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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 10, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: “16” indicating cross member.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The verb "widen" is improperly used on line 9 of page 4. In comparison with a similarly structured statement on line 14 of page 2 reciting “mutually narrow pitch”, the examiner has understood the term as “wide”, contributing to the excerpt: “mutually wide pitch”.
The word “centerline” is misspelled as “centreline” on lines 4, 7, and 12 of page 4.
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, 8, and 16 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recite “each fixing counter-plate being arranged on a side opposite to the coupling portion of the corresponding upright”. Examiner has inferred from the figures that the fixing counter-plate and the coupling portion are on opposite sides of the vehicle spar. However, the claims make no reference to the spar in establishing a point of reference, and are therefore unclear. In fact, the claims contradict the figures which show the fixing counter-plate and the coupling portion on the same side of the corresponding upright. For example, figure 8 clearly shows fixing counter-plate 64 and coupling portion 24 both positioned on the right side of the upright 8 along the transverse direction.
Claim 8 recites coupling portions that are “partially elastically flexible in the vertical direction”. Neither the claim nor the specifications offer any insight as to whether “partially elastically flexible” means certain parts of the coupling portions are flexible or each coupling portion is allowed limited movement in the vertical direction when its counterpart is secured in place. The examiner has understood the claim’s intended meaning as the latter.
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.
Claims 1-11, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeber (US 5,064,023 A) and further in view of Heath (US 5,947,424 A).
Regarding claim 1, Loeber discloses a ladder (flexible ladder portion 30, figs. 1, 3, and 4, col. 3, lines 35-52) comprising:
a pair of uprights (strut members 40 and 42, fig. 4), directed along a prevailing vertical direction (strut members are in “vertical planes”, col. 4, lines 5-10);
said uprights being connected to each other by at least one cross member (step 46, fig. 4), perpendicular to the uprights, directed along a transverse direction, perpendicular to said vertical direction, said cross member acting as a step of the ladder (step 46 shown along a transverse direction and perpendicular to strut members 40 and 42 in fig. 4, and recited as a “step”, col. 4, lines 24-32);
wherein the uprights comprise coupling portions at upper fixing ends (upper ends 40A and 42A, fig. 4, col. 4, lines 53-61).
Loeber does not recite coupling portions with horizontal planes, a vertical joining rib, and fixing counter-plates. Heath teaches a support assembly (fig. 8, col. 1, lines 41-51) comprising coupling portions (clamp 16, fig. 8, col. 2, lines 44-59) having two horizontal planes (16a and 16b in annotated fig. 8 below) and a vertical joining rib (16c, annotated fig. 8), to overall have a “C” shape (the assembly is recited to comprise a “C-type” clamp, col. 1, lines 6-8) and a fixing counter-plate (substantially rectangular strap 26, figs. 1, 2, and 4, col. 2, lines 61-63).
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 support assembly from Heath with the ladder disclosed by Loeber. The motivation would have been to prevent separation of the ladder from supporting structure should a fastener become loose because of the effects of vibration and gravity (Heath, col. 1, lines 16-37). In one aspect, a skilled artisan may utilize a pair of Heath’s support assemblies, one for each strut member of Loeber’s ladder. The combination would predictably achieve the desired result of a ladder further comprising a pair of fixing counter-plates (a pair of Heath’s straps 26), each fixing counter-plate being arranged on a side opposite to the coupling portion of the corresponding upright (Heath strap 26 arranged on clamp 16 proximate upper end 40A of Loeber strut member 40 and likewise on upper end 42A of strut member 42); and
each fixing counter-plate (strap 26) being removably fixed to the upper fixing end (upper end 40A and 42A) of the corresponding upright (strut member 40 and 42), by one or more removable connectors (Heath, screw 22, fig. 8, col. 2, lines 49-51).
PNG
media_image1.png
695
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 1, wherein each fixing counter-plate (strap 26) comprises a folded portion configured to couple to a spar of a vehicle (Heath: “strap 26 is bent over the opposite edge 29 of the beam 12”, fig. 8, col. 4, lines 48-50; Heath’s beam 12 matches applicant’s preferred form of a spar recited in the specifications as having IPE or ‘I’ sections, page 3, lines 25-29).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 2, wherein the coupling portion (clamp 16) and the fixing counter-plate (strap 26) are locked on each upright (strut members 40 and 42) on opposite sides along the transverse direction to create a bilateral axial constraint with the spar, with respect to said transverse direction (bilateral axial constraint resulting from affixing Heath’s clamp 16 to one side of the flange of beam 12 and the bent portion of strap 26 to the opposite side of the flange in the transverse direction).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 2, wherein the folded portion extends parallel to the horizontal planes of the coupling portions (annotated fig. 8 shows folded portion of Heath’s strap 26, designated 42, parallel to horizontal planes 16a and 16b).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 1, wherein the one or more removable connectors comprise screws (Heath: “clamp 16 is typically attached to the beam 12 with a set screw 22”, col. 2, lines 49-50), pins or bolts which are inserted into adjustment holes on the fixing counter-plate (strap 26) and aligned with corresponding through holes (Heath: “strap may either have a hole or a slot on one end which is attached to the hanger rod or clamp set screw”, col. 1, lines 28-30) on the upper fixing end (upper end 40A and 42A) of the uprights (strut member 40 and 42).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 5, wherein said adjustment holes are slotted (Heath: “strap may either have a hole or a slot on one end which is attached to the hanger rod or clamp set screw”, col. 1, lines 28-30).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 1, wherein said coupling portions are shaped to engage with a spar of a floor of an associable vehicle (Heath fig. 8 shows clamp 16 shaped to engage with beam 12; more specifically, fig. 1 shows flange 14 of beam 12 embraced by horizontal planes and vertical joining rib of clamp 16).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 1, wherein said coupling portions are at least partially elastically flexible in the vertical direction, to allow coupling to a spar of a floor of an associable vehicle (each clamp 16 is allowed limited movement in the vertical direction when its counterpart is secured to beam 12 primarily because of the flexibility of the ladder as recited by Loeber: “Each of the strut members is formed of a tough, flexible material”, col. 1, lines 42-43; see examiner’s understanding of “partially elastically flexible” under 35 USC § 112 rejection of claim 8 above) .
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 1, wherein said coupling portions are arranged symmetrically with respect to a centerline plane of the ladder, perpendicular to said transverse direction (the combination as applied in claim 1 comprises combining a support assembly of Heath with each strut member of Loeber, resulting in a pair of clamps 16 arranged symmetrically with respect to a centerline plane of the ladder 30).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 9, wherein said coupling portions are arranged to have respective vertical joining ribs in an external position, on an opposite side of the centerline plane, with respect to the corresponding uprights (an embodiment of the combination formed by positioning each clamp 16 on the exterior side of beam 12 in the transverse direction with respect to the web of the beam; more specifically, positioning the support assembly on the right side of the centerline plane of the ladder as shown in fig. 8 and the left side as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 9, wherein said coupling portions are arranged to have respective vertical joining ribs in an internal position, on a same side of the centerline plane, with respect to the corresponding uprights (an embodiment of the combination formed by positioning each clamp 16 on the interior side of beam 12 in the transverse direction with respect to the web of the beam; more specifically, positioning the support assembly on the right side of the centerline plane of the ladder as shown in fig. 1 and the left side as shown in fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 1, wherein said uprights are at least partially elastically flexible, in the transverse direction, to allow elastic spreading or squeezing of the coupling portions along said transverse direction (strut members 40 and 42 are allowed limited movement in the transverse direction because of the flexibility of the ladder as recited by Loeber: “Each of the strut members is formed of a tough, flexible material”, col. 1, lines 42-43).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches a method of assembling a ladder, comprising:
providing a ladder (Loeber, flexible ladder portion 30, figs. 1, 3, and 4, col. 3, lines 35-52) comprising:
a pair of uprights (Loeber, strut members 40 and 42, fig. 4), directed along a prevailing vertical direction (Loeber: strut members are in “vertical planes”, col. 4, lines 5-10),
said uprights being connected to each other by at least one cross member (Loeber, step 46, fig. 4), perpendicular to the uprights, directed along a transverse direction, perpendicular to said vertical direction, said cross member acting as a step of the ladder (Loeber step 46 shown along a transverse direction and perpendicular to strut members 40 and 42 in fig. 4, and recited as a “step”, col. 4, lines 24-32),
wherein the uprights comprise coupling portions (Heath, clamp 16, fig. 8, col. 2, lines 44-59) at upper fixing ends (Loeber, upper ends 40A and 42A, fig. 4, col. 4, lines 53-61),
said coupling portions having two horizontal planes (16a and 16b in annotated fig. 8) and a vertical joining rib (16c, annotated fig. 8), to overall have a C shape (Heath support assembly is recited to comprise a “C-type” clamp, col. 1, lines 6-8), and
wherein the ladder further comprises a pair of fixing counter-plates (Heath, pair of substantially rectangular straps 26, figs. 1, 2, and 4, col. 2, lines 61-63), each fixing counter-plate being arranged on a side opposite to the coupling portion of the corresponding upright (Heath strap 26 arranged on clamp 16 proximate upper end 40A of Loeber strut member 40 and likewise on upper end 42A of strut member 42), and
each fixing counter-plate (Heath, strap 26) being removably fixed to the upper fixing end (Loeber, upper end 40A and 42A) of the corresponding upright (Loeber, strut member 40 and 42), by one or more removable connectors (Heath, screw 22, fig. 8, col. 2, lines 49-51);
providing a vehicle (Loeber, machine 10, fig. 1, col. 3, lines 11-12) having a floor and a plurality of spars parallel to each other;
juxtaposing said ladder to the spars, so as to engage each of said coupling portions to a corresponding spar (engaging a pair of clamps 16 of Heath attached to ladder 30 of Loeber with beams 12);
coupling folded portions of the fixing counter-plates to respective cantilevered ends of a lower and/or upper transverse base of the spar (Heath: “strap 26 is bent over the opposite edge 29 of the beam 12”, fig. 8, col. 4, lines 48-50); and
locking the fixing counter-plates to the upper fixing ends of the uprights by the one or more removable connectors (Heath: “clamp 16 is typically attached to the beam 12 with a set screw 22”, col. 2, lines 49-50).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 1, wherein each fixing counter-plate comprises a folded portion configured to couple to a cantilevered end of a lower and/or upper transverse base of a spar of a vehicle, on the opposite side with respect to the corresponding coupling portion (Heath: “strap 26 is bent over the opposite edge 29 of the beam 12”, fig. 8, col. 4, lines 48-50).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 17, wherein the coupling portion and the fixing counter-plate are locked on each upright on opposite sides along the transverse direction to create a bilateral axial constraint with the spar, with respect to said transverse direction (bilateral axial constraint resulting from affixing Heath’s clamp 16 to one side of the flange of beam 12 and the bent portion of strap 26 to the opposite side of the flange in the transverse direction).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 17, wherein the folded portion extends parallel to the horizontal planes of the coupling portions (annotated fig. 8 shows folded portion of Heath’s strap 26, designated 42, parallel to horizontal planes 16a and 16b).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeber and Heath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haberle (US 3,008,533 A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 1 but does not recite a fixing hole on the vertical joining rib. Haberle discloses a step assembly (numeral 15, fig. 1, col. 1, lines 46-51) comprising a pair of brackets (carrier 23, fig. 5, cols. 1-2, lines 66-1) wherein a fixing hole (opening 41, fig. 5) is arranged on the vertical joining rib (vertically disposed second section 25, fig. 5). 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 opening from Haberle with the combination disclosed by Loeber and Heath. The motivation would have been to utilize the opening in conjunction with a pin in order to maintain the bracket in a stationary position (Haberle, col. 2, lines 46-49). The combination would predictably achieve the desired result.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeber and Heath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jackson (US 2021/0199272 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 1, but does not recite a horizontal plane comprising a recess. Jackson discloses a support bracket (numeral 100, figs. 1-3, ¶[0030]) for I-beams, comprising a horizontal plane (horizontal portion 204, figs. 2a and 3) with a recess (cutout 206, fig. 2a). 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 recess recited by Jackson with the combination disclosed by Loeber and Heath. The motivation would have been to allow the bracket to slide over the flanges of an I-beam, without interfering with the web of the beam (Jackson, ¶[0033], figs. 5-6). The combination would predictably achieve the desired result.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeber and Heath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leus et al. (EP 2650990 A1), hereinafter “Leus”.
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the ladder of claim 1, but does not recite the ladder comprising hot galvanized carbon steel. Leus teaches a cable ladder (fig. 1, ¶[0001]) constructed of hot dip galvanized carbon steel (¶[0006]). 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, hot galvanized carbon steel as disclosed by Leus for the material of the ladder disclosed by Loeber. The motivation would have been to “combine the properties of high mechanical strength with usually adequate corrosion resistance” while keeping the cost low (Leus, ¶¶[0002]-[0008]). The combination would predictably achieve the desired results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional art of record relates to ladders and support fixtures 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