Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is the first office action on the merits for application serial number 18/979,296 filed 12/24/24. Claims 1-21 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ election without traverse of the species of Figures 1-2 in the reply filed on 9/25/26 is acknowledged. Claims 9-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/07/25, 3/11/26 and 6/18/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 cylindrical slots and projections [cl. 8] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. See 112(b) rejection below.
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.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The projections and slots are not cylindrical. At best, they are partially cylindrical or rounded. By definition a cylinder is a fixed planar closed circular curve.
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 1-2, 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 9,850,706 to Astor et al.
In figures 5, 6 and 10, Astor provides a ladder 100 comprising:
a ladder top 11 with one or more receiving slots 8a/b, the ladder top configured to be securely coupled to rails 25 of a step ladder 100; a bucket or “an extension body” 9 including an elongate recess (the top opening 103 of the bucket) and one or more attachment protrusions 3a/b, the one or more attachment protrusions of the extension body being configured to engage with the one or more receiving slots of the ladder top to secure the extension body to the ladder top. Alternatively, the arcuate slots shown at the top of the sidewalls of bucket 9 may be considered an elongate recess capable of receiving and supporting an electronic device.
With respect to claim 2, the bucket is inherently configured to receive and support an electronic device as it is designed to be filled with tools and materials. Broadly speaking an electronic device is a tool.
With respect to claims 4-7, Figure 6 shows a flange externing from the rear wall away from the ladder to 11 and a top surface 101 substantially coplanar with the upper surface of the ladder top 11 in plane105. The bucket inherently meets the limitation of a tray for supporting one or more items (see col.2, lines 50-56).
With respect to claim 8, the protrusions and slots are tapered cylinders to the same extent as applicants are described in [0021] of the specification.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,850,706 to Astor et al.
Astor provides each of the elements of the claim as noted above except that a rear surface of the recess is tapered in a range of about 5-10 degrees.
The figures of Astor show the front and rear walls are tapered but fails to specify to what degree.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have tapered the walls in a range of about 5-10 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would have been no unexpected or unpredictable results obtained selecting a taper within the claimed range and it is viewed an obvious choice of design.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,850,706 to Astor et al. in view of U.S. Patent 7,264,084 to Switzer.
Astor provides each of the elements of the claim as noted above except for providing the extension body with a plug holder.
Switzer teaches at the time of the effective filing date of the invention it was known to provide tray for attachment to step ladder with an electrical outlet or “plug holder” 26.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to the invention that the extension bucket/tray 9 of Astor could have been provide with a plug holder as taught by Switzer at 26 to deliver electricity to any electrical tools/devices and allow the user to alternate between different tools without having to climb down the ladder multiple times (col. 3, lns. 52-63 of Switzer).
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of delivering electricity to any electrical tools/devices and allow the user to alternate between different tools without having to climb down the ladder multiple times (col. 3, lns. 52-63 of Switzer).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note:
U.S. 2021/0246725 to Wernberg et al. provides a ladder 100 comprising:
a ladder top 150with one or more receiving slots 155, the ladder top configured to be securely coupled to rails 110 of a step ladder; a try “an extension body” 200 including an elongate recess (the top opening of the tray) and one or more attachment protrusions 250, the one or more attachment protrusions of the extension body being configured to engage with the one or more receiving slots of the ladder top to secure the extension body to the ladder top. Wernberg appears to meet at least claim 1 but has not been applied to avoid undue multiple rejections as Wenberg does not appear to provide anything not already provided by Astor et al. above.
U.S. Patent 5,419,409 to Corulla teaches adding an electrical plug 24 to the top of a step ladder.
U.S. Patent 11,441,356 to Maxfield teaches an accessory 400 for a ladder including a recess 406 for a tablet or phone (last paragraph col. 24).
U.S. Patent 11,986,111 to Kotter teaches a tool organizer which may be attached to scaffold or ladder with a cell phone recess 2.
U.S. Patent 12,017,339 to Kotter teaches a tool organizer which may be attached to scaffold or ladder with a cell phone recess 6.
U.S. 2013/0058026 to Chang et al. teaches a recess 24 for an electronic device 20.
U.S. 2022/0205323 to Isgar teaches adding a tool kit 40 to the top of a step ladder the kit having a slot 34 for an electronic device 80 [0020].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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 571-272-6670. 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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
