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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed July 7, 2026. The application has been updated accordingly.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (2019/0024456) hereinafter Cheng.
Cheng discloses:
Claim 1: A ladder lockout assembly for limiting access to a permanent ladder mechanically secured to and supported by a structure (Fig. 2; a structure (not depicted) would be located between 105 and 110) comprising: (Note: the permanent ladder is not being positively recited. The ladder is capable of being mechanically secured to a structure and therefore meets the limitation of the preamble)
a lockout plate (Fig. 2; 212) comprising a central panel section (Fig. 2; 215), a first inwardly depending longitudinal panel section (Fig. 8; see detail) and a second inwardly depending longitudinal panel section (Fig. 8; see detail) opposing the first longitudinal panel section (Fig. 8; the sections are opposing one another - see detail);
at least one hinge assembly (Fig. 9; 305 upper and lower) comprising a horizontally outwardly extending first hinge bracket (Fig. 9; 305 upper extends outwardly in a horizontal direction) coupled to a horizontally outwardly extending second hinge bracket (Fig. 9; 305 lower extends outwardly in a horizontal direction) by a pivot pin (Fig. 9; 910) that defines a vertical axis (Fig. 9; 910 extends vertically and defines a vertical axis);
the first hinge bracket (Fig. 5; 530) coupled to the lockout plate (Fig. 4; 212, Para. [0033]) and the second hinge bracket (Fig. 5; 405) coupled to the ladder (Fig. 4; 120a, Para. [0030]) whereby the lockout plate is rotatable about the vertical axis (Fig. 4; 212 via the pivotal motion of 305) between a first open position (Fig. 3) and a second closed position (Fig. 2);
wherein the vertical axis is disposed rearwardly of a plane defined by the front-facing portions of a pair of side rails of the ladder (Fig. 9; 910 is depicted as disposed rearwardly of a plane defined by 120 a/b) and forwardly of the structure such that the vertical axis is disposed rearwardly of the plane and spaced outwardly from the structure (Fig. 9; 910 is depicted as disposed forwardly of the space between the two ladder segments which is where the structure would be located);
the hinge assembly further comprising detent means (Fig. 5; 535) configured to resist a lockout plate rotation when the lockout plate is in at least one of the first open position or the second closed position (Fig. 5; 535, Para. [0033]), and, mounting means for affixing the ladder lockout assembly to a ladder (Fig. 4; 410).
PNG
media_image1.png
625
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: The ladder lockout assembly of claim 1 wherein the hinge assembly further comprises a removable retaining pin (Fig. 5; 520) and a retaining pin aperture (Fig. 5; 515) configured to receive the retaining pin to selectively limit a rotation of the first hinge bracket or the second hinge bracket when the retaining pin is received within the retaining pin aperture (Fig. 5; via 535).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (2019/0024456) hereinafter Cheng, in view of Bryan (5,343,977).
Claim 3: Cheng discloses the ladder lockout assembly of claim 2 but fails to disclose an outwardly projecting staple shaft element coupled to the ladder and comprising a lock hasp aperture, the staple shaft element configured to be received through a staple shaft aperture defined through the lockout plate.
However, Bryan discloses an outwardly projecting staple shaft element (Fig. 4; 67) coupled to the ladder (Fig. 3; via 69) and comprising a lock hasp aperture (Fig. 4; where 76 passes through), the staple shaft element configured to be received through a staple shaft aperture (Fig. 4; where 67 passes through 24) defined through the lockout plate (Col. 4, Lines 58-61).
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 lockout assembly of Cheng to include the staple shaft element and aperture, as taught by Bryan, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the lockout plate to be locked in place on the ladder.
Claims 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (2019/0024456) hereinafter Cheng, in view of Bryan (5,343,977), further in view of Lopez (2023/0167683).
Claim 4: Cheng discloses the ladder lockout assembly of claim 3 but fails to disclose a stop element coupled to the ladder configured to limit the rotation of the lockout plate at the second closed position.
However, Lopez discloses a stop element (Fig. 1; 122).
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 lockout assembly of Cheng to include the stop element, as taught by Lopez, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a structural support to hold the lockout assembly in the closed position.
Thus, in combination Cheng and Lopez disclose the stop element, of Lopez, coupled to the ladder, of Cheng, configured to limit the rotation of the lockout plate at the second closed position, of Cheng.
Claim 5: Cheng and Lopez disclose the ladder lockout assembly of claim 4 wherein the stop (Lopez – Fig. 1; 122) further comprises a magnet element (Lopez – Fig. 9; 128) configured to urge the lockout plate in the closed position (Fig. 2; 212).
Claim 6: Cheng discloses the ladder lockout assembly of claim 5 wherein the mounting means (Fig. 4; 410) comprises an adjustable clamping means (Fig. 4; via 415).
Claim 7: Cheng discloses the ladder lockout assembly of claim 6 wherein at least one of the central panel section (Fig. 2; 215), the first longitudinal panel section or the second longitudinal panel section comprises a planar surface (Fig. 2; 215 is depicted as comprising a planar surface).
Claim 8: Cheng discloses the ladder lockout assembly of claim 6 wherein at least one of the central panel section, the first longitudinal panel section or the second longitudinal panel section comprises a radial cross-section (Fig. 8; see detail).
Claim 9: Cheng discloses the ladder lockout assembly of claim 6 further comprising at least one lockout plate reinforcement member (Fig. 6; 310).
Claim 10: Cheng discloses the ladder lockout assembly of claim 6 wherein the detent means comprises an elastic element (Fig. 5; 535 is an elastic element).
Claim 11: Cheng discloses the ladder lockout assembly of claim 6 wherein the detent means comprises a spring element (Fig. 5; 535 is a spring element, Para. [0035]).
Claim 12: Cheng discloses the ladder lockout assembly of claim 11 wherein the spring element comprises a metal helical spring (Fig. 5; 535 is depicted as a helical spring).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art rejections, the applicant argues that the primary reference of Cheng fails to disclose a ladder lockout assembly for limiting access to a permanent ladder mechanically secure to and supported by a structure. This argument is not persuasive because, as noted in the rejection of claim 1, the permanent ladder is not being positively recited and the ladder is capable of being mechanically secured to a structure and therefore meets the limitation of the preamble. Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of the permanent ladder is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The applicant further argues that Cheng fails to disclose a vertical axis about which the lockout plate rotates. This argument is also not persuasive because, as shown in the rejection of claim 1, feature 910 extends vertically and defines a vertical axis about which the lockout plate rotates. The applicant arguments regarding the amendments specifying the structural and spatial relationship of the hinge and the ladder rails have also been addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
In response to applicant's argument that Cheng discloses a pool ladder precluding it from being a permanent ladder that is capable of being secured to a structure, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the ladder of Cheng is certainly capable of being permanently attached to an above ground pool or other structure, such as a fence or retaining wall.
For at least these reasons the applicants remarks are not found persuasive and the claims remain rejected as advanced above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights