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 § 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 10 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. The term “fasteners” is a broad and encompasses a large array of devices/implements. The applicant’s specification [0052] reads “without fasteners, e.g., by a resilient press-fit or snap-fit of the hinge portion 162 into the rung's hinge portion 158”; however, fasteners themselves can be press-fit or snap-fit, e.g. snap buttons on a shirt or jacket. That is being a snap-fit or press-fit does not preclude that element from being broadly and reasonably considered a fastener. The application’s hinge connection “fastens” the platform to the rung and can broadly and reasonably be considered the “fastener” of the two elements rendering the claim indefinite as to how it the elements are attached without fasteners as claimed.
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 (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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 15, 15, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Comins (621,468).
Regarding claims 1, 21, and 24, Comins discloses a ladder, comprising: a first assembly including a first pair of rails (A) and a plurality of rungs (B and those below not shown) extending between and coupled to the first pair of rails; a second assembly including a second pair of rails (D), the second pair of rails being pivotally (connection between D and A) displaceable relative to the first pair of rails between a collapsed configuration (fig. 2) and an expanded configuration (fig. 1); and a spreader mechanism comprising: a first pair of links (h) respectively pivotally connected to the second pair of rails (h’); a platform (E) pivotally coupled with the first pair of links (h’’) and pivotally coupled (c and f’) with a rung (C) of the plurality of rungs, the platform having an inner (near h’’) end portion positioned between the first assembly and the second assembly when the first assembly and the second assembly are in the expanded configuration; wherein in response to a force applied perpendicular to the inner end portion of the platform, first and second assemblies transition from the expanded configuration to the collapsed configuration (a upward force near h’’ would cause the ladder to collapse).
Regarding claim 2, Comins, discloses the platform includes a top surface in- plane with a top surface of the rung of the plurality of rungs (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Comins, discloses the rung includes a projecting portion (f’ to f2) extending behind a rear-facing surface of the first pair of rails.
Regarding claim 5, Comins, discloses wherein the platform includes a guard portion (f1) at least partially covering a rear-facing surface of the rung when the first assembly and the second assembly are in the expanded configuration.
Regarding claim 6, Comins, discloses the platform includes a guard portion (f’ to f2) configured to cover a gap between the rung and the platform when the first assembly and the second assembly are in the collapsed configuration.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Comins, discloses, wherein the platform has a constant cross-section across its lateral width (cross section of E is constant) a hinge portion (at least a portion of f is within the cross section of E an f can broadly and reasonably be considered a hinge portion as if function to attach the elements as a hinge).
Regarding claims 9, Comins, disclose a ladder, comprising: a first assembly including a first pair of rails (A) and a plurality of rungs (B and those below not shown) extending between and coupled to the first pair of rails; a second assembly including a second pair of rails (D), the second pair of rails being pivotally displaceable relative to the first pair of rails between a collapsed configuration and an expanded configuration (fig. 1 to 2); and a spreader mechanism comprising a pair of jointed linkages (h) coupled with the first assembly and with the second assembly, the spreader mechanism including a platform component (E) having a consistent cross-section across its lateral width.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood (see 112 rejection above), Comins, wherein the platform component is attached to a rung of the plurality of rungs without fasteners (f1 and c connection does not include a screw, nail, or other discrete fastener).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Comins, disclose the platform component includes a guard portion (curved portion of f1 covering the rear surface of C/c) configured to cover a rear surface of a rung of the plurality of rungs.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ballard (2017/0254145).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 21, Ballard discloses a ladder, comprising: a first assembly including a first pair of rails (105 and/or 101) and a plurality of rungs (107) extending between and coupled to the first pair of rails; a second assembly including a second pair of rails (111), the second pair of rails being pivotally displaceable relative to the first pair of rails between a collapsed configuration and an expanded configuration ([0044]); and a spreader mechanism comprising: a first pair of links (114) respectively pivotally connected to the second pair of rails (“pivotally coupled with the outer rails 111” [0046]); a platform (116) pivotally coupled ([0046]) with the first pair of links and pivotally coupled ([0046]) with a rung (107; fig. 2) of the plurality of rungs, the platform having an inner (where 116 attaches to 114) end portion positioned between the first assembly and the second assembly when the first assembly and the second assembly are in the expanded configuration; wherein in response to a force applied perpendicular to the inner end portion of the platform, first and second assemblies transition from the expanded configuration to the collapsed configuration (“collapsing or folding of the…” [0046]).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comins (621,468) in view of Tims (2,578,862).
Regarding claims 4, Comins lacks specifically disclosing a support segment configured to rest on a projecting portion.
Tims teaches that it is know in the art for a ladder rung attachment to have hinged rung assembly including a projecting portion (10) to have a platform (5) support segment (portion of 5 resting on 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the rod type hinge arrangement of Comins with on similar to that of Tims since this simple substitution of one known element for another would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is further noted that Tims pivot includes a screw bolt 11 that would allow the attachment to be fixed tight and offer additional stability.
The examiner notes for future reference that the hinge connection of Tims would read on claim 8.
Claim(s) 4, 11-13, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comins (621,468) in view of Katz (5,873,433).
Regarding claim 4, Comins discloses the ladder as described previously, but lacks specifically disclosing a support segment configured to rest on a projecting portion.
Katz teaches that it is know in the art for a ladder rung attachment to have a projecting portion (48) with a platform (50) support segment (portion of 52 resting on 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a support segment configured to rest on a projecting portion similar to that of Katz, to provide additional safety and support making the device more robust.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Comins discloses the ladder as described previously, but lacks specifically disclosing the hinge inserted into a recess of the rung.
Katz teaches that it is known have the hinge (Fig. 4) of a platform (150) inserted into a recess/opening (between 132) of the rung (104) of a ladder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a hinge of inserted into a recess of the rung similar to that of Katz in the connection of rung and platform of Comins, because it would increase safety by decreasing the gap between the run and platform and making it less like for items to be caught or wedge between the rung and platform.
Regarding claim 13, Katz disclose a resiliently flexible hinge capable of press fitting (“forced into “pinching” contact C4 L40+).
Regarding claim 23, Katz discloses a rod (180).
Claim(s) 11, 12, 22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comins (621,468) in view of Dressel ( 2018/002982).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Comins discloses the ladder as described previously, but lack specifically disclosing the hinge inserted into a recess of the rung.
Dressel teaches that it is known have the hinge (708) of a platform (714) inserted into a recess/opening (708) of the rung (706) of a ladder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a hinge of inserted into a recess of the rung similar to that of Dressel in the connection of rung and platform of Comins, because it would increase safety by decreasing the gap between the run and platform and making it less like for items to be caught or wedge between the rung and platform.
Regarding claim 12, Dressel teaches the hinge pivotally coupled to the recess.
Regarding claim 25, Dressel teaches the rung (706) has a greater lateral width than the platform (714).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL TROY whose telephone number is (571)270-3742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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 Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights