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 with traverse of group I, corresponding to Claims 1-4, 6-14, 21 in the reply filed on 07/22/2026 is acknowledged. Examiner notes that Applicant withdrawn from examination and cancels with traverse the invention identified by the Examiner as Group II, corresponding to claims 15-20 as seen in the 2nd paragraph of the remarks, page 1.
However, later, in the remarks, Applicant states that “Applicant respectfully believes that the Examiner is mistaken in Examiner's interpretation of claims 15-20 … a single inventive concept” and
“… the process as claimed in group II can be used to cut an opening in a roof of a building that is not the apparatus as claimed in group I. The apparatus as claimed in the group I can be used to support to other things without cutting an opening in a roof of a building."
Applicant also states that “Examiner has not explained how this may be done and Applicant contends that this is not the inventive intent of the disclosure or of the embodiments described in claims 1-14”.
That is confusing what Applicant argues about. Early, Applicant states “withdrawn from examination and cancels with traverse the invention identified by the Examiner as Group II, corresponding to claims 15-20”.
Later, it appears arguing on the ground(s) that “Examiner has not explained how this may be done and Applicant contends that this is not the inventive intent of the disclosure or of the embodiments described in claims 1-14”. This is not found persuasive because the group I, claims 1-14 are directly to an apparatus (structures of a support device 100, as seen in Applicant’s figure 1 for stabilizing a ladder and a foot support, it is not for cutting, however, the original claim 15 of group II is required to have a cutting feature for a cutting step, see Applicant’s specification, para. 3 “chainsaws and other tools” is distinct from claims of the group I). See the restriction mailed on 01/22/2026 in which Examiner clearly explains. Thus, Examiner is NOT mistaken in Examiner's interpretation of claims 15-20.
With regards to newly Claims 22-25 added in the pending Application; Examiner notes that the invention of Claims 22-25 have the similar scope of claims 15-20 (see the restriction mailed on 01/22/2026) which have been cancelled by Applicant.
Claim 22 requires “adjusting the location of a support base feature of the support device as a desired distance from the ladder” that recites in the original claim 15 and it is not required in any claim in the original claims 1-14. See the adjustable embodiment of a support device (Figure 14).
Claim 25 (depends on cancelled claim 17, also, claims 23-24 are erred in the dependency) that requires a cutting feature for cutting an opening in the roof in which recites in the original claim 15.
Since applicant has elected the invention, claims 22-25 are also withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Thus, Claims 1-4, 6-14, 21 are examining below.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
Abstract, line 1 “A device and relative methods of use may be used to…” is unclear what it is trying to disclose. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because that is not what the claimed invention is drawn to (see the scope of elected claims 1-4, 6-14). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Also, the language “may” and “optionally” should be deleted since it makes confusing whether, for an example, in lines 2-3 “the device” is removably attached to the ladder or not.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the summary and the claimed invention recite a support device, a structural connection feature...etc.,. however, in the same specification, in the “brief description of the drawings” discloses a stabilizing bar and no discussion about the support device in the drawings, therefore, it is unclear whether the support device is the same as a stabilizing bar or not. Are they two different devices? Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-14, 21 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.
The preamble of claim 1 clearly recites “a support device”. From this preamble, it appears Applicant is seeking protection for the support device by itself.
However, in the body of claim 1 is the phrase “wherein the structural connection feature is configured to removably connect to a ladder…offset laterally from the ladder…to the ladder…resist rotation relative to the ladder”. There are two lines of thought on this;
One is that claim should be interpreted as a combination of the support device and the ladder, which is seemingly not what the preamble suggests.
Two is that it is not a combination, but then it is not clear what structural scope to give the language in the body of the claim. Would a support device including a connection feature, a base…meet this, even if there was no teaching of a ladder? What structure of the support device is being claimed? If the ladder is not positively recited, then any prior art held against it would not need to show a ladder, it would only need to show the structure of the support device, right?
Claim 1, the language “further” is unclear because claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (structural claim), however, the language “further” the support base is configured to rest…”further” wherein the support base is configured to resist rotation relative to the ladder which appears combine both structures of the support device and a process (steps of performance) in a single claim that is unclear what it is actually being claimed. Please note that all structures are formed as a support device. If there is NO structure or “further” limitation, it is still considered as a support device, right? Claims 2-14 “further…further…” have the same issue above. For an example, claim 2 “further wherein the support device further comprises an elongated member, and further …the structural connected feature” which is in claim 1, not “further” limitation.
Claims 3-4 “…a first opening defined by a rung of the ladder” has the same issue of claim 1 (preamble) above.
In claim 11 is the term “substantially triangle”. Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and can find no guidance for what the boundaries of this term might be. As a result, the recitation of “substantially triangle” is indefinite because it is unclear what differences are permitted while still being considered “substantially triangle”.
(Please note that the language “substantially” in claim 2 is considered because one skill in the art understands that the elongated member (the structural connection feature) is inserted the ladder rung, there is a leeway that causes the first axis is substantially perpendicular to the second axis).
Claim 6 “…the support based comprises a first surface with a first edge, a second surface with a second edge, and a first roof contact feature configured to rest at least partially against the first surface of the roof” is confusing what the support based be. Is it typo “base”, right? Examiner notes that the “first surface” belong to the support base, however, the last line “the first surface of the roof” that is unclear what it is trying to claim.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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 1-4, 6, 8, 11-13, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forseth (US 2020/0109601).
Regarding Claims 1 and 21, as best understood, Forseth shows a support device (100, Figure 1) removably mounted on a ladder (102), wherein the support device comprises:
a structural connection feature (110); and
a support base (138) comprising a foot support feature (as it is written, it is unclear what the foot support feature be and used for, therefore, the bottom plate 120 or a foot support feature secured the ladder to a roof, Figure 1, meets this limitation);
wherein the structural connection feature is configured to removably connect to a ladder (remove the scene 100 by removing the safety pin 130, Figure 1 and Para. 15), and
wherein the foot support feature is offset laterally from the ladder while the support device is removably connected to the ladder and while the support device is in a deployed configuration (see Figure 1), and
wherein the support base is configured to rest at least partially against a first surface of a roof (see Figure 1), and wherein the support base is configured to resist rotation relative to the ladder by being configured to resist motion of the support base relative to the first surface of the roof (see Figure 1 and para. 18 “one or more screws or nails is then inserted through the corresponding holes 132 in the flap to lock each of the flaps 116, 118 into place against the anchoring point”).
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, Forseth shows that the structural connection feature is an elongated member (see the rod 110, Figure 1), and
wherein the elongated member defines a first axis extending from a first end of the elongated member to a second end of the elongated member, the ladder defines a second axis extending from a top end of the ladder to a bottom end of the ladder, and the first axis is substantially perpendicular to the second axis when the support device is in the deployed configuration (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Froseth shows that the structural connection feature is a shaft (see the rod 110, Figure 1) which is configured to be at least partially received within a first opening defined by a rung of the ladder (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, Forseth shows that the structural connection feature is configured to be slidably connected to the rung of the ladder (see Figure 1 during mounted to the ladder), and wherein the structural connection feature passes at least partially through the rung of the ladder (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, Forseth shows that the support base comprises a first surface with a first edge (a top surface of the second portion 122), a second surface with a second edge (an opposite surface of the second portion 122), and a first roof contact feature (a surface of the first portion 120) configured to rest at least partially against a surface of the roof (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood, Forseth shows that the first surface of the support base defines at least one opening (see many holes 132, Figure 1) configured to aid in drainage of liquids from the first surface of the support base.
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Forseth shows that the support base is substantially triangular in cross-section (as this is written, it is extremely broad, there is “substantially” triangular in a cross-section of a corner of the first and second portions 122, 120, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, Forseth shows that the shaft defines a pointed feature (where the reference “126” is in Figure 1) at a first end distal to the support base (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood, Forseth shows that the shaft comprises a locking feature (130) configured to resist motion of the shaft relative to the ladder once the support device is removably connected to the ladder in a desired orientation (the safety pin 130 prevents the elongated rod 110 slid out from the ladder rung).
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCarthy (US 2014/0209411).
Regarding Claims 1 and 21, as best understood, McCarthy shows a support device (10) removably mounted on a ladder (34, Figure 9), wherein the support device comprises:
a structural connection feature (key slots 12 of side walls 29, 30, Figure 1 and Para. 17); and
a support base (where the references “10, 15, 16” are in Figure 9) comprising a foot support feature (15, Para. 37 “an additional foot support (step) 15 for a worker”);
wherein the structural connection feature is configured to removably connect to a ladder (the accessory 10 is removable from the ladder as seen in all figures), and
wherein the foot support feature is offset laterally from the ladder while the support device is removably connected to the ladder and while the support device is in a deployed configuration (see Figure 9, the far right portion of the accessory 10 is offset laterally from the ladder), and
wherein the support base is configured to rest at least partially against a first surface of a roof (see Figure 9), and wherein the support base is configured to resist rotation relative to the ladder by being configured to resist motion of the support base relative to the first surface of the roof (see Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, McCarthy shows that the structural connection feature is an elongated member (see the two side walls having key slots 12, Figure 1), and
wherein the elongated member defines a first axis extending from a first end of the elongated member to a second end of the elongated member, the ladder defines a second axis extending from a top end of the ladder to a bottom end of the ladder, and the first axis is substantially perpendicular to the second axis when the support device is in the deployed configuration (see Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, McCarthy shows that the structural connection feature is a shaft (as this is written, it is unclear what size and shape of the shaft be, therefore, the side walls including key slot 12 are a shaft and meets this limitation) which is configured to be at least partially received within a first opening defined by a rung of the ladder (20, Figure 5. With regards to “a first opening” that is an opening between the rungs 20 for key slots hooking on the rungs as seen in Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, McCarthy shows that the structural connection feature is configured to be slidably connected to the rung of the ladder (see Figure 10, the accessory can be lid left and right on the rung, Figure 10), and wherein the structural connection feature may pass at least partially through the rung of the ladder (see Figure 9, the accessory 10 extends beyond the rung).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, McCarthy shows that the support base comprises a first surface with a first edge (a top surface of the accessory 10, Figure 9, having edges), a second surface with a second edge (another surface of the side walls having an edge, Figure 4), and a first roof contact feature (clips 37, 37a) configured to rest at least partially against a surface of the roof (see Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, McCarthy shows that the first surface of the support base (see top surface of the accessory 10, Figure 9) has at least one protrusion configured to improve traction of a user’s foot on the first surface of the support base (see non-skid elements 18 having many protrusions in Figure 4 and Para. 46 “the outside surfaces of the accessory may be covered with non-skid elements 18. The elements 18 reduce the chance that a firefighter or other person using the invention to rest his or her foot could slip”).
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood, McCarthy shows that the first surface of the support base defines at least one opening (see openings 15, Figure 9) configured to aid in drainage of liquids from the first surface of the support base.
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, McCarthy shows that the support base has at least one at least partially open face configured to be at least partially seated against the roof (the bottom of the accessory 10 is open face that rests on the roof, Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, McCarthy shows that the support base is substantially triangular in cross-section (as this is written, it is extremely broad, there is substantially triangular in a cross-section of a corner of the accessory).
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, McCarthy shows that the shaft defines a pointed feature at a first end distal to the support base (see the side walls, a point where the reference “11” to the support base).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood, McCarthy shows that the shaft comprises a locking feature (an active lock mechanism 17) configured to resist motion of the shaft relative to the ladder once the support device is removably connected to the ladder in a desired orientation.
Regarding Claim 14, McCarthy shows that a handle (32) proximal to the support base.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy in view of Cherevko et al (US 2017/0044831).
Regarding claim 10, McCarthy shows all of the limitation as stated above except that the support base has at least one tooth protrusion configured to be pressed against the roof.
Cherevko shows a support (70, Figure 4) has at least one tooth protrusion (see plate 38) configured to be pressed against a roof (30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the support device of McCarthy to have at least one tooth protrusion configured to be pressed against the roof, as taught by Cherevko, in order to allow the support device to be stabilized and allow the ladder and the support device to be firmly secured to the roof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. there are many accessories inserted into a ladder rung, for examples: US 10900283 B1; US 20130256481 A1; US 20110011676 A1; US 20070228237 A1; US 6019191 A; US 5099952 A, US 3294197 A. and US 2024/0384596 shows a stabilizer and a foot support for a ladder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights