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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,970,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in the present claims are contained within the issued patent.
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.
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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Figura et al. (6,467,576) hereinafter Figura.
Figura discloses:
Claim 1: A telescopic ladder system (Fig. 3) for a vehicle comprising:
a lower base (Fig. 3; see detail) configured to be connected to a ladder-supporting portion of the vehicle (Fig. 3; 3);
a ladder (Fig. 3; 13) comprising:
a base section pivotably connected (Fig. 3; at 16, Col. 4, Lines 5-15) to the lower base;
a fly section (Fig. 2; 17) operatively connected to the base section and slidable relative thereto (Fig. 2; 17, Col. 4, Lines 15-28);
a plurality of rungs (Fig. 2; 15, Col. 4, Lines 5-15) disposed along the base section and the fly section (Fig. 2; 15); and
a security railing (Fig. 3; 29) connected to a distal end of the fly section;
at least one safety line attached to the ladder (Fig. 3; 43, Col. 5, Lines 35-62), the at least one safety line being configured to:
attach to a target structure (Fig. 3; the plane surface) at a position spaced from the ladder (Fig. 3; 13), to extend between the ladder and the target structure, and to permit attachment thereto of a security harness (Fig. 3; 41) configured to be worn by an operator and permit free movement of the security harness along the at least one safety line (Fig. 3; the safety line of Figura can be attached to an anchor point which would allow the harness to travel the length of the line, Col. 5, Lines 35-62);
a first actuator (Fig. 3; 21) connected between the lower base and the base section to selectively set an inclination angle of the ladder relative to the lower base (Fig. 3; 21, Col. 4, Lines 15-28); and
a second actuator connected between the base section and the fly section to selectively extend the ladder by sliding the fly section relative to the base section (Fig. 3; not depicted but described in Col. 4, Lines 15-28).
PNG
media_image1.png
781
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5: The telescopic ladder system of claim 1, further comprising at least one supporting member (Fig. 3; 31) disposed at the distal end of the fly section for supporting the distal end of the fly section on the support surface of the target structure (Fig. 4; the plane surface) to be climbed onto, the at least one supporting member being fixedly attached to the distal end of the fly section such that the at least one supporting member moves with the fly section (Fig. 3; 31, Col. 4, Lines 37-47).
Claim 6: The telescopic ladder system of claim 5, wherein the at least one supporting member comprises an angular bracket (Fig. 3; 31 is depicted with an angular bracket extending towards 33).
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, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figura et al. (6,467,576) hereinafter Figura.
Claim 2: Figura discloses the telescopic ladder system of claim 1, wherein:
the base section has two opposite side rails (Fig. 3; 29, Col. 4, Lines 29-36); but fails to disclose
the first actuator is disposed on a lower side of the base section and is generally centered between the two opposite side rails of the base section.
While Figura fails to specifically disclose the first actuator is disposed on a lower side of the base section and is generally centered between the two opposite side rails of the base section, the examiner asserts that the actuator is located within the outer perimeter of the ladder, and as such meets the limitation of “generally centered”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to located the actuator in a generally centered location of the ladder segment in order to allow balanced support and movement.
Claim 17: Figura discloses a safety system for securing an operator atop a structure, the safety system comprising:
an operating vehicle comprising a telescopic ladder system (Fig. 3), the telescopic ladder system comprising:
a lower base (Fig. 3; see detail) connected to a ladder-supporting portion of the operating vehicle (Fig. 3; 3);
a ladder (Fig. 3; 13) comprising:
a base section pivotably connected (Fig. 3; at 16, Col. 4, Lines 5-15) to the lower base;
a fly section (Fig. 2; 17) operatively connected to the base section and slidable relative thereto (Fig. 2; 17, Col. 4, Lines 15-28);
a plurality of rungs (Fig. 2; 15, Col. 4, Lines 5-15) disposed along the base section and the fly section (Fig. 2; 15); and
a security railing (Fig. 3; 29) connected to a distal end of the fly section;
a first actuator (Fig. 3; 21) connected between the lower base and the base section to selectively set an inclination angle of the ladder relative to the lower base (Fig. 3; 21, Col. 4, Lines 15-28); and
a second actuator connected between the base section and the fly section to selectively extend the ladder by sliding the fly section relative to the base section (Fig. 3; not depicted but described in Col. 4, Lines 15-28); and
at least one safety line attached to attached to the ladder (Fig. 3; 43, Col. 5, Lines 35-62), the at least one safety line being configured to:
attach to the structure (Fig. 3; the plane surface) at a position spaced from the ladder (Fig. 3; 13), and to extend between the ladder and the structure; and
at least one link (Fig. 8; 49) connected to the at least one safety line, the at least one link being configured to be connected to a security harness to be worn by the operator so as restrict the operator within a range of lateral movement relative to the one of the structure, the at least one link being free to move along the at least one safety line (Fig. 3; the safety line of Figura can be attached to an anchor point which would allow the harness to travel the length of the line, Col. 5, Lines 35-62).
