DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/516,253 filed on November 21st, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 21st, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
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 2 and 7-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, in the recitation of “wherein the resilient member biases the brake assembly into a first position, in which the brake assembly allows upwards or downwards movement of the fly section relative to the base section” the difference between the position recited in claim 1 (lines 13-14) and the “first position” recited in claim 2 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the resilient member biases the brake assembly into [[a]] the first position, in which the brake assembly allows upwards or downwards movement of the fly section relative to the base section” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 7, in the recitation of “wherein the cam has a disengaged position allowing the movement of the fly section relative to the base section when the brake assembly is in a first position” the difference between the position recited in claim 1 (lines 13-14) and the “first position” recited in claim 7 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the cam has a disengaged position allowing the movement of the fly section relative to the base section when the brake assembly is in [[a]] the first position” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 8, in the recitation of “wherein the cam has an engaged position where the cam frictionally engages a rail of the ladder to slow or resist upwards or downwards movement of the fly section when the brake assembly is in a second position” the difference between the position recited in claim 1 (lines 15-17) and the “second position” recited in claim 8 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the cam has an engaged position where the cam frictionally engages a rail of the ladder to slow or resist upwards or downwards movement of the fly section when the brake assembly is in [[a]] the second position” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 11, in the recitation of “wherein the brake assembly is mounted to the fly section with the mounting bracket and the cam engages a rail of the base section” the difference between the “rail of the ladder” recited in claim 8 (line 9) and the “rail of the base section” recited in claim 11 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the brake assembly is mounted to the fly section with the mounting bracket and the cam engages [[a]] the rail of the base section” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 12, in the recitation of “wherein the brake assembly is mounted to the base section with the mounting bracket and the cam engages a rail of the fly section” the difference between the “rail of the ladder” recited in claim 8 (line 9) and the “rail of the fly section” recited in claim 12 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the brake assembly is mounted to the base section with the mounting bracket and the cam engages [[a]] the rail of the fly section” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Claims 9-12 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-7, 13-14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright (US 4,364,451). Wright was cited on the IDS filed November 21st, 2023.
Regarding Claim 1, Wright teaches an extension ladder (Figs. 1-2, “base ladder section” 1 and “fly section” 3) comprising:
a base section (1);
a fly section (3) slidably coupled to the base section (1);
a rope (“line” 45); and
a brake assembly (“locks” 15) comprising:
a pulley (“pulley” 61); and
a resilient member (“spring” 51) coupled to the pulley (61),
wherein the resilient member (51) provides a force on the pulley (61),
wherein the brake assembly (15) is configured to:
allow upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (3) relative to the base section (1) when a tension is applied to the rope (45; col. 1, line 61 – “Upward force on such line elevates the fly section 3 along the base section 1 while simultaneously rotating the lock assembly 9 away from and out of engagement with the base section”);
and slow or resist upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (3) relative to the base section (1) regardless of the fly section's (3) position relative to the base section (1), upon removal of the tension from the rope (45; col. 2, line 8 – “Upon termination of extension or closure, less than constant tension on the line allows an extended lock biasing spring 51 connected between the flange and a proximate rail 7 of the fly section in opposition to the line 45, to contract and urge the lock assembly toward engagement position with the base ladder section. Thus, at any extension of the two sections, releasing the line tension will allow the lock assembly to return to the plane of the base ladder section and engage with the nearest proximate rung thereon”).
Regarding Claim 2, Wright teaches the extension ladder of claim 1,
wherein the resilient member (Figs. 1-2, 51) biases the brake assembly (15) into a first position (see 112(b) rejection above), in which the brake assembly (15) allows upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (3) relative to the base section (1; see col. 1, line 61 passage above).
Regarding Claim 3, Wright teaches the extension ladder of claim 1,
wherein the resilient member (Fig. 2, 51) is a spring (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Wright teaches the extension ladder of claim 1,
the brake assembly (Fig. 2, 15) comprising a mounting bracket (“foot” 23).
Regarding Claim 5, Wright teaches the extension ladder of claim 4,
the brake assembly (Fig. 2, 15) further comprising an arm (“shank” 21) coupled to the mounting bracket (23),
the arm (21) having a horizontal portion and a vertical portion (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Wright teaches the extension ladder of claim 5,
the brake assembly (Fig. 2, 15) further comprising a cam (“head section” 31) pivotally attached to the vertical portion of the arm (21) by a pin (“hinged connection” 65).
Regarding Claim 7, Wright teaches the extension ladder of claim 6,
wherein the cam (Fig. 2, 31) has a disengaged position allowing the movement of the fly section (3) relative to the base section (1) when the brake assembly (15) is in a first position (see 112(b) rejection above; see col. 1, line 61 passage above).
Regarding Claim 13, Wright teaches a braking system (Figs. 1-2, 15) for an extension ladder (1, 3) having a base section (1) and a fly section (3), the braking system (15) comprising:
a rope (45);
a pulley (61); and
a spring mechanism (51) coupled to the pulley (61),
wherein the spring mechanism (51) provides a force on the pulley (61) to allow upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (3) relative to the base section (1) when a tension is applied to the rope (45; see col. 1, line 61 passage above), and
slow or resist upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (3) relative to the base section (1) regardless of the fly section's (3) position relative to the base section (1), upon removal of the tension from the rope (45).
Regarding Claim 14, Wright teaches the braking system of claim 13,
wherein the braking system (Fig. 2, 15) is configured to be mounted to the fly section (3).
Regarding Claim 17, Wright teaches the braking system of claim 13,
wherein the braking system (Fig. 2, 15) is configured to be mounted to the base section (1).
Regarding Claim 20, Wright teaches an extension ladder (Figs. 1-2; 1, 3) comprising:
a base section (1);
a fly section (3) slidably coupled to the base section (1);
a rope (45); and
a brake assembly (15) comprising a resilient member (51),
wherein the brake assembly (15) is configured to:
allow upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (3) relative to the base section (1) when a tension is applied to the rope (45; see col. 1, line 61 passage above);
and slow or resist upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (3) relative to the base section (1) regardless of the fly section's (3) position relative to the base section (1), upon removal of the tension from the rope (45; see col. 2, line 8 passage above).
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang (KR 10-1297477). See translation provided to Applicant with this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 1, Hwang teaches an extension ladder (Figs. 1 and 6-8; all of “ladder member” 100) comprising:
a base section (a first one of 100);
a fly section (a second one of 100) slidably coupled to the base section (the first one of 100);
a rope (“wire” 600); and
a brake assembly (“braking means” 200) comprising:
a pulley (“pulley” 150); and
a resilient member (“elastic means” 7) coupled to the pulley (150),
wherein the resilient member (7) provides a force on the pulley (150; via 600),
wherein the brake assembly (200) is configured to:
allow upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (the second one of 100) relative to the base section (the first one of 100) when a tension is applied to the rope (600; position seen in Fig. 6; [0041] – “By driving the motor constituting the power unit, a wire (600) is wound, and a plurality of ladder members (100) connected to the wire (600) are raised or lowered along their respective guides (230) to perform unfolding and folding operations”); and
slow or resist upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (the second one of 100) relative to the base section (the first one of 100) regardless of the fly section's position relative to the base section, upon removal of the tension from the rope (600; position seen in Fig. 7; [0012] – “The present invention has been devised to solve the problems of the above-mentioned prior art, and the purpose of the present invention is to provide an emergency stop device for preventing falls of an elevator of a multi-stage folding ladder, which can prevent falls by providing a braking means that generates a braking force by frictionally contacting a plurality of ladder members by elastic force when cutting a wire”).
Regarding Claim 2, Hwang teaches the extension ladder of claim 1,
wherein the resilient member (Figs. 4-7; 7) biases the brake assembly (200) into a first position (see 112(b) rejection above), in which the brake assembly (200) allows upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (the second one of 100) relative to the base section (the first one of 100; position seen in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Hwang teaches the extension ladder of claim 1,
wherein the resilient member (Figs. 4-7; 7) is a spring (see Figs. 6-7).
Regarding Claim 4, Hwang teaches the extension ladder of claim 1,
the brake assembly (Figs. 4-7; 200) comprising a mounting bracket (“driving plate” 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Hwang teaches the extension ladder of claim 4,
the brake assembly (Figs. 4-7; 200) further comprising an arm (“rotating body” 2, “upper operating shaft” 3 and “first link section” 5) coupled to the mounting bracket (1),
the arm (2, 3, 5) having a horizontal portion (2 or 3) and a vertical portion (5).
Regarding Claim 6, Hwang teaches the extension ladder of claim 5,
the brake assembly (Figs. 4-7; 200) further comprising a cam (“brake show” 220; [0022] – “brake shoe (220) eccentrically connected to the braking shaft (210)” emphasis added) pivotally attached to the vertical portion (5) of the arm (2, 3, 5) by a pin (“braking shaft” 210).
