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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/20/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein & lined thru has not been considered (Non-lined through references were considered).
Applicant did not submit IT UB20159622A1. PL3187373T3 was submitted which might be similar but it is a different document. Whatever similarities & differences it has with UB20159622A1 is unclear to 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 13-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 13, the term “optionally indirectly coupled rotatably” as used in line two makes it unclear and indefinite as to what is being actually claimed or not claimed.
For sake of examination, the claims are interpreted as shown in the art rejections below.
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 10-13,15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iotti (US 10,035,462) in view of Tianjin (CN112092734).
Re claim 10, Iotti teaches a telescopic boom lift (1, figure 1A), comprising at least one vehicle 1 which can move on the ground and supports directly or indirectly at least one telescopic boom (not numbered, see figure 1A) adapted to support a work accessory (not numbered see figure 1), and a cab 7 configured to accommodate an operator, and further comprising at least one ladder 11 for access to the cab 7, arranged along a wall of said vehicle.
Iotti does not mention the ladder being movable as claimed. However, Tianjin teaches an access ladder for a work vehicle (figures 4,7,8) provided with at least one step 11 which rotates with respect to the wall, for a movement of said ladder between at least two configurations (figures 7,8) for use which correspond to different space occupations of said ladder, in a first minimum space occupation configuration (figure 7) said at least one step facing and being proximate to said wall, in a second configuration (figure 4,8) with increased space occupation said at least one step being arranged transversely with respect to said wall to make the steps less visible when desired and have better wind dynamics when desired for traveling, etc.. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Iotti in view of Tianjin as claimed in order to have the ability to have better wind dynamics for travel etc. and also to make the ladder / steps smaller footprint for travel and aesthetics.
Re claim 11, Iotti as already modified teaches comprising a plurality of said steps arranged in mutual alignment in said first configuration.
Re claim 12, Iotti as already modified teaches in said second configuration said at least one step is rotated substantially through 90 degrees with respect to said first configuration.
Re claim 13, Iotti as already modified teaches said at least one step comprises two arms (upright sidewalls) which are optionally indirectly coupled rotatably to said wall about a common rotation axis, and a tread (horizontal board), which is interposed between said arms oppositely with respect to said wall and is adapted to allow resting of a foot of the operator at least in said second configuration, in order to allow said operator to access said cab or climb down to the ground.
Re claim 15, Iotti as already modified teaches means (Tianjin 13,14,21,22, see figures) for a direct or indirect movement of said at least one step, which are configured for an actuation of a transition from said first configuration to said second configuration and vice versa.
Re claim 16, Iotti as already modified teaches said means for a direct or indirect movement of said at least one step comprise an actuator (Tianjin 21) which is adapted for the direct or indirect movement of said at least one step.
Re claim 17, Iotti as already modified teaches said steps are coupled rotatably about respective pivoting axes to a movable member (Tianjin 22,23,24, etc., figures 1,2,4,etc.) which is moved directly by said actuator (Tianjin 21) and is configured for a simultaneous transition of said steps from said first configuration to said second configuration and vice versa.
Re claim 18, Iotti as already modified teaches said member comprises two stringers (Tianjin 2,22, etc. figures 1,2,4) and at least one crossmember (lowest step) which is interposed between respective ends of said stringers, said arms of each one of said steps being coupled rotatably about respective said pivoting axes to corresponding said stringers, said actuator having a movable stem (Tianjin 2,22, etc. figures 1,2,4) which is coupled with one end to said at least one crossmember for a rotation of said arms, and of said steps, about corresponding said rotation axes as a consequence of a translation of said stem.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iotti (US 10,035,462) in view of Tianjin (CN112092734), Kato (US 2020/0181966) and Salzman (US 2014/0158,465).
Re claim 14, Iotti as already modified has 1st & 2nd configurations, but does not show spaced connecting rib(s) beside the tread. Kato shows spaced connecting rib(s) beside the tread (figure 6, on ladder 41’s steps 42) are known for greater structural strength and grip and Salzman (figures 1-3) shows a work vehicle 10, with a ladder assembly with two configurations and steps still spaced & accessible to a climber in both configurations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Iotti as claimed in order to increase structural strength & grip & use in both configurations for quick access, as well as use in situations where the is loss of power to change configuration, or not enough time for configuration change / need for quick climbing access.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miller teaches (abstract, figures 1-2) a similar folding ladder with two configurations.
Lim teaches (abstract, figures 3-4) a similar folding ladder with two configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652