Figura fails to disclose a safety system for securing an operator atop one of a vehicle and a van, the one of the vehicle and the van having a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end, at least one safety line and at least one link connected to the safety line.
However, Figura discloses securing an operator (Fig. 5; at 53) atop one of an object (Fig. 5; the platform) and another object (Fig. 5; the airplane); the one of an object and another object having a first longitudinal end (Fig. 1; nearest 33) and a second longitudinal end (Fig. 5; nearest 53).
While Figura fails to specifically disclose a second vehicle or van, the examiner contends that the airplane depicted in Figure 5 of Figura could just as easily be a vehicle or a van, as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the telescoping ladder system of Figura to access a second vehicle or van in order to allow a worker to climb atop the vehicle or van in the same manner as the airplane.
Claim 20: Figura discloses the safety system of claim 17, wherein the telescopic ladder system further comprises:
at least one supporting member (Fig. 3; 31) disposed at the distal end of the fly section for supporting the distal end of the fly section on a top surface of the one of the vehicle and the van (Fig. 4; the plane surface) at the first longitudinal end of the one of the vehicle and the van, the at least one supporting member being fixedly attached to the distal end of the fly section such that the at least one supporting member moves with the fly section (Fig. 3; 31, Col. 4, Lines 37-47).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figura et al. (6,467,576) hereinafter Figura, in view of Svoboda et al. (2019/0233265) hereinafter Svoboda.
Claim 3: Figura discloses the telescopic ladder system of claim 1, but fails to disclose
at least one reel connected to one of the base section and the fly section, each of the at least one reel being configured to roll and unroll the at least one safety line.
However, Svoboda discloses reel (Fig. 1; 22) configured to roll and unroll a safety line (Fig. 1; 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the telescopic ladder system of Figura to include the reel and safety line, as taught by Svoboda, in order to pull a worker up or retract the safety line when work is complete.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figura et al. (6,467,576) hereinafter Figura, in view of Ellis (2016/0215563).
Claim 4: Figura discloses the telescopic ladder system of claim 1, wherein:
the security railing (Fig. 3; 29);
the at least one safety line comprises a first safety line and a second safety line (Fig. 3; 43, Col. 5, Lines 35-62); but fails to disclose the security railing comprising a first railing portion and a second railing portion extending in opposite directions from one another at the distal end of the fly section where the first safety line is attached to the first railing portion and the second safety line is attached to the second railing portion.
However, Ellis discloses railing portions extending in opposite directions from one another (Fig. 1; 29a, 29b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the telescopic ladder system of Figura to include the railing portions extending in opposite directions, as taught by Ellis, to provide a handhold for a worker ascending the ladder.
Thus, in combination Figura and Ellis disclose a telescopic ladder system with a security railing where the security railing comprises a first railing portion and a second railing portion extending in opposite directions from one another at the distal end of the fly section where the first safety line is attached to the first railing portion and the second safety line is attached to the second railing portion.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figura et al. (6,467,576) hereinafter Figura, in view of Nebel et al. (2014/0345974) hereinafter Nebel.
Claim 7: Figura discloses the telescopic ladder system of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one supporting member comprises at least two legs extending downwardly from the distal end of the fly section.
However, Nebel discloses at least two legs extending downwardly (Fig. 3; 44L left and right).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the supporting member of Figura to include the legs, as taught by Nebel, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a stable connection to a variety of surfaces.
Thus, in combination Figura and Nebel disclose the at least one supporting member, of Figura, comprises at least two legs, of Nebel, extending downwardly from the distal end of the fly section, of Figura.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figura et al. (6,467,576) hereinafter Figura, in view of Troche (2,981,362).
Claim 8: Figura discloses the telescopic ladder system of claim 1, but fails to disclose a pickup truck comprising:
a frame;
a bed supported by the frame; and
the base of the telescopic ladder system being connected to the frame of the pickup truck and disposed in the bed.
However, Troche discloses a pickup truck (Fig. 2; see detail) comprising:
a frame (Fig. 2; see detail); and
a bed (Fig. 2; 10) supported by the frame.
PNG
media_image2.png
234
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ladder system of Figura to be mounted on a pickup truck, as taught by Troche, with a reasonable expectation of success because it could be driven to a variety of locations for use.
Thus, in combination Figura and Troche disclose the base of the telescopic ladder system, of Figura, being connected to the frame of the pickup truck and disposed in the bed, of Troche.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figura et al. (6,467,576) hereinafter Figura, in view of Ellis (2016/0215563), and further in view of Smit (2013/0233648).
Claim 18: Figura and Ellis disclose the safety system of claim 17, wherein:
the at least one safety line comprises a first safety line and a second safety line (Figura - Fig. 3; multiples of 43 are depicted, Col. 5, Lines 35-62);
but fails to disclose the security railing comprising a first railing portion and a second railing portion extending in opposite directions from one another at the distal end of the fly section where the first safety line is attached to the first railing portion and the second safety line is attached to the second railing portion.
However, Ellis discloses railing portions extending in opposite directions from one another (Fig. 1; 29a, 29b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the telescopic ladder system of Figura to include the railing portions extending in opposite directions, as taught by Ellis, to provide a handhold for a worker ascending the ladder.
Thus, in combination Figura and Ellis disclose a telescopic ladder system with a security railing where the security railing comprises a first railing portion and a second railing portion extending in opposite directions from one another at the distal end of the fly section where the first safety line is attached to the first railing portion and the second safety line is attached to the second railing portion.
Figura and Ellis all fail to disclose attaching a safety line to an anchor point.
However, Smit discloses attaching the safety line to an anchor point (Para. [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment method of Figura to include attaching to an anchor point of a vehicle, as taught by Smit, to provide a stable structure to attach the safety line.
While Smit fails to specifically disclose attaching the safety line to a bumper of a vehicle, the examiner contends that any reliable anchor point is referenced in (Para. [0041]) which would reasonably include a vehicle bumper, but should applicant disagree it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the safety line to a secure element of the one of the vehicle and the van to provide a secure attachment point already available.
Thus, in combination Figura, Ellis and Smit disclose a system that comprises
attaching the first safety line to the bumper of the one of the vehicle and the van at a first point of the bumper; and
attaching the second safety line to the bumper of the one of the vehicle and the van at a second point of the bumper laterally spaced apart from the first point of the bumper such that the first and second safety lines are generally parallel to one another in order to provide a stable connection point already available on the vehicle and to provide the operator with safety lines on either side of their elevated work area.
Claim 19: Figura and Ellis disclose the safety system of claim 18, wherein:
the at least one link comprises a first link (Fig. 8; 49) and a second link (Fig. 8; there are multiple of 43 disclosed therefore, there are multiples of 49);
the first link comprises a first hook (Fig. 8; 49 is depicted as a snap lock with a hook), the first hook connecting the first link to the first safety line (Fig. 8; 45); and
the second link comprises a second hook (Fig. 8; 49 is depicted as a snap lock with a hook), the second hook connecting the second link to the second safety line (Fig. 8; 45), the first and second hooks being slidable along the first and second safety lines to allow free movement of the operator longitudinally along the one of the vehicle and the van (Fig. 3; the safety line of Figura can be attached to an anchor point which would allow the harness to travel the length of the line).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights