange portion (see first annular flange portion in above annotated Fig. 2 of Greenman labeled D-1), and the second beaded joint having a second outer flange portion (see first annular flange portion in above annotated Fig. 2 of Greenman).
Greenman fails to disclose the at least one rung having a central segment including a flat portion and a rounded portion, the first outer flange portion disposed at an angle relative to the first web, and the second outer flange portion disposed at an angle relative to the second web and wherein the first beaded joint includes a first flared section aligned with the flat portion of the at least one rung and a second flared section aligned with the rounded portion of the at least one rung, the first outer flange portion disposed at a first angle relative to the first web of the first rail in the first flared section and the first outer flange portion disposed at a second angle relative to the first web of the first rail in the second flared section.
Dieterle teaches, in the context of beaded joint ladder rungs, the at least one rung having a central segment with a flat portion and a rounded portion (see Fig. 3 of Dieterle), the first outer flange portion disposed at an angle relative to the first web, and the second outer flange portion disposed at an angle relative to the second web and wherein the first beaded joint includes a first flared section aligned with the flat portion of the at least one rung and a second flared section aligned with the rounded portion of the at least one rung, the first outer flange portion disposed at a first angle relative to the first web of the first rail in the first flared section and the first outer flange portion disposed at a second angle relative to the first web of the first rail in the second flared section (see Fig. 3 of Dieterle and above annotated Fig. 4 of Dieterle labeled D-2). 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 at least one rung having a central segment including a flat portion and a rounded portion, the first outer flange portion disposed at an angle relative to the first web, and the second outer flange portion disposed at an angle relative to the second web and wherein the first beaded joint includes a first flared section aligned with the flat portion of the at least one rung and a second flared section aligned with the rounded portion of the at least one rung, the first outer flange portion disposed at a first angle relative to the first web of the first rail in the first flared section and the first outer flange portion disposed at a second angle relative to the first web of the first rail in the second flared section in the ladder disclosed by Greenman according to the teachings of Dieterle in order to “achieve high bending stiffness of the ladder section with relatively wide central sections of the rung”, see para. [0013] of the MT of Dieterle.
Greenman in view of Dieterle appear to show the first angle being different than the second angle. However, Green in view of Dieterle fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first angle is smaller than the second angle. Nonetheless, per MPEP 2144.05.I, even where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap, i.e., the first angle being smaller than the second angle or vice versa, with the prior art but are merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, 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 first angle is smaller than the second angle as a routine expedient in the construction of the ladder.
19. Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 18, wherein the first beaded joint further includes a first inner flange portion that directly abuts the first web, and wherein the second beaded joint further includes a second inner flange portion that directly abuts the second web (see Fig. 2 of Greenman).
20. Greenman in view of Dieterle disclose the ladder of claim 19, wherein the first beaded joint further includes a first U-shaped bend that couples the first inner flange portion to the first outer flange portion, and wherein the second beaded joint further includes a second U-shaped bend that couples the second inner flange portion to the second outer flange portion (see annoted Fig. 2 of Greenman below).
PNG
media_image3.png
1020
759
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 April 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Greenman alone and Greenman in view of Matthews 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.
With regard to Greenman in view of Dieterle, Applicant argues that “Dieterle shows that the alleged second flange portion is disposed at a larger angle relative to the web in the section of the alleged flared beaded joint that is aligned with the flat portion at the top of the rung 12 and the alleged second flange portion is disposed at a smaller angle relative to the web in the section that is aligned with the rouned portion positioned at the bottom of the rung 12”. However, Applicant’s assertion is unclear from the drawings of Dieterle. For example, and as shown in Fig. 2 of Dieterle, the distance between the web and the origin of the flare on the rung on the flat portion and the distance between the web and the origin of the flare on the rung on the rounded portion may vary. Variation in this distance would necessarily affect the angle relative to the web of the first flange portion and the second flange portion. To the extent that these angles are close to the ranges of amended independent claims 1, 11, and 18, specifically, the first angle being smaller than the second angle, such difference would be obvious, as set forth in the rejection above, per MPEP 2144.05.I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lieblein (US3349870) discloses a flatstep ladder.
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 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights