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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-9 and 21-25, in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged.
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 extending in claim 2 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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the platform is positioned rearward of rear surfaces of the first pair of rails when the platform is in a folded position” but the wording is unclear. Is the platform positioned at the rear of the rear surfaces, or in other words behind the front surfaces of the first pair of rails? Or is the platform positioned to face rearward? Towards the rear surfaces?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-7, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maschinen (DE 9111011).
Regarding claim 1, Maschinen teaches of a ladder system, comprising:
a ladder (fig. 1, ladder sections 1, 2), comprising:
a first pair of rails (stiles 5) spaced apart from each other (seen in fig. 1);
at least two braces (rungs 6) coupled with and extending between the first pair of rails (5) (seen in fig. 1);
a table assembly (fold-out step 9), comprising:
a platform (foldable step 23) pivotally coupled with the first pair of rails (¶0039, foldable step is pivoted around the joint 26) and rotatable relative to the first pair of rails between a first platform position (position in fig. 5) and a second platform position (position in fig. 4); and
at least one strut (telescopic tubes 25) pivotally coupled with the platform (figs. 4-5, ¶0039, struts 25 are hinged) and rotatable relative to the platform between a first strut position and a second strut position (seen in figs. 4-5);
wherein:
when the at least one strut (25) is in the first strut position (fig. 5), the at least one strut (25) is substantially parallel to the platform (seen in fig. 5);
when the platform (23) is in the first platform position (fig. 5), the platform (23) lies substantially entirely between the first pair of rails (5) (seen in fig. 5), the platform (23) lies substantially entirely between the at least two braces (6) (seen in fig. 5), and the at least one strut (25) is in the first strut position (seen in fig. 5);
when the platform (23) is in the second platform position (seen in fig. 4), the platform (23) is substantially horizontally oriented relative to a gravitational direction (seen in fig. 4); and when the at least one strut (25) is in the second strut position (fig. 4), the at least one strut (25) extends from the platform (23) and contacts the ladder (seen in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Maschinen teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 4) wherein when the at least one strut (25) is in the second strut position (position in fig. 4), the at least one strut (25) abuts a brace (6) of the at least two braces (seen in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Maschinen teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 4) further comprising a pair of brackets (rods 24) coupling the platform (23) with the first pair of rails (5) via a pair of pivot pins (joint 26) (¶0039, a foldable step 23 is attached, which is fastened to two rods 24, one end of which can be pivoted around the joint 26).
Regarding claim 5, Maschinen teaches of claim 4, and (fig. 1) wherein the pair of brackets (24) is detachable from the platform (23) by operation of the pair of pivot pins (detachable as seen in fig. 1, detaching from pair of pivot pins 26).
Regarding claim 6, Maschinen teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 5) wherein the platform (23) includes a pair of lateral side surfaces respectively parallel to the first pair of rails (fig. 5, lateral side surfaces of platform 23 are respectively parallel to the first pair of rails 5 when in the position seen in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Maschinen teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 5) wherein a pivot axis of the platform (23) extends through a bottom half of the platform (23) when the platform is in the first platform position (pivot axis at the joint 26 extends through a bottom half of the platform 23).
Regarding claim 21, Maschinen teaches of claim 1, and (figs. 1 and 5) wherein the platform (23) has a perimeter substantially filling a space defined by the first pair of rails (5) and the at least two braces (6) (the perimeter of platform 23 substantially fills the space between the first pair of rails 5 and the at least two braces 6).
Regarding claim 23, Maschinen teaches of claim 21, and (fig. 5) wherein the platform (23) is positioned rearward of rear surfaces of the first pair of rails (5) when the platform (23) is in a folded position (position in fig. 5) (as best understood by the 112b rejection above, platform 23 is facing rearward towards the rear surfaces of the first pair of rails 5 and is positioned at the rear of the rear surfaces of the first pair of rails 5).
Regarding claim 25, Maschinen teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 4) wherein:
the platform (23) is pivotally coupled with the first pair of rails (5) via at least one pivot pin (joint 26);
the at least one strut (25) is pivotally coupled with the platform (23) by at least one pivotal upper hinge (pivots on joint 28); and
the at least one pivotal upper hinge (28) is located at a first end of the platform (23) (seen in fig. 4), and the at least one pivot pin (26) laterally extends from a second end of the platform (fig. 4, end by brace 6), with the second end being positioned opposite the first end (seen in fig. 4).
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.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschinen (DE 9111011) in view of Moss et al. (WO 2012115963), hereinafter Moss.
Regarding claim 2, Maschinen teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 1) wherein the ladder further comprises a second pair of rails (stiles 5 of ladder section 1) and at least two rungs (other rungs 6) coupled with an extending (coupled with an extending surface or body) between the second pair of rails (seen in fig. 1), the first pair of rails and the second pair of rails being movably coupled with each other between an expanded configuration (fig. 1, when the ladder section 2 is hooked onto ladder section 1).
Maschinen does not appear to teach of the first pair of rails and the second pair of rails being movably coupled with each other between an expanded configuration and a collapsed configuration.
Moss teaches of (fig. 1) the first pair of rails (first rail assembly 102) and the second pair of rails (second rail assembly 114) being movably coupled with each other (¶0026, first pair of rails 102 and second pair of rails 114 are hingedly coupled with each other) between an expanded configuration (configuration seen in fig. 1) and a collapsed configuration (fig. 3, ¶0026, hinge to a folded or collapsed configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maschinen to incorporate the teachings of Moss of the first pair of rails and the second pair of rails being movably coupled with each other between an expanded configuration and a collapsed configuration in order to have an expanded configuration for use and a collapsed configuration for storage or easy transport.
Regarding claim 8, Maschinen teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 4) wherein when the platform (23) is in the second platform position, a first portion of the platform (a portion of 23) extends forward from the first pair of rails (5) (seen in fig. 4).
Maschinen does not appear to teach of a second portion of the platform extends rearward from the first pair of rails.
Moss teaches of (fig. 4A) wherein when the platform (platform 130) is in the second platform position (position seen in fig. 4A), a first portion of the platform extends forward from the first pair of rails (portion of platform 130 including rung 106 extends forward from the first pair of rails 102) and a second portion of the platform (130) extends rearward from the first pair of rails (body portion 150 extends rearward from the first pair of rails 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maschinen to incorporate the teachings of Moss of wherein when the platform is in the second platform position, a first portion of the platform extends forward from the first pair of rails and a second portion of the platform extends rearward from the first pair of rails in order to provide ample surface area for use and to extend in areas that are easily accessible to the user.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschinen (DE 9111011) in view of Major et al. (US 20220145700), hereinafter Major.
Regarding claim 9, Maschinen teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the at least one strut is configured to prevent movement of the platform from the first platform position to the second platform position while the at least one strut is in the first strut position.
Major teaches of (fig. 6) wherein the at least one strut (link members 140, 142) is configured to prevent movement of the platform (platform 120) from the first platform position (position in fig. 7) to the second platform position (position in fig. 4) while the at least one strut is in the first strut position (fig. 7, ¶0057, link members 140 passes through a bracket member 145 configured to laterally constrain the link member 140 and prevent movement of the platform from the first platform position to the second platform position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maschinen to incorporate the teachings of Major of wherein the at least one strut is configured to prevent movement of the platform from the first platform position to the second platform position while the at least one strut is in the first strut position in order to keep the platform secure in position when moving the ladder around.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschinen (DE 9111011) in view of Vaidyaselvan (US 8944212).
Regarding claim 22, Maschinen teaches of claim 21, but does not appear to teach of wherein the perimeter defines a trapezoid.
Vaidyaselvan teaches of wherein the perimeter defines a trapezoid (claim 6, the support platforms comprise a trapezoid shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maschinen to incorporate the teachings of Vaidyaselvan of wherein the perimeter defines a trapezoid in order to use a shape that has a high strength-to weight ratio, making for a cost-effective profile, and has good structural characteristics and can carry loads well.
It should be noted that the shape as claimed does not show criticality as disclosed in the specifications or the drawings.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschinen (DE 9111011) in view of Gibson et al. (US 6427805), hereinafter Gibson.
Regarding claim 24, Maschinen teaches of claim 21, and (fig. 1) wherein a platform support (25) comprises the at least one strut (25).
Maschinen does not appear to teach of wherein the platform support is stowed in at least one channel defined in the platform when the at least one strut is in the first strut position.
Gibson teaches of (figs. 4-5) wherein the platform support (tray links 160) is stowed in at least one channel defined in the platform (tray 42) when the at least one strut (links 160) is in the first strut position (position in figs. 4-5) (the at least one strut 160 are stowed in the channel recess at the bottom of the platform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maschinen to incorporate the teachings of Gibson of wherein the platform support is stowed in at least one channel defined in the platform when the at least one strut is in the first strut position in order to compactly stow the components when the ladder is in a collapsed configuration and to protect the platform support from damage.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights