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
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second brackets coupled to the rear rail assembly (claim 6 “one of the front and rear”) and the first and second tracks formed on an inward-facing portion of the front rail (claim 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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(s) mentioned in the description: para. [0010] calls out area 5-5 which is not shown in the drawing. Para. [0011] describes an exploded view which is not shown in the drawings. This list may not be exhaustive, the applicant is encouraged to review drawing items from the specification and confirm that they are present in the figures, no new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 1-9, 16, 17, and 22 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, it is unclear how the first and second positions limit the claim. The first and second position are first claimed as the locations of brackets on the front rail. Then it is later claimed that movement along the tracks, which are on the back rail, between the first position and the second position. It is unclear how movement along the track of the back rails would be considered between the first position and the second position located on the front rails. It appears the claim may be omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the first and second positions of the brackets on the front rails the and the movement of the platform along the tracks so as to be between the two positions.
Regarding claim 16, The first position and the second position lack proper antecedent basis. Also see the rejection above.
Regarding claim 22, a second and a third position are claimed without a first position rendering the claim indefinite.
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.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alim (6,347,687).
Regarding claim 1, Alim discloses a ladder comprising: a front rail (8 and 28) assembly including a first front rail (8) and a second front rail (28) spaced from and opposite the first front rail, a first pair of brackets (unlabeled bracket attaching 48 to 8 and 28) coupled to the front rail assembly at a first position, and a second pair of brackets (unlabeled brackets attaching 100 to 8 and 28) coupled to the front rail assembly at a second position; a rear rail assembly coupled to the front rail assembly at a hinged portion (4 and 24), the rear rail assembly including a first rear rail (32) having a first track (40) and a second rear rail (12) spaced from and opposite the first rear rail, the second rear rail having a second track (20) that is opposite and aligned with the first track; and a platform (44) positioned between the front rail assembly and the rear rail assembly, the platform including a first projection (72) that engages the first track and a second projection (80) that engages the second track, such that the platform is moveable along the first track and the second track between the first position and the second position (as best understood in light off the 112 rejection above the projections are able to move between a first and second position from deployed to stored).
Regarding claim 6, Alim discloses a ladder comprising: a front rail assembly including a first front rail (8) and a second front rail (28) spaced from and opposite the first front rail; a rear rail assembly coupled to the front rail assembly at a hinged portion, the rear rail assembly including a first rear rail (32) and a second rear rail (12) spaced from and opposite the first rear rail; a first pair of brackets (unlabeled bracket attaching 48 to 8 and 28) disposed at a first position along the ladder and a second pair of brackets (unlabeled brackets attaching 100 to 8 and 28) disposed at a second position along the ladder, the first pair of brackets and the second pair of brackets being coupled to the front rail assembly; a first track (40) and a second track (20) extending from the first position to the second position; and a platform positioned between the front rail assembly and the rear rail assembly, the platform (44) including a first projection (72) that engages the first track and a second projection (80) that engages the second track, such that the platform is moveable along the first track and the second track between the first position and the second position (as best understood in light off the 112 rejection above the projections are able to move between a first and second position from deployed to stored).
Regarding claim 7, Alim discloses the second track is spaced from and opposite the first track and the first track and the second track are formed on an inward-facing portion of the front rail assembly or the rear rail assembly (the two tracks 40 and 20 face each other in an inward direction; at least fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Alim discloses a rear rail assembly including a first rear rail (32) having a first track (40) and a second rear rail (32) spaced from and opposite the first rear rail, the second rear rail having a second track (40) that is opposite and aligned with the first track; and a platform (44) including a first projection (72) that engages the first track and a second projection (80) that engages the second track, such that the platform is moveable along the first track and the second track between a first position and a second position on the ladder.
Regarding claim 9, Alim discloses pins that engage the grooves (the pegs 72 and 80 that extend horizontally into the grooves are broadly and reasonably considered pins).
Regarding claim 10, Alim discloses wherein the first track is disposed on an inward-facing portion of the first rear rail and wherein the second track is disposed on an inward-facing portion of the second rear rail (the two tracks 40 and 20 face each other in an inward direction; at least fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Alim discloses the first rear rail includes a first rear inner flange (X in annotated figure below) spaced from a first rear outer flange (Y below) by a first rear web (Z below), the first track (where the peg travels) disposed between the first rear inner flange and the first rear outer flange, and wherein the second rear rail (second rail is a mirror image of the first as described previously) includes a second rear inner flange spaced from a second rear outer flange by a second rear web, the second track disposed between the second rear inner flange and the second rear outer flange.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 14-17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alim (6,347,687) in view of Clough (771,352).
Regarding claims 14-16, Alim discloses the invention as previously described, but lacks specifically disclosing the candy-can shape of the rail.
Clough teaches that it is known to use a candy cane shape with hook and straight portions for the track of a sliding element (see figure 2) in a ladder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a candy cane shaped track with hook and straight portions similar to Clough for the track of Alim, as the shape increases safety by locking the element in a more fixed position of the track and reduce the chance of unwanted movement. It is further noted that replacing one track shape for another would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 17 and 22, Clough teaches hook portions at an angle (fig. 2) to the rail (7) and multiple hooks (fig. 2) which could be designated second and third positions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 11, 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18-21 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL TROY whose telephone number is (571)270-3742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights