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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites the step of "forming a mounting portion configured to be attached to a ladder." However, the specification does not describe how to form the mounting portion, nor does it provide sufficient detail regarding the process or method of forming the mounting portion. The written description requirement is not met because the specification does not reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of the method step of "forming a mounting portion" as of the filing date. See MPEP 2163.02. Merely reciting that a mounting portion is "formed" or "provided" is insufficient to support the claimed method step.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higgins (US 3455414 A).
Claim 1- Higgins discloses a retractable extension device for fixed ladders, comprising:
a mounting portion (26);
a sleeve (24) coupled to the mounting portion;
a post (extension member 30) slidably mounted within the sleeve;
a locking mechanism (36; see Figures 3 and 4); and
an anchor point (handle 32) coupled to the post; this anchor point serves as a robust structural feature designed to be grasped by a user for support when mounting or dismounting the ladder. The handle is fully capable of functioning as an "anchor point" as recited in claim 1, and is inherently capable of being coupled to a safety harness, for example by attaching a carabiner, lanyard, or similar connector, thereby providing a means for fall protection. Therefore, all limitations of claim 1 are met by Higgins.
Claim 10- Higgins discloses the structure of the retractable extension device as explained above, which when assembled, is structurally identical to the device recited in the method claim.
Where the prior art device is identical or substantially identical to that resulting from the claimed method, and the prior art reference describes the assembly or construction of that device, the method steps are inherently disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2131, § 2112; In re King, 801 F.2d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the method of claim 10 is anticipated by Higgins, as the reference teaches or enables the same steps necessary to make the disclosed device.
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 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 3455414 A) alone.
Higgins is discussed above and shows a locking channel; however, the channel is located in the sleeve and not the post.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Higgins, to form the locking channel in the post (rather than in the sleeve/guide as in Higgins), and to have the locking mechanism engage the channel in the post, as a matter of design choice. The reversal of the slot/key arrangement is a simple reverse of parts modification that yields no new or unexpected result, and both arrangements perform the same locking function for securing the extension member. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 3455414 A) in view of Lazarus (US 2005/0023084 A1).
Claim 1 and 10- Higgins discloses a retractable extension device for fixed ladders, comprising:
a mounting portion (26);
a sleeve (24) coupled to the mounting portion;
a post (extension member 30) slidably mounted within the sleeve;
a locking mechanism (36; see Figures 3 and 4); and
an anchor point (handle 32) coupled to the post.
Higgins does not explicitly state that the anchor point/handle is configured to be coupled to a safety harness.
Lazarus teaches that handles (52) on a ladder safety device may serve as connection points for a harness worn by a user, to prevent the user from falling off the ladder (see Lazarus, [0037], Fig. 11).
If it is determined that the handle of Higgins is not inherently capable of being coupled to a safety harness—and thus does not fully meet the "anchor point" limitation—then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the retractable extension of Higgins to include, or to configure (e.g., to use) the handle as an anchor point, for a safety harness, as taught by Lazarus, in order to enhance user safety and prevent falls while using the existing retractable extension structure.
Claims 4 and 12- Higgins is discussed above and shows a locking channel; however, the channel is located in the sleeve and not the post.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Higgins, to form the locking channel in the post (rather than in the sleeve/guide as in Higgins), and to have the locking mechanism engage the channel in the post, as a matter of design choice. The reversal of the slot/key arrangement is a simple reverse of parts modification that yields no new or unexpected result, and both arrangements perform the same locking function for securing the extension member. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 3455414 A) in view of Taylor (US 6254305) or alternatively, Higgins in view of Lazarus, and in further view of Macyszyn (US 5542497).
Higgins (and the combination of Higgins and Lazarus) is discussed above, but does not show a removable safety pin to prevent the post from moving.
Macyszyn teaches a ladder adjusting mechanism that uses a safety pin (72) in conjunction with a primary locking mechanism, where the safety pin functions as a secondary safety device to prevent unintended movement of a telescoping member in the event of inadvertent release.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higgins (and the combination of Higgins and Lazarus) to include the removable safety pin as taught by Macyszyn in order to provide a backup mechanical restraint against accidental movement of the post as this is a well known safety technique in the art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 3455414 A) in view of Taylor (US 6254305) or alternatively, Higgins in view of Lazarus, and in further view of Taylor (US 6254305).
Higgins (and the combination of Higgins and Lazarus) is discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose a hexagonal cross-section. Higgins does disclose that the cross-section can be "of any suitable configuration" (see paragraph bridging columns 2-3).
Taylor explicitly teaches inner and outer telescoping sleeves (18, 38; see Figure 1), the inner sleeve is preferably hexagonal in cross-section (hexagonal shape shown in Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the extension member and sleeve of Higgins to have a hexagonal cross-section, as taught by Taylor, in order to prevent relative rotation and/or to increase structural rigidity.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 3455414 A) in view of Spencer (US 2024/0295146) or alternatively, Higgins in view of Lazarus, and in further view of Spencer (US 2024/0295146).
Higgins is discussed above but does not show a handle hingedly coupled to the sleeve.
Spencer teaches a ladder stabilizing apparatus with a leg lock comprising a pawl (locking portion) that is pivotably (hingedly) connected to the rail mount (sleeve) and operated by a user-actuated handle. The pawl is sized and shaped to fit within a ratchet rack (locking channel) on the retractable leg (see, e.g., [0094]–[0096], Figs. 11A–12B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the locking mechanism of Higgins to include a handle hingedly coupled to the sleeve and a locking portion sized and shaped to fit within a locking channel, as taught by Spencer, in order to provide convenient and reliable locking and unlocking of the retractable member.
Claims 6-9 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 3455414 A) in view of Vander Koy et al. (US 6139235) or alternatively, Higgins in view of Lazarus, and in further view of Vander Koy et al. (US 6139235).
Claims 6 and 14- Higgins is discussed above and shows a retractable anchor device with a post and a mounting portion but does not disclose an anchor point comprising a U-bolt.
Vander Koy et al. teaches a tie-down bracket and lock bar assembly in which a U-bolt (32) is used as an anchor point.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anchor point of Higgins (or the combination of Higgins and Lazarus) to include a U-bolt, as taught by Vander Koy, in order to provide a robust, reliable attachment structure for securing a safety device or locking member.
Claims 7 and 15- As set forth in claim 6, Vander Koy teaches a U-bolt serving as an anchor point. While Vander Koy describes the U-bolt as a separate component, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrally form the U-bolt with the post (for example, by welding or forming as a single piece), as such a modification is a routine engineering practice that reduces part count, increases strength, and simplifies assembly.
Claims 8 and 16: Higgins, as modified by Vander Koy (see rejection of claim 6), teaches providing a U-bolt as an anchor point. Vander Koy further teaches a U-bolt (U-shaped tie-down member 32) with two leg portions (34) that extend through a structure (base plate/platform) and are secured by two nuts (40) threaded onto the respective legs (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the anchor point of Higgins (as modified) such that the U-bolt legs extend through the post and are secured by nuts, as taught by Vander Koy, to provide a secure and adjustable attachment.
Claims 9 and 17: Vander Koy teaches a tie-down bracket in which a pair of base plates (26) are positioned on opposite sides of a platform (“the platform 12 will be sandwiched between the plates 26”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this arrangement to the post of Higgins (as modified per claim 8), such that one supporting plate is disposed along an inner surface of the post and a second supporting plate is disposed on an outer surface opposite the first, thereby sandwiching the post between the plates to increase the structural integrity and securement of the anchor point.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lorentz (US 5931258) shows a similar extendable safety post for manhole ladders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DUNN whose telephone number is (571)272-6670. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights