Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The merits of the claim have been carefully reconsidered in light of the applicant’s response received 8 September 2025; however, the 35 USC 112 rejection has not been overcome. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous drawing objections related to rendering issues; however, inconsistencies remain or have been newly created by applicant’s response. As such, the previous rejection is repeated and made final.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to for the following.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.1026 and MPEP 2909.02 § 405 (a); the numbering stipulated for multiple international applications shall appear in the margin of each photograph or other graphic representation. When the same industrial design is represented from different angles, the numbering shall consist of two separate figures separated by a dot (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. for the first design, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. for the second design, and so on) and the figure numbering appearing in the published international registration should be preserved during prosecution of the nonprovisional international design application before the USPTO. In view of this, the labeling of the amended reproductions is objected to. The Figures must be relabeled as follows:
FIG. 1: Figure 1.1
FIG. 2: Figure 1.2
FIG. 3: Figure 1.3
FIG. 4: Figure 1.4
FIG. 5: Figure 1.5
FIG. 6: Figure 1.6
FIG. 7: Figure 1.7
FIG. 8: Figure 1.8
FIG. 9: Figure 1.9
FIG. 10: Figure 1.10
FIG. 11: Figure 1.11
FIG. 12: Figure 1.12
FIG. 13: Figure 1.13
FIG. 14: Figure 1.14
The drawings must be properly labeled as noted above.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to for the following.
As it is understood be the examiner that these are not two different ladders, but a single ladder shown in two different positions, these positional changes should be noted within the Fig. descriptions for clarity. For clarity and consistency, the Fig. descriptions should be amended as follows:
--- Fig. 1.1 is a perspective view of the Folding Step Ladder, with the ladder shown in a folded position;
Fig 1.2 is a front view thereof;
Fig 1.3 is a back view thereof;
Fig 1.4 is a right side view thereof;
Fig 1.5 is a left side view thereof;
Fig 1.6 is a top view thereof;
Fig 1.7 is a bottom view thereof;
Fig. 1.8 is a perspective view of the Folding Step Ladder, with the ladder shown in an open position;
Fig 1.9 is a front view thereof;
Fig 1.10 is a back view thereof;
Fig 1.11 is a right side view thereof;
Fig 1.12 is a left side view thereof;
Fig 1.13 is a top view thereof; and,
Fig 1.14 is a bottom view thereof. ---
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejection repeated
The claim is again and finally rejected 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails 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.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling for the following:
The visual disclosure is inadequate such that the appearance and shape or configuration of the design for which protection is sought cannot be determined or understood (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically:
Figs. 3 and 7 (to be relabeled 1.3 and 1.7) show different somewhat triangular indents along the bottom of the ladder’s feet which are not present within Fig. 14 (to be relabeled 1.14). See below:
PNG
media_image1.png
847
1404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is unclear what structure present within Figs. 4, 5, 11, and 12 (to be relabeled 1.4, 1.5, 1.11, and 1.12) corresponds to. See below:
PNG
media_image2.png
702
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The size and extent of the rectangular indent present along the ladder’s hinge appears to differ between Figs 1, 4, and 5 (to be relabeled 1.1 and 1.4 and 1.5) as well as Figs. 8, 11, and 12 (to be relabeled 1.8 and 1.11 and 1.12). See below:
PNG
media_image3.png
1105
1191
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the configuration of the ladder’s hinge appears to differ between views. See below:
PNG
media_image4.png
580
1190
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Because of the unclear disclosure, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled.
To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that applicant submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently. If certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, applicant may remove from the claim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken line and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design.
Summation
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Hague - Reply Reminder
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
Discussion of the Merits of the Application
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below. Telephonic or in person interviews A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner’) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner). The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september- 16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL- 413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below.
Telephonic or In Person Interviews
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner’) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner). The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record’, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO’, available at https:/Awww.uspto. gov/patent/forms/forms- patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below.
Email Communications
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communications is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information.
Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply
Mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY MARGARET PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 to 3:30.
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, Michelle Wilson can be reached on (571)272-7639. 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.
/S.M.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2926
/T Chase NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2926