Regarding Claim 7, Hwang teaches the extension ladder of claim 6,
wherein the cam (Figs. 4-7; 220) has a disengaged position (position seen in Fig. 6) allowing the movement of the fly section (the second one of 100) relative to the base section (the first one of 100) when the brake assembly (200) is in a first position (position seen in Fig. 6; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 8, Hwang teaches the extension ladder of claim 6,
wherein the cam (Figs. 4-7; 220) has an engaged position (position seen in Fig. 7) where the cam (220) frictionally engages a rail of the ladder (100) to slow or resist upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (the second one of 100) when the brake assembly (200) is in a second position (position seen in Fig. 7; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 9, Hwang teaches the extension ladder of claim 8,
wherein the cam (Figs. 4-7; 220) includes a tread (surface of 220) that engages the rail of the ladder (100) in the engaged position (position seen in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Hwang teaches the extension ladder of claim 8,
wherein the brake assembly (Figs. 4-7; 200) is mounted to the fly section (the second one of 100) with the mounting bracket (1) and the cam (220) engages a rail of the base section (the first one of 100; position seen in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 12, Hwang teaches the extension ladder of claim 8,
wherein the brake assembly (Figs. 4-7; 200) is mounted to the base section (the first one of 100) with the mounting bracket (1) and the cam (220) engages a rail of the fly section (the second one of 100; position seen in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 13, Hwang teaches a braking system (Figs. 1 and 6-8; 200) for an extension ladder (100) having a base section (a first one of 100) and a fly section (a second one of 100), the braking system (200) comprising:
a rope (600);
a pulley (150); and
a spring mechanism (7) coupled to the pulley (150),
wherein the spring mechanism (7) provides a force on the pulley (150) to allow upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (the second one of 100) relative to the base section (the first one of 100) when a tension is applied to the rope (600; position seen in Fig. 6; see [0041]), and
slow or resist upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (the second one of 100) relative to the base section (the first one of 100) regardless of the fly section's (the second one of 100) position relative to the base section (the first one of 100), upon removal of the tension from the rope (600; position seen in Fig. 7; see [0012]).
Regarding Claim 14, Hwang teaches the braking system of claim 13,
wherein the braking system (Figs. 4-7; 200) is configured to be mounted to the fly section (the second one of 100).
Regarding Claim 15, Hwang teaches the braking system of claim 14,
wherein the braking system (Figs. 4-7; 200) is configured to slow or resist movement of the fly section (the second one of 100) solely by frictionally engaging a rail of the base section (the first one of 100; position seen in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 16, Hwang teaches the braking system of claim 15,
wherein the braking system (Figs. 4-7; 200) resists upwards and downwards movement of the fly section (the second one of 100) relative to the base section (the first one of 100) by frictionally engaging the rail of the base section (the first one of 100) at any point along a front surface of the rail (position seen in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 17, Hwang teaches the braking system of claim 13,
wherein the braking system (Figs. 4-7; 200) is configured to be mounted to the base section (the first one of 100).
Regarding Claim 18, Hwang teaches the braking system of claim 17,
wherein the braking system (Figs. 4-7; 200) is configured to slow or resist movement of the fly section (the second one of 100) solely by frictionally engaging a rail of the fly section (position seen in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 19, Hwang teaches the braking system of claim 17,
wherein the braking system (Figs. 4-7; 200) resists upwards and downwards movement of the fly section (the second one of 100) relative to the base section (the first one of 100) by frictionally engaging a rail of the fly section at any point along a surface of the rail (position seen in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 20, Hwang teaches an extension ladder (Figs. 1 and 6-8; 100) comprising:
a base section (a first one of 100);
a fly section (a second one of 100) slidably coupled to the base section (the first one of 100);
a rope (600); and
a brake assembly (200) comprising a resilient member (7),
wherein the brake assembly (200) is configured to:
allow upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (the second one of 100) relative to the base section (the first one of 100) when a tension is applied to the rope (600; position seen in Fig. 6; see [0041]); and
slow or resist upwards or downwards movement of the fly section (the second one of 200) relative to the base section (the first one of 100) regardless of the fly section's position relative to the base section, upon removal of the tension from the rope (600; position seen in Fig. 7; see [0012]).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (KR 10-1297477), in view of Lane (US 3,948,353). Lane was cited on the IDS filed November 21st, 2023.
Regarding Claim 10, Hwang teaches the extension ladder of claim 9.
Hwang does not teach “wherein the tread is rubber”.
Lane teaches a tread (Fig. 4, “arcuate liners” 6) is rubber (col. 2, line 16 – “FIG. 4 shows a modification wherein arcuate liners 6 only, of rubber or other anti-skid material, may be adhered to the arcuate cut-out portion 3 to prevent slipping away from the projection on the building against which it is leaned, -such as a gutter or roof”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the brake shoes taught by Hwang with the rubber tread taught by Lane, such that “wherein the tread is rubber”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing the brake shoes taught by Hwang with an anti-skid material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Eisenberg (US 5,035,299), Studer (US 5,074,378), Robinson (US 3,627,076), Duan (US 2004/0045770) and Sharp (WO 2008/041156) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar ladders comprising brake assemblies related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655