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 .
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, 3-4, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stegath (US 5,099,953).
In re. claim 1, Stegath teaches a folding scaffold movable between an unfolded configuration and a folded configuration (figs. 1-2), the folding scaffold comprising: first and second ladder frames (12, 14) including an upper end and a lower end (fig. 1); a hinge assembly (16) interconnecting the first and second ladder frames (fig. 1), the hinge assembly comprising a hinge enabling movement of the scaffold between an unfolded configuration in which the ladder frames are spaced apart (fig. 1) and a folded configuration in which the ladder frames are disposed side by side (pivotal connection permits the frame to be collapsed) (col. 3, ln. 37-38); first and second removable walkboards (82) (col. 4, ln. 66 - col. 5, ln. 2) configured to extend between respective ladder rungs on the first and second ladder frames to form a platform (fig. 3); and first and second base assemblies (96) (fig. 9) removably connected to the lower end of the first and second ladder frames respectively (via u-shaped channel (102)) (fig. 9), each base assembly comprising: a support post (98); a receiver (102) configured to connect the base assembly with a respective ladder frame (col. 5, ln. 26-30); and a strut (100) extending between the support post and the receiver (fig. 9); and a step (82) configured to extend between the struts of the base assemblies outside the envelope of the ladder frame (fig. 9).
In re. claim 3, Stegath teaches the scaffold of claim 1, wherein each ladder frame comprises two vertical supports (24) and a plurality of ladder rungs (26) extending between the vertical supports (fig. 1).
In re. claim 4, Stegath teaches the scaffold of claim 1, wherein the hinge crosses one or more of the ladder rungs on the first and second ladder frames in the folded configuration (as hinge connects above an upper ladder rung and below a middle ladder rung in fig. 1).
In re. claim 13, Stegath teaches the scaffold of claim 1, wherein the support post is configured to receive a stem of a caster wheel (80) (fig. 9).
In re. claim 16, Stegath teaches the scaffold of claim 1, wherein the first ladder frame comprises a first rung (26) and the second ladder frame comprises a second rung (26) (fig. 1); wherein the first removable walkboard comprises first and second notches (88) (fig. 7) configured to receive the first and second rungs, respectively (suitably sized for the ladder rung) (col. 4, ln. 62-64); wherein the first removable walkboard releasably rests on the first and second rungs at the first and second notches respectively (fig. 3); wherein the second removable walkboard comprises first and second notches configured to receive the first and second rungs, respectively; wherein the second removable walkboard releasably rests on the first and second rungs at its first and second notches respectively (col. 4, ln. 66 - col. 5, ln. 2).
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, 3-4, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyse (US 5,152,371) in view of Tetreault, Jr. (US 8,210,312), hereinafter Tetreault, and Stegath.
In re. claim 1, Wyse teaches a scaffold, the scaffold comprising: first and second ladder frames (12, 14) including an upper end and a lower end (fig. 1); an assembly (bracing 16, 18) interconnecting the first and second ladder frames (fig. 1); first and second removable walkboards (20) (col. 2, ln. 48-52) configured to extend between respective ladder rungs on the first and second ladder frames to form a platform (fig. 1); and first and second base assemblies (22) (fig. 1) removably connected to the lower end of the first and second ladder frames respectively (via carriage bolts (110)) (col. 4, ln. 66 – col. 5, ln. 3), each base assembly comprising: a support post (post of caster (100)) (fig. 1); a receiver (108) configured to connect the base assembly with a respective ladder frame (figs. 1 and 7); and a strut (98) extending between the support post and the receiver (fig. 1).
Wyse fails to disclose the scaffold is a folding scaffold with a hinge assembly comprising a hinge enabling movement of the scaffold between an unfolded configuration in which the ladder frames are spaced apart and a folded configuration in which the ladder frames are disposed side by side; and a step configured to extend between the struts of the base assemblies outside the envelope of the ladder frame.
Tetreault teaches the scaffold is a folding scaffold with a hinge assembly comprising a hinge (28) enabling movement of the scaffold between an unfolded configuration in which the ladder frames are spaced apart and a folded configuration in which the ladder frames are disposed side by side (figs. 1 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Wyse to incorporate the teachings of Tetreault to have the recited hinge assembly, since Wyse states that the user may use folding braces based on the user’s preference (col. 1, ln. 67 – col. 2, ln. 1), and doing so would enable a scaffold assembly that simply folds flat when not in use.
Stegath teaches a step (82) configured to extend between the struts (100) of the base assemblies outside the envelope of the ladder frame (fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Wyse as modified by Tetreault to incorporate the teachings of Stegath to have the recited step, for the predictable result of providing a ground level scaffold.
In re. claim 3, Wyse as modified by Tetreault and Stegath (see Wyse) teach the scaffold of claim 1, wherein each ladder frame comprises two vertical supports and a plurality of ladder rungs extending between the vertical supports (fig. 1).
In re. claim 4, Wyse as modified by Tetreault and Stegath (see Tetreault) teach the scaffold of claim 1, wherein the hinge crosses one or more of the ladder rungs on the first and second ladder frames in the folded configuration (fig. 5).
In re. claim 13, Wyse as modified by Tetreault and Stegath (see Wyse) teach the scaffold of claim 1, wherein the support post is configured to receive a stem of a caster wheel (100) (fig. 1).
In re. claim 16, Wyse as modified by Tetreault and Stegath (see Wyse) teach the scaffold of claim 1, wherein the first ladder frame comprises a first rung and the second ladder frame comprises a second rung (fig. 1); wherein the first removable walkboard comprises first and second notches configured to receive the first and second rungs, respectively (hooks shown in figure 1); wherein the first removable walkboard releasably rests on the first and second rungs at the first and second notches respectively (as discussed in US 4,825,976, incorporated by reference (col. 2, ln. 48-52)) ; wherein the second removable walkboard comprises first and second notches configured to receive the first and second rungs, respectively (fig. 1); wherein the second removable walkboard releasably rests on the first and second rungs at its first and second notches respectively (fig. 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyse as modified by Tetreault and Stegath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 20100007097, hereinafter the ‘097 document.
In re. claim 2, Wyse as modified by Tetreault and Stegath fail to disclose the base assemblies are configured to fit inside the first and second walkboards when the scaffold is disassembled.
The ‘097 document teaches the structural components of the scaffolding are configured to fit inside the first and second walkboards when the scaffold is disassembled (figs. 1 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Wyse as modified by Tetreault and Stegath to incorporate the teachings of the ‘097 document to have the base assemblies fit inside the first and second walkboards when the scaffold is disassembled, for the purpose of improving ease of transport and reducing the risk of losing components.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyse as modified by Tetreault and Stegath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winslow et al. (US 2008/0000722), hereinafter Winslow.
In re. claim 10, Wyse as modified by Tetreault and Stegath (see Wyse) teach the scaffold of claim 1, further comprising first and second ladder extensions (portions above platforms (20)) connected to the first and second ladder frames respectively (fig. 1).
Wyse as modified by Tetreault and Stegath fail to disclose the extensions are configured to be movable between retracted and extended positions.
Winslow teaches an extension (20) configured to be movable between retracted and extended positions (figs. 5-7).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Wyse as modified by Tetreault and Stegath to incorporate the teachings of Winslow to have the extensions movable between retracted and extended positions, for the purpose of providing adjustability to the height of the accessory locations.
In re. claim 11, Wyse as modified by Tetreault, Stegath, and Winslow (see Wyse) teach the scaffold of claim 10, wherein each ladder extension comprises two vertical supports and at least one ladder rung connected between the vertical supports (fig. 1).
In re. claim 12, Wyse as modified by Tetreault, Stegath, and Winslow (see Wyse) teach the scaffold of claim 11, further comprising a spreader bar (18) configured to be connected between vertical supports of the first and second ladder extensions (fig. 1).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyse, Tetreault ,the ‘097 document, and Stegath.
In re. claim 17, Wyse teaches a scaffold, the scaffold comprising: first and second ladder frames (12, 14) including an upper end and a lower end (fig. 1); an assembly (bracing 16, 18) interconnecting the first and second ladder frames (fig. 1); first and second removable walkboards (20) (col. 2, ln. 48-52) configured to extend between respective ladder rungs on the first and second ladder frames to form a platform (fig. 1); and first and second base assemblies (22) (fig. 1) removably connected to the lower end of the first and second ladder frames respectively (via carriage bolts (110)) (col. 4, ln. 66 – col. 5, ln. 3), wherein: a length of the first and second base assemblies is greater than a width of the first and second ladder frames (fig. 1).
Wyse fails to disclose the scaffold is a folding scaffold with a hinge assembly comprising a hinge enabling movement of the scaffold between an unfolded configuration in which the ladder frames are spaced apart and a folded configuration in which the ladder frames are disposed side by side; a height of the first and second base assemblies is less than a width of the first and second walkboards so that the base assemblies fit inside the walkboards when the scaffold is disassembled; and a step configured to extend between the struts of the base assemblies outside the envelope of the ladder frame.
Tetreault teaches the scaffold is a folding scaffold with a hinge assembly comprising a hinge (28) enabling movement of the scaffold between an unfolded configuration in which the ladder frames are spaced apart and a folded configuration in which the ladder frames are disposed side by side (figs. 1 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Wyse to incorporate the teachings of Tetreault to have the recited hinge assembly, since Wyse states that the user may use folding braces based on the user’s preference (col. 1, ln. 67 – col. 2, ln. 1), and doing so would enable a scaffold assembly that simply folds flat when not in use.
The ‘097 document teaches the structural components of the scaffolding are configured to fit inside the first and second walkboards when the scaffold is disassembled (figs. 1 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Wyse as modified by Tetreault to incorporate the teachings of the ‘097 document to have a height of the first and second base assemblies as less than a width of the first and second walkboards so that the base assemblies fit inside the first and second walkboards when the scaffold is disassembled, for the purpose of improving ease of transport and reducing the risk of losing components.
Stegath teaches a step (82) configured to extend between the struts (100) of the base assemblies outside the envelope of the ladder frame (fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Wyse as modified by Tetreault and the ‘097 document to incorporate the teachings of Stegath to have the recited step, for the predictable result of providing a ground level scaffold.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims above 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 are allowed.
Claims 14-15 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights