DETAILED ACTION
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
wherein the friction pad is removable from the second end of the brake arm of claim 6,
wherein the friction pad is textured of claim 8, and,
wherein the friction pad includes at least two different materials to provide friction to the fly section of claim 9
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-14 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. Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “a compression spring . . . configured to engage” is unclear because “engage” is open ended, more specifically, it is unclear what the spring engages with.
Claim 11 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. Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the second portion of the base section is opposite from the first portion” – the location of “opposite” relative to the first portion is unclear and thus the claim is indefinite.
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 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US201844).
15. A ladder descent accessory comprising: a housing (see annotated Fig. 2 below); a brake arm positioned at least partially within the housing at a first end (see annotated Fig. 2 above, note that the brake arm includes a two portions); a friction pad disposed at a second end (e, f, Figs. 1 and 2), opposite the first end of the brake arm; a spring disposed within the brake arm (note that spring is located between the first and second portions of the brake arm in annotated Fig. 2 below); and a pin (see annotated Fig. 2 below) coupled to the housing (note that the pin is coupled to the housing via the spring and the second portion of the brake arm) and configured to contact the first end of the spring (note the pin is in contact with the spring via the tab).
PNG
media_image1.png
681
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
16. The ladder descent accessory of claim 15, wherein the pin is disposed within an opening in the brake arm and moves between an engaged position and a disengaged position within the opening (note that the pin rotates between engaged and disengaged positions of the friction pad e, f).
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 1-2, 4-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US201844) in view of Bloomfield (GB611569).
Smith discloses an extension ladder comprising:
a fly section including a plurality of fly rungs (annotated Fig. 2 of Smith above);
a base section (c) including a plurality of base rungs, the fly section slidably engaged with the base section;
a friction brake (Figs. 1 and 2) disposed on a first portion of the base section (see annotated Fig. 2), the friction brake configured to engage the fly section as the fly section moves downward relative to the base section, the friction brake further configured to reduce a speed of descent of the fly section,
wherein the friction brake includes a brake arm (b, see annotated Fig. 2 below) and a friction pad (e, col. 2, lines 11-13: “Short teeth or projections may be added, as shown at e', on the under side of the dog e, to insure the bite of the extension”) and further includes a spring (a) configured to engage when the fly section moves downward relative to the base section (col. 2, lines 3-6: “As the extension rises it raises the dog, moving freely over it, but when lowered it draws the dog down, causing it to press upon the spring with its angular shoulder, and to act as a brake upon the ladder”).
Smith fails to disclose wherein the spring is a compression spring disposed within the brake arm. Bloomfield teaches, in the context of over center friction brakes, wherein a compression spring (30, Fig. 3) is disposed within the brake arm (18, 20). It 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 to have included a compression spring disposed within the brake arm of Smith according to the teachings of Bloomfield in order to remove adjustability of the brake.
2. Smith in view of Bloomfield discloses the extension ladder of claim 1, wherein the friction brake includes a housing (see annotated Fig. 2 above) coupled to the base section (c), the brake arm (note the brake arm includes two portions, see annotated Fig. 2 above) positioned at least partially within the housing at a first end, and the friction pad disposed at a second end, opposite the first end, of the brake arm (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
3. canceled
4. Smith in view of Bloomfield discloses the extension ladder of claim 3, wherein the friction brake further includes a pin (see annotated Fig. 2 above) coupled to the housing (note that the pin is coupled to the housing via the spring and brake arm) and configured to contact the first end of the spring (note from Fig. 2 that the spring is in contact with the pin via the tab extending from the spring).
5. Smith in view of Bloomfield discloses the extension ladder of claim 4, wherein the pin is disposed within an opening (note that pin extends through the tab extending from the back of the brake arm in annotated Fig. 2 above) in the brake arm and moves between an engaged position and a disengaged position within the opening (note that the pin rotates between engaged and disengaged positions of the first brake arm).
6. Smith in view of Bloomfield discloses the extension ladder of claim 2, wherein the friction pad is removable from the second end of the brake arm (see the fastener in Fig. 3 of Bloomfield).
7. Smith in view of Bloomfield discloses the extension ladder of claim 2, wherein the friction pad is one of rubber or plastic (see Bloomfield pg. 1, line 98, “resilient material”).
8. Smith in view of Bloomfield discloses the extension ladder of claim 2, wherein the friction pad is textured (see Smith col. 2, lines 11-13: “Short teeth or projections may be added, as shown at e', on the under side of the dog e, to insure the bite of the extension”).
10. Smith in view of Bloomfield discloses the extension ladder of claim 2, wherein the housing (see annotated Fig. 2 above) is disposed at an upper end of the base section (see Fig. 1 of Smith).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US201844) in view of Bloomfield (GB611569) and further in view of Iwai (US20050269175).
9. Smith in view of Bloomfield fails to disclose the extension ladder of claim 2, wherein the friction pad includes at least two different materials to provide friction to the fly section. Iwai teaches wherein a friction pad (148) includes at least two different materials (60 and 61) to provide friction. It 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 to have included wherein the friction pad includes at least two different materials to provide friction to the fly section in the extension ladder disclosed by Smith in view of Bloomfiled according to the teachings of Iwai in order to provide wear indication (Iwai [0003]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US201844) in view of Bloomfield (GB611569) and further in view of Lanzaframe (US20180044987).
11. Smith in view of Bloomfield fails to disclose the extension ladder of claim 2, further comprising a second friction brake disposed on a second portion of the base section. Lanzaframe teaches, in the context of extension ladders, a second friction brake disposed on a second portion of a ladder section (Lanzafram [0044]: “a second resilient member 360 is connected to the fly section 21 on one end and connected to a first end of the second cam 358 in such a way that biases the second cam 358 outwards so that the second cam 358 is frictionally engaged with the rail or surface of the base section 22. Each cam can have oppositely directed leading orientations such that the cams 342 and 358 work in tandem to restrict the fly section 21 from moving in both the downwards and upwards direction with respect to the base section 22”). It 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 to have included a second friction brake disposed on a second portion of the base section in the ladder of Smith in view of Bloomfiled according to the teachings of Lanzaframe in order to provide bi-directional braking to the ladder.
12. Smith in view of Bloomfiled and further in view of Lanzaframe discloses the extension ladder of claim 11, wherein the second portion of the base section is below the first portion (see Fig. 9 of Lanzaframe, note that one brake is below the other).
13. Smith in view of Bloomfiled and further in view of Lanzaframe discloses the extension ladder of claim 11, wherein the second portion of the base section is opposite from the first portion. Note from Fig. 9 of Lanzaframe, that the second portion opposes the first portion.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US201844) in view of Bloomfield (GB611569) in view of Lanzaframe (US20180044987) and further in view of Everett (US20030155189).
14. Smith in view of Bloomfield and further in view of Lanzaframe fails to disclose the extension ladder of claim 11, wherein the second friction brake includes a second friction pad, and the second friction pad is a different material than the friction pad. Everett teaches interchangeable brake pads for wet and dry conditions (Everett [0018]). It 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 to have included wherein the second friction brake includes a second friction pad, and the second friction pad is a different material than the friction pad in the extension ladder of Smith in view of Bloomfield and further in view of Lanzaframe according to the teachings of Everett in order to improve braking under different conditions such as wet or dry (Everett [0018]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US201844).
17. Smith fails to disclose the ladder descent accessory of claim 15, wherein the friction pad is removable from the second end of the brake arm. Per MPEP 2144.V.C. removability, where desirable, is prima facie obvious. It 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 to have included wherein the friction pad is removable from the second end of the brake arm in the accessory of Smith in order to replace a worn friction pad.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US201844) in view of Everett (US20030155189).
18. Smith fails to disclose the ladder descent accessory of claim 15, wherein the friction pad is rubber. Everett teaches, in the context of brakes, wherein a friction pad is made of rubber (Everett [0006]: “In some prior art brake shoes, the composition is a friction material such as plastic or rubber impregnated with metal particles”). It 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 to have included wherein the friction pad is rubber in the accessory of Smith according to the teachings of Everett in order to induce braking squeal and thereby provide an audible indication that the brake is working, see [0006] of Everett.
19. Smith fails to disclose the ladder descent accessory of claim 15, wherein the friction pad is plastic. Everett teaches, in the context of brakes, wherein a friction pad is made of plastic (Everett [0006]: “In some prior art brake shoes, the composition is a friction material such as plastic or rubber impregnated with metal particles”). It 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 to have included wherein the friction pad is plastic in the accessory of Smith according to the teachings of Everett in order to induce braking squeal and thereby provide an audible indication that the brake is functioning, see [0006] of Everett.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US201844) in view of Iwai (US20050269175).
20. Smith fails to disclose the ladder descent accessory of claim 15, wherein the friction pad includes at least two different materials. Iwai teaches wherein a friction pad (148) includes at least two different materials (60 and 61). It 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 to have included wherein the friction pad includes at least two different materials in the accessory of Smith according to the teachings of Iwai in order to provide wear indication (Iwai [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ben Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571)272-9656. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 7 to 5.
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 Cahn can be reached at (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 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.
/BAP/ Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
