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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 08/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 2-5, 10-20, 22-24, 26 and 34-35 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Applicant added new claims 38-39. Therefore, claims 1, 6-9, 21, 25, 27-33 and 36-39 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the web comprises a first portion and a second portion” claim 37 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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.
Claim 37 is 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 37 recites “the web comprises a first portion and a second portion”; indefiniteness arises due to the lack of understanding of the structure claimed as it pertains to the elected embodiment of figures 2, 3, 6A, 6B, elected by previous presentation, where it is not understood how a web such as (610) shown in fig. 6 can be made of two separate portion which would introduce a weakness in the structure. Such design/structure cannot be merely appreciated or predicated as to how it would look or function, such structure is not a known structure in the art. Currently, claim 37 is only rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, pending applicant’s clarification.
NOTE: that it appears that claim 37 was unintentionally left behind by the applicant per the interview summary, as it was discussed that previous set of claims were directed to non-elected species, hence deleting said language from the independent claim, but leaving behind claim 37.
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, 6-9, 21, 25, 27-28, 36 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redman, US (3343630) in view of Hutchinson, US (2552630) in further view of Delaney, US (2019/0233266).
In regards to claim 1 Redman discloses:
A track assembly (L; figs. 1-6) comprising:
a first track member (20);
a second track member (40) coupled to the first track member (as shown in figs. 4-6), and the second track member,
comprising:
a first rail (respective right-hand side 21 and 41 of the first and second track members 20 & 40 respectively as shown in figs. 2 & 3); and
a second rail (respective left-hand side 21 and 41 of the first and second track members 20 & 40 respectively as shown in figs. 2 & 3), each of the first rail and the second rail defining a first end (respective top ends) and a second end (respective bottom ends) distal from the first end (figs. 1-6);
wherein:
a first flange (24; fig. 11, 12) of the first rail of the first track member is in facing contact with a first flange (44; as shown in figs. 11, 12) of the first rail of the second track member (40);
a first flange of the second rail of the first track member is in facing contact with a first flange of the second rail of the second track member (for the other rail of each track member facing each other per figs. 4-6; and in the same manner as for the flanges shown in figs. 11, 12);
an overall length of the track assembly is adjustable (for instance between length shown in fig. 5 versus the length shown in fig. 6), the second track member configured to move with respect to the first track member (as described in Col 2; LL 14-22; excerpt highlighted below) to adjust the overall length (between length shown in fig. 5 versus the length shown in fig. 6; and as described in Col 2; LL 14-22; excerpt highlighted below);
the track assembly is configured to slideably receive a carriage assembly configured to support a load (where the design/structure of rails 21s and 41s of the first and second track members configures them to slideably receive a carriage assembly configured to support a load; note that a carriage assembly is not positively recited/required by the claim);
the first flange of each first rail defines a first T- shaped cross-section together with a first web of the first rail (as shown in annotated drawings below); and
the first flange of each second rail defines a second T-shaped cross-section together with a second web of the second rail (as shown in annotated drawings below),
wherein each of the first flanges comprises an enlarged portion (bulb portion pointed to with reference line 25 as shown in fig. 11), each of the enlarged portions defining a radius (radius of 25).
PNG
media_image1.png
761
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
261
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
508
457
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
762
209
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
448
592
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1 Redman does not disclose the T-shaped cross-section being symmetrical about a vertical centerline of the first rail, and the T-shaped cross-section being symmetrical about a vertical centerline of the second rail.
Hutchinson teaches T-shaped cross-section (formed by a flange and web) being symmetrical about a vertical centerline (as shown in annotated drawings of fig. 11 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
584
402
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the symmetrical T-shaped design of the flange/web of the rail as taught by Hutchinson onto the flanges of the first and second rails of Redman for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for larger overall surface area of contact between the first flanges of the first and second rails and hence larger surface area contact between the track members which would result in an enhanced stability of the overall ladder system when leaning against a building e.g., as shown in fig. 6; Redman.
In regards to claim 1 Redman and Hutchinson do not teach a guide assembly configured to guide passage of a flexible connecting element and the carriage assembly comprising a plurality of moving elements.
Delaney teaches a guide assembly (300; fig. 3A) configured to guide passage of a flexible connecting element therethrough (“through or over which a cable may be looped”; as described in paragraph [0050]), the flexible connecting element configured to attach to the carriage assembly (“through or over which a cable may be looped and attached to the carriage 200”; as described in paragraph [0050]; a non-positively recited intended use limitation further limiting another non-positively recited intended use limitation), the guide assembly comprising a base (see annotated drawings) and a guide (304) connected to the base (as shown in fig. 3A; reproduced below), the base secured to one of the first rails and one of the second rails (as shown in figs. 6A and 6B) at a top end of the track assembly (as shown in figs. 6A and 6B); wherein: the base comprises a first panel (see annotated drawings) and a second panel (see annotated drawings); each of the first panel and the second panel extend between the one of the first rails and the one of the second rails (as shown in figs. 6A & 6B); and the second panel is angled with respect to the first panel (as shown in fig. 3A; in the same manner as in the current invention), the track assembly further comprises the carriage assembly (200) comprising a plurality of moving elements (222), wherein each moving element comprising a wheel (as shown in fig. 2A, 2B) defining an annular groove (218; fig. 2G) having a groove radius (218 described as concave), wherein one or more moving elements are configured to slidably couple to the track assembly (intended use; 222 slidably couple to track 104).
PNG
media_image7.png
298
656
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
441
755
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the guide assembly taught by Delaney onto the track assembly of Redman for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for means of the rope and pulley arrangement to easily extend the second track member with respect to the first rack member while the user is standing on the ground level prior to climbing the ladder. It is further submitted that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the carriage taught by Delaney onto the track assembly of Redman for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a lifting system to assist in elevating tools, equipment, other heavy weight materials to elevated surfaces/platforms for use by a worker without said worker needing to climb the ladder carrying said equipment which would compromise user’s safety. One of ordinary skill in the art would look for apparatuses to enhance ease and safety of users/workers at a work site. Finally, the modification of reference Redman by the teachings of Delaney dictates to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the concave radius of the wheels 222 match the radius of the enlarged portions of the flanges of Redman i.e., the groove radius of the wheels sized to match the radius of the enlarged portions of the first flanges.
In regards to claim 6 Redman discloses the rails of at least one of the first track member and the second track member are curved when viewed from the side (curved at the enlarged portion; as shown in annotated fig. 12 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
652
540
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7 Redman as modified by Delaney teaches the track assembly of further comprising a drive assembly (420; Delaney) configured to wind and unwind the flexible connecting element (onto drum 424; Delaney).
In regards to claim 8 Redman as modified by Delaney teaches the drive assembly is fixed in a stationary position on the track assembly (400 described as a base assembly and provided in at least one embodiment as being “attached to the bottom of the track 102 so as to provide an anchor”; as described in paragraph [0105] ; Delaney) and is configured to not move during operation of the material hoist system (as described in paragraph [0105] ; Delaney).
In regards to claim 9 Redman as modified by Delaney teaches the moving element is configured to align with the enlarged portion of the first flange of the second rail (intended use; 222 align with 104; Delaney).
In regards to claim 21 Redman discloses the second track member (40) is configured to slide with respect to the first track member (20) to adjust the overall length (as described in Col 2; LL 14-22; excerpt highlighted below).
PNG
media_image2.png
261
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 25 Delaney teaches the base of the guide assembly is non- planar (being bent at the top apex; fig. 3A in the same manner as in the current invention).
In regards to claim 27 Delaney teaches each of the first panel and the second panel are substantially flat (as shown in fig. 3A; in the same manner as in the current invention).
In regards to claim 28 Delaney teaches the base further defines a bend line between the first panel and the second panel (see annotated drawings).
PNG
media_image10.png
441
755
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 36 Redman as modified by Delaney teaches the second track member is configured to slide with respect to the first track member to adjust the overall length (between length shown in fig. 5 versus the length shown in fig. 6; and as described in Col 2; LL 14-22; excerpt highlighted above; Redman); and the carriage assembly (200; Delaney) engages the track assembly and remains slidably engaged with the rack assembly while the second track member is in an extended position (once the carriage is taught onto the first track 20 of Redman it will remain slidably engaged with the track assembly L in the extended position).
In regards to claim 38 Redman as modified by Delaney teaches the first rail of the first track member and the first rail of the second track member are captured between one upper moving element of the carriage assembly and one lower moving element of the carriage assembly (where when carriage 200 of Delaney is taught onto the track members of Redman, the tracks will be between at least one upper and one lower of the wheels 222, in the manner shown for the rails in fig. 2A, 2E, 6C; Delaney as wheels 222 engage the rails).
In regards to claim 39 Redman as modified by Delaney teaches the enlarged portion of the first flanges of the second rail of the first track member and the enlarged portion of the first flanges of the second rail of the second track member are captured between one upper moving element of the carriage assembly and one lower moving element of the carriage assembly (when carriage 200 of Delaney is taught onto the track members of Redman, the tracks will be between at least one upper and one lower of the wheels 222, in the manner shown for the rails in fig. 2A, 2E, 6C; Delaney as wheels 222 engage the enlarged portions of the flanges of the rails per the modification above).
Claims 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redman, Hutchinson and Delaney as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dockter, US (6269906).
In regards to claims 29-33 Delaney discloses a guide flange (see annotated drawings below) and a side flange (see annotated drawings below).
PNG
media_image11.png
298
456
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 29-33 Redman, Hutchinson and Delaney do not teach the guide defines a tab, the base defines a tab opening, and the tab engages the tab opening, the tab opening is a guide tab opening; the flange is a guide flange and the tab is a guide tab engaging the guide tab opening; the base further defines a side opening; the guide further comprises a side flange; and the side flange comprises a side tab engaging the side opening.
Dockter teaches guide (10; Fig. 2A) defines a tab (13, 14; fig. 2A), the base (frame 23) defines a tab opening (30, 31; fig. 3), and the tab engages the tab opening (fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the tab and opening/slot arrangement taught by Dockter to attach the guide and side flanges of Delaney to the base, for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for easy means for attaching and detaching the cable guide to the base for replacement, repair, cleaning, or maintenance.
In regards to claim 30 Redman as modified by Delaney and Dockter teaches the guide comprises a flange (guide flange shown in annotated drawings above), and wherein the flange comprises the tab (tab 13, 14; Dockter).
In regards to claim 31 Delaney teaches the flange of the guide is flat (fig. 3A).
In regards to claim 32 Redman as modified by Delaney and Dockter teaches the tab opening (30 or 31) is a guide tab opening (once taught onto base of Delaney); the flange is a guide flange (see guide flange in annotated drawings above) and the tab is a guide tab (one of the tabs taught onto the guide flange) engaging the guide tab opening (corresponding opening on base); the base further defines a side opening (opening 30 or 31 taught onto base corresponding to side flange); the guide further comprises a side flange (see side flange in annotated drawings above); and the side flange comprises a side tab engaging the side opening (opening 30 or 31 of Dockter taught onto base corresponding to side flange). Note that once the tab and opening protocol is taught to attach the flanges to the base of Delaney, it is understood how flanges would carry tabs and the base would have four openings corresponding to said tabs.
In regards to claim 33 Redman as modified by Delaney and Dockter teaches the guide flange is substantially identical to the side flange (as shown in fig. 3A; Delaney).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that Redman and Delaney, both separately and in combination, fail to at least meet the limitation of "the first flanges comprises an enlarged portion, each of the enlarged portions defining a radius" and "the carriage assembly comprising a plurality of moving elements, wherein each moving element comprising a wheel defining an annular groove having a groove radius sized to match the radius of the enlarged portions of the first flanges, wherein one or more moving elements are configured to slidably couple to the track assembly ... Redman further at least fails to teach, disclose, or suggest a flange of a rail comprising "the first flanges comprises an enlarged portion, each of the enlarged portions defining a radius" and "the carriage assembly comprising a plurality of moving elements, wherein each moving element comprising a wheel defining an annular groove having a groove radius sized to match the radius of the enlarged portions of the first flanges, wherein one or more moving elements are configured to slidably couple to the track assembly", and fails to teach of a track assembly further comprising a carriage system as required by the presently amended independent claim 1", as is required by the presently amended independent claim 1”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that currently presented reference Hutchinson teaches T-shaped cross-section (formed by a flange and web) being symmetrical about a vertical centerline (as shown in annotated drawings of fig. 11), and where it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the symmetrical T-shaped design of the flange/web of the rail as taught by Hutchinson onto the flanges of the first and second rails of Redman for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for larger overall surface area of contact between the first flanges of the first and second rails and hence larger surface area contact between the track members which would result in an enhanced stability of the overall ladder system. Furthermore, and as detailed in the rejection above Delaney teaches the track assembly further comprises the carriage assembly (200) comprising a plurality of moving elements (222), wherein each moving element comprising a wheel (as shown in fig. 2A, 2B) defining an annular groove (218; fig. 2G) having a groove radius (218 described as concave), wherein one or more moving elements are configured to slidably couple to the track assembly (intended use; 222 slidably couple to track 104), and where it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the carriage taught by Delaney onto the track assembly of Redman for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a lifting system to assist in elevating tools, equipment, other heavy weight materials to elevated surfaces/platforms.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to PTO-892 form for list of cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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.
/S.M.M/ Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights