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 .
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 2-20 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 2 and 14, the term "- like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) includes an element not actually disclosed (encompassed by "- like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For claim 7, it is unclear whether or not the “a platform step” is part of “the at least one platform step” claimed previously. For claims 8-12 and 15-18, it is unclear which platform step is being referred to, since plural steps have been claimed previously. Regarding claim 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogna et al (FR578,558). Rogna teaches a bench step device that provides a user with a bench step for locker rooms and retail stores for putting on shoes (Figs. 1 & 4), the bench step device comprising: a body component (a); a plurality of legs (1); and at least one platform step (b); wherein one of the plurality of legs is secured to each corner of the body component (Fig. 1); and further wherein the at least one platform step is secured to a side of the body component (via hinge f-h) and extends out from the body component (Fig. 1), allowing a user to place their foot on the at least one platform step to lace their shoe while standing (Fig. 4; person who’s foot is on the step). Note: since Rogna teaches the structural limitations of the device, the intended use would inherently be capable of being performed. Wherein the body component is configured in a rectangular, table-like shape (Fig. 2). Wherein the body component comprises a top surface (2), a bottom surface (3), opposing side edges (4) and opposing front and back edges (5). Wherein a tabletop component (6) is secured to the top surface of the body component capable of supporting shoes and shoeboxes. Wherein the plurality of legs are attached to and depend downwardly from the bottom surface of the body component to touch a floor or other ground surface (Fig. 1). Wherein the at least one platform step is secured to one of the opposing side edges of the body component via a sliding hinge (f-h).
PNG
media_image1.png
780
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 7-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogna et al (FR578,558) in view of Liu (CN113508990). As stated above, Rogna teaches the limitations of claims 1-6, including a platform step secured to a side edge of the body component. For claim 7, Rogna fails to teach an opposing platform step secured to the opposing side edge. Liu teaches a body having platforms (4) pivotably attached to opposing sides thereof (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bench step device of Rogna by adding an opposing platform step on the opposing side edge of the body component, such as is taught by Liu, to provide an additional location for a foot adjacent the body component. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
For claim 8, Rogna in view of Liu further teaches that the platform step is dimensioned to fit between the plurality of legs of the body component (Fig. 3 of Rogna).
For claim 9, Rogna in view of Liu further teaches that the platform step can expand or retract from the body component (Figs. 1 & 3 of Rogna).
For claim 10, Rogna in view of Liu further teaches that in a retracted position, the platform step rests under the body component and is flush with the plurality of legs of the body component (Fig. 3 of Rogna).
For claim 11, Rogna in view of Liu further teaches that in an expanded position, the platform step extends laterally outwardly of the body component at a selected location above the plurality of legs, such that a shoe placed upon the platform step will be within reach of a user standing nearby (Fig. 4 of Rogna).
For claim 12, Rogna in view of Liu further teaches that the platform step can be expanded and retracted via manual or automated means.
For claim 20, Rogna in view of Liu further teaches the method of easily applying and securing footwear while standing up, the method comprising the following steps: providing a bench step device comprising a body component (a) with legs (1) and a pair of platform steps (b, modified) that slide out from the opposing sides (via f-h); positioning the body component on its legs, such as a table (6); expanding the pair of platform steps out from the body component (Fig. 1 of Rogna, modified); securing the pair of platform steps in an expanded position via the sliding hinges (f-h; Fig. 1); and placing a user’s foot on the expanded platform steps to put on and secure a shoe without sitting down (Fig. 4; foot only person shown could be standing and securing the shoe and person sitting could help also in a standing position).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogna et al (FR578,558) in view of Liu (CN113508990) as applied to claims 7-12 above, and further in view of KR20230002245. As stated above, Rogna in view of Liu teaches the limitations of claims 1-12, including a bench step device (Fig. 1 of Rogna) that provides a user with a bench step for locker rooms and retail stores for putting on shoes, the bench step device comprising: a body component (a) configured in a rectangular, table-like shape, with a top surface (2), a bottom surface (3) , opposing side edges (4) and opposing front and back edges (5); a plurality of legs (1) attached to and depending downwardly from the bottom surface of the body component to touch a floor or other ground surface; and a pair of platform steps (b, modified); wherein one of the plurality of legs is secured to each corner of the body component (Fig. 1 of Rogna); wherein a tabletop component (6) is secured to the top surface of the body component for supporting shoes and shoeboxes; wherein a single platform step from the pair of platform steps is secured to each of the opposing side edges of the body component via a sliding hinge (f-h); wherein the platform step can expand or retract from the body component (Figs. 1 & 3), allowing a user to place their foot on the single platform step to lace their shoe while standing (Fig. 4; foot only person shown could be standing and securing the shoe and person sitting could help also in a standing position). For claims 13 and 14, Rogna in view of Liu fails to teach that a forward-facing side of each platform step has a sandpaper surface for traction. KR’245 teaches a standing on surface (100) having an anti-slip/sandpaper pad (see DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS section in the English translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bench step device of Rogna in view of Liu by adding an anti-slip/sandpaper pad, such as is taught by KR-245, on the steps, to prevent one’s foot from slipping thereon.
For claim 15, Rogna in view of Liu and KR’245 further teaches that in a retracted position, the platform step rests under the body component and is flush with the plurality of legs of the body component (Fig. 3 of Rogna).
For claim 16, Rogna in view of Liu and KR’245 further teaches that in an expanded position, the platform step extends laterally outwardly of the body component at a selected location above the plurality of legs, such that a shoe placed upon the platform step will be within reach of a user standing nearby (Fig. 4 of Rogna).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogna et al (FR578,558) in view of Liu (CN113508990) and KR20230002245 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Rafii (WO2016133744) and Gomes (2019/0168674). As stated above, Rogna in view of Liu and KR’245 teaches the limitations of claim 14, including platform steps. The steps each include a leg (d). For claim 17, Rogna in view of Liu and KR’245 fails to teach an elongated narrow plastic strip is affixed horizontally to a lower end portion of the platform step. Rafii teaches a narrow plastic strip (723; paragraph 0031) affixed horizontally to a lower end portion of a leg (Fig. 11A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of Rogna in view of Liu and KR’245 by adding an elongated narrow plastic strip, such as is taught by Rafii, on the lower leg portions of the steps, for anti-movement reasons and to protect the surface on which the steps rest. Also for claim 17, Rogna in view of Liu and KR’245 fails to teach that a forward-facing side of the platform step comprises a rectangular rubber pad which adds traction. Gomes teaches a rectangular rubber pad (16a,b) used for traction purposes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of Rogna in view of Liu and KR’245 by adding a rectangular rubber pad, such as is taught by Gomes, on the forward-facing side of the platform step, for added traction purposes.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogna et al (FR578,558) in view of Liu (CN113508990) and KR20230002245 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Low (5,094,515). As stated above, Rogna in view of Liu and KR’245 teaches the limitations of claim 14, including platform steps. For claim 18, Rogna in view of Liu and KR’245 fails to teach a handle on a forward-facing side of the platform step. Low teaches a handle (24) on a platform/step (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of Rogna in view of Liu and KR’245 by adding a handle, such as is taught by Low, on the a forward facing portion of the steps, to aid in the retraction and extension of the steps.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogna et al (FR578,558) in view of Liu (CN113508990) and KR20230002245 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Rezayi (2022/0296076). As stated above, Rogna in view of Liu and KR’245 teaches the limitations of claim 14, including platform steps. For claim 19, Rogna in view of Liu and KR’245 fails to teach a plurality of indicia. Rezayi teaches foot indicia (48) on a platform/step (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of Rogna in view of Liu and KR’245 by adding feet indicia thereon, such as is taught by Rezayi, to show the optimum location for the foot/feet on the steps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST.
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.
Wilkens
February 22, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637