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 .
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Group A – Figs. 1-3
Group B – Figs. 4-5
Group C – Fig. 6
Group D – Fig. 7
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species such as the use of revolute joints. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1-3 and 11-13 are deemed generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with attorney Ryan Elliott on 6/16/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group A, Figs. 1-3, claims 1-8 and 11-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baxter in US Patent 1496201.
Regarding Claim 1, Baxter teaches an apparatus comprising: a base including at least one moveable component (5) and a clamping component (5b), wherein a portion of the base is shaped to at least partially encompass an upright support (1) of a ladder or scaffolding and the clamping component exerts force on the moveable component to hold the base in a fixed position on the upright support when at least partially encompassed within the base; a stabilizing arm (6); and a joint (5c/5d) coupling the stabilizing arm to the base, wherein the stabilizing arm pivots about at least one axis at the joint (the joint constitutes a “ball and socket joint”).
Regarding Claim 2, Baxter teaches that the stabilizing arm pivots about multiple axes at the joint (a ball and socket joint provides pivoting about multiple axes).
Regarding Claim 11, Baxter teaches a ladder stabilizing system comprising: a ladder having an upright support (1); a ladder stabilizer including: a base including at least one moveable component (5) and a clamping component (5b), wherein a portion of the base is shaped to at least partially encompass the upright support of the ladder and the clamping component exerts force on the moveable component to hold the base in a fixed position on the upright support when at least partially encompassed within the base; a stabilizing arm (6); and a joint (5c/5d)coupling the stabilizing arm to the base, wherein the stabilizing arm pivots about at least one axis at the joint (the joint constitutes a “ball and socket joint”).
Regarding Claim 12, Baxter teaches that the stabilizing arm pivots about multiple axes at the joint (a ball and socket joint provides pivoting about multiple axes).
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.
Claims 3-6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter, as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above in view of Delzer in US Publication 2023/0105661.
Regarding Claims 3-6, Baxter is silent on the details of the joint. Delzer teaches a ball and socket joint attached to a stabilizing arm (20) wherein the joint includes a locking component (11, 12, 13) to hold the stabilizing arm in a fixed position, wherein the joint is a ball joint including a ball (2) and a socket (9), wherein the ball includes indentations (7), and the socket includes raised portions (8) that mate with the indentations, and the locking component is a second clamping component that clamps the socket around the ball and mates the indentations and raised portions, wherein the locking component is a pin or bolt (11). 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 device of Baxter by using a ball and socket joint with indentations and raised portions and a locking component as taught by Delzer in order to allow the user to maintain the position of the arm.
Regarding Claims 13-16, Baxter is silent on the details of the joint. Delzer teaches a ball and socket joint attached to a stabilizing arm (20) wherein the joint includes a locking component (11, 12, 13) to hold the stabilizing arm in a fixed position, wherein the joint is a ball joint including a ball (2) and a socket (9), wherein the ball includes indentations (7), and the socket includes raised portions (8) that mate with the indentations, and the locking component is a second clamping component that clamps the socket around the ball and mates the indentations and raised portions, wherein the locking component is a pin or bolt (11). 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 device of Baxter by using a ball and socket joint with indentations and raised portions and a locking component as taught by Delzer in order to allow the user to maintain the position of the arm.
Claims 3-5, 7, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter, as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above in view of Lacher in US Patent 3691788.
Regarding Claims 3-5 and 7, Baxter is silent on the details of the joint. Lacher teaches a ball and socket joint attached to a stabilizing arm (20) wherein the joint includes a locking component (32/18) to hold the stabilizing arm in a fixed position, wherein the joint is a ball joint including a ball (12) and a socket (14), wherein the ball includes indentations (30), and the socket includes raised portions (28) that mate with the indentations, and the locking component is a second clamping component that clamps the socket around the ball and mates the indentations and raised portions, wherein the locking component is a spring latch (32/18). 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 device of Baxter by using a ball and socket joint with indentations and raised portions and a locking component as taught by Lacher in order to allow the user to maintain the position of the arm.
Regarding Claims 13-15 and 17, Baxter is silent on the details of the joint. Lacher teaches a ball and socket joint attached to a stabilizing arm (20) wherein the joint includes a locking component (32/18) to hold the stabilizing arm in a fixed position, wherein the joint is a ball joint including a ball (12) and a socket (14), wherein the ball includes indentations (30), and the socket includes raised portions (28) that mate with the indentations, and the locking component is a second clamping component that clamps the socket around the ball and mates the indentations and raised portions, wherein the locking component is a spring latch (32/18). 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 device of Baxter by using a ball and socket joint with indentations and raised portions and a locking component as taught by Lacher in order to allow the user to maintain the position of the arm.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above in view of Harris in US Publication 2016/0208554.
Regarding Claim 8, Baxter is silent on the use of a telescopic stabilizing arm. Harris teaches an apparatus including a stabilizing arm (4), the stabilizing arm includes multiple telescopic components (“the segments of the telescoping arm” – see Paragraph 0018) and an arm locking component (13) that locks the telescopic components in different positions, the different positions resulting in the stabilizing arm having a variable length. 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 device of Baxter by using a telescoping arm as taught by Harris in order to allow the user to adjust the arm length.
Regarding Claim 18, Baxter is silent on the use of a telescopic stabilizing arm. Harris teaches an apparatus including a stabilizing arm (4), the stabilizing arm includes multiple telescopic components (“the segments of the telescoping arm” – see Paragraph 0018) and an arm locking component (13) that locks the telescopic components in different positions, the different positions resulting in the stabilizing arm having a variable length. 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 device of Baxter by using a telescoping arm as taught by Harris in order to allow the user to adjust the arm length.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Halloran, Bobek, Varshavsky, Sheffield, Lietz, Brown et al., Tang, Levi et al., and McBride teach ladder stabilizing devices. Mazziotti teaches a ball and socket joint.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah C. Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights