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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities appearing in the listed paragraphs:
[0038], line 4: “may then actuation the process” has been understood as “may then actuate the process”
[0044], line 5: “may extension upwardly” has been understood as “may extend upwardly”
[0052], line 7: “thus rotatable securing” has been understood as “thus rotatably securing”
[0057], line 3: “pf” has been understood as “of”
[0060], line 11: “bear” has been understood as “near”, and “connection with” as “connect with”, respectively
[0063], lines 4 and 5: “gas shock 54” has been understood as “gas shock 56” based on preceding designations
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 includes "where in" typed as separate words rather than "wherein"
Claim 15 may establish consequence more clearly by addition of the word “that” following “such”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 2007/0000723 A1), and further in view of Vernickel et al. (US 2015/0246642 A1), hereinafter “Vernickel”.
Regarding claim 1, Jensen discloses a ladder assembly for mounting to a boat trailer (boat trailer bow entry/exit ladder assembly 10, ¶[0021], figs. 1-3) comprising:
a stationary ladder section (ladder portion 21, ¶[0023], fig. 1) comprising a plurality of steps (steps 30, ¶[0028], fig. 1); and
a boat trailer mounting assembly (platform portion 20, ¶[0023], fig. 1) for coupling the ladder assembly to the boat trailer (boat trailer 11, ¶[0021], fig. 1);
Jensen does not recite a stair extension portion with mechanisms for its actuation and control. Vernickel teaches an access system (numeral 30, ¶[0023], figs. 5a-b and 6a-b) comprising:
a stair extension portion (lowerable step part 50, ¶[0026], fig. 5b) comprising one or more steps, wherein the stair extension portion is rotatably coupled (“steps 50 are pivotable about a pivot bearing”, ¶[0026], figs. 6a-b show steps 50 in an upwardly pivoted position) to the stationary ladder section (steps 48 comprising a plurality of steps and extending upward from steps 50 to intermediate stand 42, ¶[0026], fig. 5b);
a mechanism for actuation of automatic rotation of the stair extension portion for deploying and/or stowing the stair extension with respect to the stationary ladder section (“a lowerable step part, which is preferably hydraulically actuable, can adjoin the steps directed to the front, ¶[0010]”); and
a stair extension rotation control mechanism (“pivot mechanism can be actuable via a hydraulic pivot apparatus”, ¶[0026]) for controlling at least one of a speed and actuation of deploying or stowing of the stair extension portion.
Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to substitute, with a reasonable expectation of success, the access system from Vernickel, as referenced above, for the ladder portion disclosed by Jensen. One skilled in the art may scale the dimension of Vernickel’s access system for proportionate application to Jensen’s ladder assembly. As noted In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), a mere difference in relative dimensions of a claimed invention and the prior art does not establish patentable distinction. The motivation for the substitution would have been to bridge “the intermediate space from the upper edge of the bumper 22 to the ground” (Vernickel, ¶[0026]). The substitution would predictably achieve the desired result.
Regarding claim 2, the modified ladder assembly further teaches the ladder assembly of claim 1 wherein the ladder assembly (Vernickel, steps 48 and 50) is moveable between a first position wherein the stair extension is deployed for use (Vernickel, figs. 5a-b) and a second position wherein the stair extension is stowed (Vernickel, figs. 6a-b) and when stowed, the stair extension does not obstruct an entrance to the stationary ladder section (Vernickel , “In the upwardly pivoted position shown in accordance with FIGS. 6a and 6b, the treads of the steps 50 are disposed above the treads of the steps 48 since the personnel can now walk on the rear side of the treads of the steps 50”, ¶[0027]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified ladder assembly further teaches the ladder assembly of claim 1 wherein the ladder framework further comprises a handrail (Jensen, ladder railing 34, ¶[0028], figs. 1-2).
Claims 4, 5, 7, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen and Vernickel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hedley et al. (AU 2008202858 A1), hereinafter “Hedley”.
Regarding claim 4, the modified ladder assembly further teaches the ladder assembly of claim 1, but does not specify the actuation mechanism on an upper portion of the ladder and accessible from both on and off the ladder assembly. Hedley discloses an access device (third embodiment designated by the numeral 20, ¶[048], figs. 3a-e) wherein the mechanism for actuation (lever 36, ¶[051], fig. 3b) of automatic rotation of the stair extension portion (lower ladder member 22, ¶¶[048]-[049], figs. 3a-b) is provided on an upper portion of the stationary ladder section (lever 36 shown in fig. 3b on an upper portion of upper ladder member 21) accessible from both a position on the ladder assembly and off the ladder assembly (foot pedal 38 and handle 41 of lever 36 accessible from positions on and off access device 20, figs. 3b-e).
Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to substitute, with a reasonable expectation of success, the actuation mechanism from Hedley for the hydraulic pivot apparatus of the modified ladder assembly as disclosed by Vernickel. In one aspect, one skilled in the art may include as part of the substitution, other components recited by Hedley (¶¶[051]-[061]) in pivoting operation of the access device. The motivation would have been to provide an actuation mechanism for the ladder assembly that is neither difficult to move between stowed and operative positions nor expensive and complex to assemble and maintain (Hedley, ¶[003]). The substitution would predictably achieve the desired result.
Regarding claim 5, the modified ladder assembly further teaches the ladder assembly of claim 4 and further comprising a second mechanism (Hedley, second end 27 of the second ladder member 22, fig. 3b) for actuation of the rotation of the stair extension portion is provided on a lower portion of the stair extension wherein the first and second mechanisms apply force to the stair extension rotation control mechanism for actuation thereof (Hedley, access device 20 is moved from the access position back to the storage position by applying sufficient lifting force to lower portion of ladder member 22 to move the device slightly past the balance position, thereby triggering the resilient force generated in the spring 46 and allowing the device to gradually move to the storage position, ¶¶[060]-[061], fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 7, the modified ladder assembly further teaches the ladder assembly of claim 1 wherein the stair extension rotation control mechanism comprises an air cylinder (Hedley, “one or more actuator[s], such as a hydraulic or pneumatic cylinder or like device 9 effects movement of the device 4 in conjunction with a guide arm 10”, ¶[041], fig. 1a) operably coupled between the stationary ladder section and the stair extension portion (Hedley, upper and lower ladder members 5 and 6, respectively, ¶[040], fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 13, the modified ladder assembly further teaches a method of using a ladder to enter a boat from a ground surface comprising:
securing a ladder assembly to a location on a boat trailer supporting the boat (Hedley access device 20 secured to boat trailer 11 of Jensen by platform portion 20 of Jensen);
releasing a ladder extension mechanism (Hedley, lever 36) to allow a ladder extension portion (Hedley, lower ladder member 22) of the ladder assembly to rotate downwardly away from a main ladder body (Hedley, upper ladder member 21) of the ladder assembly to expose additional steps of the ladder extension portion for climbing the ladder assembly; and
actuating the ladder extension mechanism (Hedley, second end 27 of the second ladder member 22) to raise the ladder extension portion for stowing the ladder extension (see retraction of Hedley access device 20 from access position to storage position in claim 5) and providing ground clearance for moving the boat trailer without obstruction.
Regarding claim 16, the modified ladder assembly further teaches the method of claim 13 and further comprising releasing the ladder extension mechanism (Hedley, lever 36) and allowing the ladder extension portion (Hedley, lower ladder member 22) of the ladder to rotate downwardly away from a main ladder body (Hedley, upper ladder member 21), from a position located at an upper end of the ladder assembly (Hedley, lever 36 shown in fig. 3b on an upper portion of upper ladder member 21).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen and Vernickel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shepherd (US 2019/0338940 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the modified ladder assembly further teaches the ladder assembly of claim 1, but does not recite a lighting system. Shepherd discloses a watertight illuminated safety ladder apparatus (numeral 101, ¶[0043], fig. 6) wherein the ladder framework further comprises a lighting system (lighting element 120, ¶[0042], fig. 6) for illuminating one or more steps of the assembly (“ladder embodiment 101 further comprises at least one step or rung 124, each rung having by LEDs or lights 120 by which they may be illuminated”; “safety ladder embodiment 101 can be … manufactured for use on boat docks, or on travel trailers”, ¶[0043]).
Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the lighting element from Shepherd with the modified ladder assembly of claim 1. The motivation would have been “to enhance visibility and overall safety … [and] to provide an illuminated safety rail or ladder whose light creates an aesthetically pleasing and fun ambiance”, (Shepherd, ¶¶[0009]-[0010]). The combination would predictably achieve the desired results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not teach the ladder assembly of claim 2 wherein in the first position the stair extension is deployed and is positioned below and to a side of the stationary ladder section. The closest reference, evident by screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "Easy Step Installation", 2 pages, uploaded on September 28, 2021 by user "TackleJunky81", retrieved from Internet: <https://youtu.be/3l1Opm8sZRg>, hereinafter “Easy Step”, shows a boat trailer ladder assembly on the second page wherein a lower portion positioned under the trailer tongue is below and to a side of the upper portion. Another reference, Loeber (US 5,064,023 A), recites a ladder system comprising a fixed portion 24 (col. 3, lines 23-25, fig. 1) and a flexible portion 30 (col. 3, lines 35-39, fig. 1) wherein flexible portion 30 is positioned below and to a side of fixed portion 24. However, neither reference teach the lower portion of the ladder assembly rotatably coupled to the fixed upper portion, as recited among limitations of base claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach the ladder assembly of claim 1 further comprising a connection bracket which couples a framework of the stationary ladder section to a framework of the stair extension portion, the connection bracket stationarily secured to the framework of the stationary ladder section and the stair extension rotatably coupled to the connection bracket. The closest reference, Fair et al. (US 8,322,739 B1), hereinafter “Fair”, discloses a boat trailer step assist (numeral 25, fig. 2, col. 2, lines 48-53) comprising an extension (support arm 3, fig. 3) and a stationary portion (support arm 2, fig. 3) detachably secured to the tongue of a boat trailer by “the combination of the base plate 1, load support 9, lower base plate 10, and bolts [which] essentially ‘box in’ trailer tongue 24”, (col. 3, lines 61-64, figs. 6, 7, and 9). However, in Fair’s assembly the stair extension is rotatably coupled to the stationary portion, and not to the connection bracket.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach the ladder assembly of claim 8 wherein the connection bracket is also coupled to the boat trailer mounting assembly which comprises a bracket assembly that allows adjusting an angle and/or position of the ladder assembly with respect to the boat trailer when mounting the ladder assembly to the boat trailer. Although Jensen, as the closest reference, recites “ladder assembly 10 is movable up and down the trailer tongue 31 for optimal positioning in order for the user to easily access the boat bow 12” (¶[0025]), Jensen does not recite adjusting the angle of the ladder assembly. Easy Step, on the first page, shows apertures for adjusting the angle of the ladder assembly with respect to the boat and trailer, but Easy Step lacks rotatable coupling of ladder portions as recited among limitations of base claim 1.
Regarding claim 11 and dependent claim 12, the prior art does not teach or suggest the ladder assembly of claim 1 comprising at least one bend along the length of the support arm of the stair extension portion. The ladder system of Loeber, as presented above relevant to claim 3, as well as the ladder assembly of Easy Step comprise upper and lower portions positioned perpendicular with respect to each other. However, the relative positioning of the two portions is achieved by mounting each portion orthogonal to the other, and not by one or more bends along a common support member.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach the method of claim 13 further comprising positioning the ladder assembly with respect to the boat and boat trailer by adjusting an angular position of a mounting bracket for securing the ladder assembly to the location on the boat trailer. The closest reference, Easy Step, shows a boat trailer ladder assembly on the first page wherein the flange of an essentially vertical member supporting the steps comprises apertures for adjusting the angular position of the ladder assembly with respect to the boat and trailer. However, the ladder assembly disclosed by Easy Step is a static assembly, lacking a rotatably attached lower portion that can be released or stowed, as recited among claim 13 limitations.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art does not teach the method of claim 13 wherein the ladder extension rotates downwardly to a side of the main ladder body such that steps of the ladder extension extend vertically in a first direction and steps of the main ladder body extend vertically in a second direction different from the first direction. Easy Step shows a boat trailer ladder assembly on the second page wherein a lower portion positioned under the trailer tongue extends vertically in a first direction and an upper portion above the trailer tongue extends vertically in a second and different direction. However, both upper and lower portions of the Easy Step ladder assembly are fixed in their positions, thus not anticipating limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not teach the method of claim 13 further comprising actuating the ladder extension mechanism to raise the ladder extension portion from a position located at an upper end of the ladder assembly or from a position located at a lower end of the ladder assembly. The closest reference, Hedley, as applied to claim 5 above, recites a second mechanism (Hedley, second end 27 of the second ladder member 22, fig. 3b) for actuating the ladder extension mechanism to raise the ladder extension portion from a position located at a lower end of the ladder assembly. However, the reference is silent regarding actuation of the ladder extension mechanism for raising the ladder extension portion from a position located at an upper end of the ladder assembly.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not teach the method of claim 17 wherein a same mechanism is located at the upper end of the ladder assembly for alternately releasing the ladder extension mechanism and actuating the ladder extension mechanism for moving the ladder extension between a deployed and a stowed position via the same mechanism. The closest reference, Hedley, as applied to claim 4 above, recites a mechanism (foot pedal 38 and handle 41 of lever 36) located at the upper end of the ladder assembly for lowering the ladder extension portion (ladder member 22). However, the reference is silent regarding alternate actuation of the same mechanism for reverting the ladder extension portion to a stowed position.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not teach the method of claim 18 on which claim 19 depends. However, Hedley as applied to claim 5 above, teaches a second, distinct mechanism (second end 27 of the second ladder member 22) is provided at the lower end of the ladder assembly for actuating the ladder extension mechanism to raise the ladder extension and wherein actuating the ladder extension comprises applying force to the second mechanism from one or more directions (see retraction of Hedley access device 20 from access position to storage position in claim 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional art of record relates to ladder and step devices having features relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD OMID NEYZARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9530. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
/MOHAMMAD OMID NEYZARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights