DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to the claims filed on February 2, 2026.
Status of claims: claims 1-13, 20, 26 and 27, are cancelled; claims 14-19, 21-25 and 28-34 are hereby examined below.
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 § 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 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 24, 25 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200232278 to Maxfield et al. (hereinafter “Maxfield”) in view of US 20180094403 to Nobles et al. (hereinafter “Nobles”).
Maxfield discloses a ladder comprising:
a first rail 110A,130 having a bottom region that extends a partial distance along the first rail from a distal end thereof; (see FIGS. 1 and 3A and 4)
a second rung 110B,130;
rungs 108 attached to the first rail and second rail;
a foot body having a base 162,116 the base having a first planar surface 186 and a first flange extending upwardly from the first planar surface (see annotated FIG. 4 below) of the base adjacent a first end of the first planar surface and a second flange extending upwardly from the first planar surface of the base adjacent a second end of the first planar surface substantially parallel to the first flange, wherein the base, the first planar surface, the first flange, and the second flange define a single integral component such that the first flange and the second flange are fixed with respect to the first planar surface of the base,
a shield 160 (see annotated FIG. 4 below) coupled to the foot body around the bottom region to sandwich the bottom region between the shield and the first and second flanges, (see [0058] – [0060]) the shield having a bottom that in its entirety overlaps the first planar surface. (see annotated FIG. 4 below and FIG. 5A);
a pad 150 coupled to an underside of the base, the pad having an uppermost surface coupled flush with a lowermost planar surface of the base, (see Fig. 4) when the pad is secured to the base; and a pad fastener (not numbered; see the plurality of holes in the pad 150 in FIG. 3B, see also FIGS. 5A and 6B) that extends through the pad by way of a plurality of holes in the pad and through the base to attach the pad to the base.
Maxfield fails to disclose wherein the pad include a plate and an outer layer completely surrounding the plate, the outer layer including the uppermost planar surface and a pad fastener that extends through the pad by way of one of the plurality of holes in the plate.
Nobles teaches of a foot comprising a pad 80 and a plate 118 (see FIGS. 5 and 6), and wherein the pad includes a plate and an outer layer completely surrounding the plate, the outer layer including the uppermost planar surface and a pad fastener that extends through the pad by way of one of the plurality of holes in the plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad disclosed in Maxfield with the plate taught in Nobles with a reasonable expectation of success in order to strengthen the pad. (claim 24)
Maxfield further discloses a rail fastener 164,166 that extends through the foot body, the first rail, and the shield to fixedly join the foot body, the first rail, and the shield together. (see [0061] and FIG. 4) (claim 25)
Maxfield further discloses wherein the first rail includes a web with first and second flanges attached thereto to define an inner surface and an outer surface, and wherein the foot body contacts portions of the inner surface that are part of the bottom region and the shield contacts portions of the outer surface that are part of the bottom region. (see FIG. 1 and 3A) (claim 29)
Maxfield further discloses wherein the inner surface and the outer surface comprise respective c-shapes that corresponds to a c-shaped cross-section of a recess defined between the foot body and the shield. (see FIGS. 1, 3A and 4) (claim 30)
Maxfield further discloses wherein the first flange and the second flange extend up from the base by a first height, wherein the shield comprises a plurality of walls that rest on and extend up from the base by a second height when the shield is coupled to the base. (see FIGS. 1, 3A and 4) (claim 31)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bottom )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second flange)][AltContent: textbox (First flange)]
PNG
media_image1.png
700
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxfield in view of Nobles, as applied to claim 24 above.
Maxfield discloses the bottom surface of the foot body includes treads and wherein the foot body is comprised of a plastic material. (see [0060]), but fails to disclose the outer layer is a rubber material and the pad fastener comprises of a metal material.
Nobles teaches wherein the outer layer is comprised of a rubber material. (see [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer layer disclosed in Maxfield with the rubber material taught in Nobles with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form the outer layer out of a inexpensive and durable material.
Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the Maxfield fasteners out of metal, in order to form the pad fastener out of an inexpensive and durable material as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxfield in view of Nobles, as applied to claim 24 above.
Maxfield, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the first height and the second height are at least 2 inches.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide Maxfield with first and second heights of at least 2 inches, with a reasonable expectation of success, for aesthetic reasons as well as to ensure stability of the bottom region of the ladder rail in the ladder foot. (claim 32)
Maxfield, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein a first height of the first c-shaped wall is the same as a second height of the second c-shaped wall.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide Maxfield with the first height the same as the second height, with a reasonable expectation of success, for aesthetic reasons as well as to ensure stability of the bottom region of the ladder rail in the ladder foot. (claim 33)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-19, 21-23 and 34 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. More specifically, although dependent claim 27 was previously deemed allowable, the applicant did not include the exact recitation of claim 27 into claim 24. The word “entirely” recited twice in original claim 27 was omitted from amended claim 24.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8-5 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634