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 .
Response to Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment filed on July 16, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 12-20 are pending. The applicant’s arguments, clarifying remarks, and amendments with respect to the 112b and 112d rejections were persuasive and have overcome said rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (2019/0242187).
In regard to claims 1, 15 and 17, Zhang discloses a damping device (figure 3) for a collapsible ladder having an inner ladder tube sections 1 and an outer ladder tube sections 2 that form a plurality of ladder sections, and a rung (figure 1) connecting the ladder sections, the outer ladder tube section having an inner side wall, the inner ladder tube section being slidably arranged with the outer ladder tube section, the damping device comprising:
a main body 4 having a top portion adapted to be arranged at least partly in the inner ladder tube section (see figure 2), and at least one mounting means 41; and
an asymmetric damping block 3 (the block is at least asymmetric about an axis passing from element number 3 to 5 and through the screw head 5) adapted to be arranged in the at least one mounting means 41 (figure 2 and [0017];
wherein the asymmetric damping block has at least one surface slidably abutting the inner side wall of the outer ladder tube section when arranged in the collapsible ladder [0019],
the asymmetric damping block 3, when arranged in the mounting means, is arranged to cause one of at least two different damping behaviors for the inner and the outer ladder tube sections. The block can cause one behavior when the ladder sections are extended one behavior when they are retracted [0019], and
wherein a first orientation or position of the asymmetric damping block causes a first damping behavior for the inner and outer ladder tube sections, and wherein a second orientation or position of the asymmetric damping block causes a second damping behavior for the inner and outer ladder tube sections. [007] discloses that the edge of the buffer piece can be turned down or not turned, so that the inner tube can be extended or buffered. Therefore, since the buffer piece can be in two different positions, it will provide two different damping behaviors, and meets the limitations of a “first orientation” and “a second orientation” as well as two different damping behaviors.
.
In regard to claim 2, Zhang discloses the damping device according to claim 1, wherein the asymmetric damping block 3 is asymmetric with respect to a center axis extending horizontally from a center point of the inside of the inner and the outer ladder tube sections towards the outside of the inner and the outer ladder tube sections. Depending on where the axis was located, and where it passed through the block 3, the block would be asymmetrical along a horizontal axis that passed through the center of the tube sections towards the outsides of the tube sections. Since the claim merely says “a center axis” that passes through the center of the ladder tube sections, the examiner would like to point out that there are at least 360 horizontal axes that pass through the center of the ladder tube sections. Thus, there are a number of axes that the damping block would be asymmetrical about.
In regard to claim 4, Zhang discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, wherein an orientation or position of the asymmetric damping block relative to the inner side wall and arranged in the receiving portion (mounting means) causes one of the at least two different damping behaviors. The examiner would like to point out that merely positioning the damping block in contact with the wall of the tube will inherently cause a damping behavior.
In regard to claim 6, Zhang discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, wherein each damping behavior comprises a first effect (friction when extending the tube sections) and a second effect (different friction force when retracting the tube sections. They are also opposite forces), wherein the first and the second effects are different from each other.
In regard to claim 10, Zhang discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, wherein the at least one mounting means 41 comprises a cavity facing the inner side wall; and wherein the asymmetric damping block 3 is adapted to at least partly fit within the cavity (figure 2).
In regard to claim 12, Zhang discloses the claimed invention according to claim 10, wherein the asymmetric damping block is adapted to fit within the cavity via clamping, i.e. it is clamped by the screw 5.
In regard to claim 13, Zhang discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, wherein the asymmetric damping block is a single, integrated block. The examiner would like to point out that “molded” is a process limitation that is given little patentable weight in accordance with MPEP 2113. The final product is the same as applicant’s final product, therefore, the claim limitation is met.
In regard to claim 14, Zhang discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, wherein the asymmetric damping block is made of a flexible homogeneous material, i.e. a silica gel [0011].
In regard to claim 18, Zhang discloses the claimed method for arranging a damping device in a collapsible ladder. The limitations of claim 18 can be seen in the above rejections of at least claim 1. Since the elements of claim 1 are placed where claimed, the method steps are met.
In regard to claim 19, Zhang discloses an asymmetric damping block 3 adapted to be arranged in a damping device for a collapsible ladder wherein the damping device comprises mounting means 41; wherein the asymmetric damping block 3 is adapted to be arranged in the mounting means, figure 2, in a selected one of a first orientation and a second orientation, wherein a first orientation or position of the asymmetric damping block causes a first damping behavior for the collapsible ladder, and wherein a second orientation or position of the asymmetric damping block causes a second damping behavior for the collapsible ladder. The examiner contends that the damping block could be arranged as shown or inverted. Further, both positions will cause a damping behavior for the collapsible ladder. The claim does not state that the first and second behaviors are different. Therefore, the claimed limitations are met.
In regard to claim 20, Zhang discloses the claimed invention of claim 1, wherein the damping device comprises a second asymmetric damping block 3 adapted to be arranged in a second mounting means. There are two blocks 3 at the joint of each set of ladder tube sections.
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) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (2019/0242187) in view of Zhang (EP3653832A).
In regard to claims 8 and 9, Zhang ‘187 discloses the invention according to claim 1, wherein [0007] discloses that the damping block can be turned down or not turned down, but does not specifically disclose that it “releases” the effects of damping as claimed in claims 8 and 9. Zhang ‘832 teaches that it is known to provide a damping block 3 in a retractable ladder that is capable of moving to release the effects of damping so that the inner and outer tubes can slide with less friction in one direction and more friction in the opposite direction. See figures 3 and 4 where it shows the damping block horizontal and then flexed upward into the space 6. Also see [0014]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow Zhang ‘187’s damping block to move to release the friction so that the tubes can slide easier in one direction than the other. This would allow for either easier extension, or easier retraction based on the desired preference of the user.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (2019/0242187) in view of Li (DE 202017101059 U1).
In regard to claim 16, Zhang discloses the claimed invention of claim 1, wherein a portion 42, 43 of the damping device further fixates the damping device to the inner ladder tube section. Zhang does not specifically disclose that the portion 42, 43 is on the outside of the ladder tube section. Li teaches that it is known to provide a portion 22, 221 (figure 3) of a damping device on an outside of an inner tube section. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reverse the portions 42, 43 so that they were on the outside of Zhang’s device because it has been held that the mere reversal of parts is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, by having the portions on the outside, they would be easier to grasp and release if one needed to remove the damping device for any reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As set forth above, the 112b and 112d rejections of the previous office action have been overcome in view of the amendments and remarks.
In regard to the applicant’s argument that Zhang (2019/0242187) does not disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 18, and 19, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the applicant argues that Zhang does not teach an asymmetric damping block that, when arranged in the mounting means in a first orientation or position can cause a first damping behavior and when in a second orientation, can cause a second damping behavior. The examiner pointed out in the above office action that Zhang discloses that the damping block can be turned down or not turned down. This constitutes two different positions as broadly claimed by claim 1. Further, again as pointed out in the above rejection, when the block is turned down, it would produce one damping behavior and when not turned down, it would produce a second damping behavior. The examiner would also like to point out that the applicant has not even claimed in claim 1 that the first and second behaviors are different. Therefore, even if the damping block in the turned down or not turned down positions produced the same damping behavior, the claimed limitations would still be met.
The applicant also argues that Zhang’s different damping effects are related to the direction of travel of the ladder sections. Again, the claim is silent about when the different effects happen and does not mention anything about the direction of travel of the ladder sections. Thus, by broadest reasonable interpretation, Zhang’s different positions and different damping effects are all that is needed to meet the limitations of the claim. It does not matter when the different behaviors occur if the device has them.
The examiner would also like to address the applicant’s argument about the position of the damping block being able to be physically changed. The examiner contends that being turned down is physically different than not being turned down. It is understood that the applicant orients their damping block in a first position and then is capable of orienting the block in a position where the block is rotated 180 degrees, but this is not being claimed. Again, the claim merely claims that the block “different orientations” and the examiner contends that turned down and not turned down are different orientations. Thus, the claimed limitations are met.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
