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 .
The amendment filled 10/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 2, 6, 8-16, 18, 20, 24-31 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 17 and 32 have been amended. Applicant added new claim 37. Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 7, 17, 19, 21-23 and 32-37 remain pending in the application. Previous 35 USC § 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendments to the claims. However, new 35 USC § 112 rejections have been introduced also as a result of the amendment.
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 17, 19, 21-23 and 37 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 17 currently recites “said main deck having a cutout in an upper surface thereof”; this recitation constitutes new matter because there is no support for this limitation in the specification, the cutout is only mentioned once in the specification, paragraph [0017] line 17, and where it states both, (a) that the cutout is in the extension deck 30, not in the main deck and (b) that the cutout tis in the bottom 34, not an upper surface. Hence, there is not support for the newly amended language in claim 17.
PNG
media_image1.png
156
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 37 is rejected similar to above, due to the “upper surface” limitation.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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 1, 3-5 and 7 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the retractable upper frame is deployed with said rigid work step”; which appears to be a method step of having the retractable upper frame “deployed” with the work step; hence the claim as recited is currently a hybrid apparatus and method claim. Applicant is reminded that a claim can be directed to one statutory category. In the MPEP section 2173.05 (p) ii, under “PRODUCT AND PROCESS IN THE SAME CLAIM” states
PNG
media_image2.png
238
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim will be examined such that the upper frame is deployable with said rigid work step. In other words, a user can deploy the retractable upper frame with the rigid work step.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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 1, 7 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crook, US (2012/0186908) in view of Weston, GB (2479202) in further view of Rosario, US (5547205).
In regards to claim 1 Crook discloses:
A work platform (30) for use in self-propelled aerial work platform apparatus (shown in fig. 2), said work platform comprising a main deck (see annotated drawings), an extension deck (33; fig. 3) slidably supported on said main deck (paragraph [0020]; excerpt below), said extension deck having a floor (inherent), a lower guardrail frame that includes guardrails surrounding the perimeter of said work platform (as shown in fig. 1 on all sides of the work platform and as shown in annotated drawings of fig. 3 below),
PNG
media_image3.png
81
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
528
788
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1 Crook does not disclose a retractable upper frame extendable from a lowered storage position to an elevated safe height position.
Weston teaches a retractable upper frame (20, 80, 52g; fig. 1) that is vertically extendable (between vertically extended position shown in fig. 1, and vertically retracted position shown in fig. 2) from a lowered storage position (position shown in fig. 2), said retractable upper frame being extendable (between configurations shown in fig.1 versus fig. 2), wherein said retractable upper frame is collapsible as a unit (where 20, 80, 52g in aggregate are considered a “single unit” at least according to the definition of “unit” provided below, as obtained from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/unit ) into said lower guardrail frame (to the collapsed configuration as shown in fig. 2 where 22c and 22b equivalent to lower guardrail of Crook; once upper frame is taught onto the guardrail of Crook) in said lowered storage position (fig. 2; Crook) and locks into an elevated safety position above said lower guardrail frame (via unnumbered clamp rings/collars at both ends of 82; fig. 1 that maintains the frame in the configuration shown in fig. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
144
467
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
462
542
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the retractable upper frame taught by Weston onto the guardrail frame of Crook for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e. to provide for the compact design that allows for enhanced safety by pulling the frame upward when needed where work is being performed at elevated heights with a worker on the platform, and also allows for a compact configuration for when the vehicle is traveling on the road, under underpasses and/or during storage in warehouses. Teaching the retractable guardrail of Weston onto the extension deck of Crook would result in an open side open to the main deck in the same manner the existing guardrail of Crook are open to the main deck, since the upwardly extending guardrails are only taught onto the guardrails of the extension deck, hence teaching three rigid sides in a C-shaped configuration (three sides of frame surround extension deck open to main deck; Crook) with an open side facing said main deck (fig. 3, 6; Crook).
In regards to claim 1, Crook and Weston do not teach a work step moveable from a work position to a vertically oriented storage position.
Rosario teaches a rigid work step (11; fig. 1), said step being moveable from a work position (position shown in figs. 1 & 2) in which it is horizontally oriented above said floor (as shown in figs. 1 & 2) to a vertically oriented storage position (position shown in fig. 3b) when not in use and at least one hinge (27) supportably connecting said step to said lower guardrail frame (29) on a side of said extension deck (front side of deck 13).
PNG
media_image7.png
376
430
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
369
477
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to teach the work step assembly taught by Rosario onto the side of the guardrail of the extension deck of Crook in the same manner it is connected to the tubes 29 of Rosario (figs. 1 & 2) for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide a higher stand point for the operator to reach objects that requires additional height. The modifications / teachings of Weston and Rosario onto the work platform of Crook, subsequently teaches wherein the retractable upper frame is deployed with said rigid work step (as best understood and explained in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, where a user can manually deploy the retractable upper frame and the rigid work step together) to provide safety to a worker standing at an elevated position on the work step in the work position (intended use and as shown in fig. 1; Weston).
In regards to claim 7 Weston teaches said retractable upper frame includes portions (52g) operable to nest in the guardrail frame (52f) when said retractable upper frame is retracted (as shown in fig. 2).
In regards to claim 36 Weston teaches said retractable upper frame includes portions (52f, 50f, 52g, 50g) operable to nest in the guardrail frame when said retractable upper frame is retracted (as shown in configuration in fig. 2).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crook, Weston and Rosario as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kebbe, US (1579115).
In regards to claim 3 Rosario teaches at least one step support leg (23) and at least one step support leg hinge (22 or unnumbered hinge point at top of leg 23 as shown in fig. 3a) connecting said step to said step support leg (as illustrated in figs. 1, 2, 3a).
In regards to claim 3 Crook, Weston and Rosario do not teach at least one depression in said extension deck that has a shape operable to receive a distal end of said step support leg.
Kebbe teaches at least one depression (recess 38; fig. 3) in said extension deck (floor) that has a shape operable to receive a distal end (36) of said step support leg (as shown in reproduced fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
568
449
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to teach the depression/hook assembly taught by Kebbe onto the extension deck of Crook and the leg of Rosario for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e. to provide for an improved manner to secure the work step when in the in-use position especially when operating at elevated heights where slight movements could cause slippage/fall of the operator.
In regards to claim 4 Crook, Weston, Rosario and Kebbe teaches two step support legs (two legs 23; fig. 1; Rosario) and two step support leg hinges (at top of each respective leg; fig. 1, 2; Rosario), said step support leg hinges connecting said step support legs to spaced sides of said step (two separate hinge at top of each leg connected at each end of the step 11; fig. 1, 2; Rosario) thereby permitting said step support legs to pivot alongside said step (as they finally end up in position in fig. 3b; Rosario) from a step support position (figs. 1, 2) into a nested storage position (fig. 3b; Rosario) within the lower guardrail frame without protrusion of said support step and said support step legs (in the manner shown in fig. 3b where the step and the step support legs are not protruding beyond handle 17), and two depressions in said extension deck (38; Kebbe) that each have a shape operable to receive a distal end of one of said step support legs (as shown in reproduced fig. 3 above; Kebbe).
In regards to claim 5 Kebbe teaches said floor of said extension deck includes retainers (37; Kebbe) for securing ends of said legs when said step is in said work position (fig. 3; Kebbe).
Claims 17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crook, US (2012/0186908) in view of Weston, GB (2479202) in further view of Rosario, US (5547205).
In regards to claim 17 Crook discloses:
A work platform (30) for use in self-propelled aerial work platform apparatus (shown in fig. 2), said work platform comprising a main deck (see annotated drawings), a lower guardrail frame that includes guardrails around the perimeter of said work platform (as shown in fig. 1 on at least three sides of the work platform and as shown in annotated drawings of fig. 3 below) an extension deck (33; see annotated drawings below) slidably extendable from said main deck (as shown in fig. 3 and described in paragraph [0020]; excerpt below), said extension deck having a floor (inherent), and said main deck having a cutout in an upper surface thereof (see annotated drawings below) to the main deck, a safety cage (see annotated drawings) that includes guardrails on each side of said work platform (as shown in fig. 1 on all sides of the work platform and as shown in annotated drawings; in the same manner as in the current invention), wherein said cutout leaves an area of the main deck exposed (where the area of the main deck adjacent the cutout is left exposed i.e., the cutout does not cover it; see cutout in annotated drawings below) for the operator to stand while manually retracting the extension deck over the main deck (intended use).
PNG
media_image10.png
384
488
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
81
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
387
528
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 17 Crook does not disclose the safety cage being retractable/extendable from a lowered storage position to elevated safe height position.
Weston teaches vertically extendable safety cage (20, 80, 52g; fig. 1) that includes guardrails (two opposite 20s and 80) on three sides of said extension deck (18; two opposite 20s and 80; note that a square configuration comprises a C-shape), wherein said vertically extendable safety cage is engaged with said lower guardrail frame (20c, 20b equivalent to lower guardrail of Crook) and is extendable from lowered storage position (position shown in fig. 2) overlapping with said lower guardrail frame (20 overlapping 22c and 22b in the vertical direction; as shown in figs. 2) to an elevated safety position (fig. 1), wherein the safety cage provides safety to a worker standing at an elevated position (standing on scaffold board 18) on the work step in the work position and when the worker is standing on the extension deck.
PNG
media_image6.png
462
542
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the retractable upper frame taught by Weston onto the guardrail frame of Crook for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e. to provide for the compact design that allows for enhanced safety by pulling the frame upward when needed where work is being performed at elevated heights with a worker on the platform, and also allows for a compact configuration for when the vehicle is traveling on the road, under underpasses and/or during storage in warehouses. Teaching the retractable guardrail of Weston onto the extension deck of Crook would result in an open side open to the main deck in the same manner the existing guardrail of Crook are open to the main deck, since the upwardly extending guardrails are only taught onto the guardrails of the extension deck.
In regards to claim 17, Crook and Weston do not teach a work step moveable from a work position to a vertically oriented storage position.
Rosario teaches a work step (11; fig. 1), said step being moveable from a work position (position shown in figs. 1 & 2) in which it is horizontally oriented above said floor (as shown in figs. 1 & 2) to a vertically oriented storage position (position shown in fig. 3b) when not in use and at least one hinge (27) supportably connecting said step to said lower guardrail frame (29) on a side of said extension deck (front side of deck 13).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to teach the work step assembly taught by Rosario onto the side of the guardrail of the extension deck of Crook in the same manner it is connected to the tubes 29 of Rosario (figs. 1 & 2) for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide a higher stand point for the operator to reach objects that requires additional height.
In regards to claim 21 Weston teaches said vertically extendable safety cage includes portions (52f, 50f, 52g, 50g) operable to nest in the guardrail frame when said vertically extendable safety cage is retracted (as shown in configuration in fig. 2).
In regards to claim 22 Crook discloses said work platform operably supported by a chassis (10) for elevation to said work position (via scissors mechanism 20).
In regards to claim 23 Crook discloses a lift mechanism (scissors mechanism 20) on said chassis (fig. 1, 2) operably connected to said work platform for elevating said platform to a work elevation (via expansion and retraction of 20).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crook, Weston and Rosario as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kebbe, US (1579115).
In regards to claim 19 Crook, Weston, Rosario and Kebbe teaches two step support legs (two legs 23; fig. 1) and two step support leg hinges (at top of each respective leg; fig. 1, 2), said step support leg hinges connecting said step support legs to spaced sides of said step (two separate hinge at top of each leg connected at each end of the step 11; fig. 1, 2) thereby permitting said step support legs to pivot alongside said step (as they finally end up in position in fig. 3b) from a step support position (figs. 1, 2) into a nested storage position (fig. 3b) within the lower guardrail frame without protrusion of said support step and said support step legs (in the manner shown in fig. 3b where the step and the step support legs are not protruding beyond handle 17).
In regards to claim 19 Crook, Weston and Rosario do not teach two depressions in said extension deck that each have a shape operable to receive a distal end of one of said step support legs.
Kebbe teaches two depressions in said extension deck (38; one for each leg 32; Kebbe) that each have a shape operable to receive a distal end of one of said step support legs (as shown in reproduced fig. 3 above).
PNG
media_image9.png
568
449
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to teach the depression/hook assembly taught by Kebbe onto the extension deck of Crook and the leg of Rosario for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e. to provide for an improved manner to secure the work step when in the in-use position especially when operating at elevated heights where slight movements could cause slippage/fall of the operator.
Claims 32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crook, US (2012/0186908) in view of Weston, GB (2479202) in further view of Rosario, US (5547205).
In regards to claim 32 Crook discloses:
A work platform (30) for use in self-propelled aerial work platform apparatus (shown in fig. 2), said work platform comprising:
a. an extension deck (33; fig. 3) that is extendable from the work platform (as shown in fig. 3), said extension deck having a floor (inherent),
b. a lower guardrail frame that includes guardrails on each side of said work platform (as shown in fig. 1 on all sides of the work platform and as shown in annotated drawings of fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
528
788
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 32 Crook does not disclose a retractable upper frame that is vertically extendable from a lowered storage position overlapping with said lower guardrail frame to an elevated safety height position above said lower guardrail frame.
Weston teaches a retractable upper frame (20, 80, 52g; fig. 1) that is vertically extendable (between vertically extended position shown in fig. 1, and vertically retracted position shown in fig. 2) as a single unit (where 20, 80, 52g in aggregate are considered a “single unit” at least according to the definition of “unit” provided below, as obtained from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/unit ) from a lowered storage position (position shown in fig. 2) overlapping with said lower guardrail frame (20 overlapping 22c and 22b in the vertical direction; as shown in figs. 1, 2) to an elevated safety height position above said lower guardrail frame (20 being above 22c and 22b; position in fig. 1), wherein said retractable upper frame comprises three sides positioned around the perimeter of the extension deck (two opposite 20s and 80; note that a square configuration comprises a three sides).
PNG
media_image5.png
144
467
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
462
542
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the retractable upper frame taught by Weston onto the guardrail frame of Crook for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e. to provide for the compact design that allows for enhanced safety by pulling the frame upward when needed where work is being performed at elevated heights with a worker on the platform, and also allows for a compact configuration for when the vehicle is traveling on the road, under underpasses and/or during storage in warehouses. Teaching the retractable guardrail of Weston onto the extension deck of Crook would result in an open side open to the main deck in the same manner the existing guardrail of Crook are open to the main deck, since the upwardly extending guardrails are only taught onto the guardrails of the extension deck, hence teaching three rigid sides arranged in a C-shaped configuration (three sides of frame surround extension deck open to main deck; Crook) with an open side facing a main deck (fig. 3, 6; Crook).
In regards to claim 32, Crook and Weston do not teach a work step moveable from a work position to a vertically oriented storage position.
Rosario teaches a rigid work step (11; fig. 1), said step being moveable from a work position (position shown in figs. 1 & 2) in which it is horizontally oriented above said floor (as shown in figs. 1 & 2) to a vertically oriented storage position (position shown in fig. 3b) when not in use and at least one hinge (27) supportably connecting said step to said lower guardrail frame (29) on a side of said extension deck (front side of deck 13), wherein the retractable upper frame provides safety to a worker standing at an elevated position (standing on scaffold board 18) on the work step in the work position.
PNG
media_image12.png
304
370
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
369
477
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
542
539
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to teach the work step assembly taught by Rosario onto the side of the guardrail of the extension deck of Crook in the same manner it is connected to the tubes 29 of Rosario (figs. 1 & 2) for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide a higher stand point for the operator to reach objects that requires additional height.
In regards to claim 37 Crook discloses wherein the extension deck is slidably extendable from said main deck (as shown in fig. 3 and described in paragraph [0020]; excerpt below), said extension deck has a cutout in an upper surface thereof (see annotated drawings below) to expose the main deck when the extendable deck is retracted (where the area of the main deck adjacent the cutout is left exposed i.e., the cutout does not cover it; see cutout in annotated drawings below).
PNG
media_image10.png
384
488
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
81
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crook, Weston and Rosario as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kebbe, US (1579115).
In regards to claim 33 Rosario teaches at least one step support leg (23) and at least one step support leg hinge (22 or unnumbered hinge point at top of leg 23 as shown in fig. 3a) connecting said step to said step support leg (as illustrated in figs. 1, 2, 3a).
In regards to claim 33 Crook, Weston and Rosario do not teach at least one retainer.
Kebbe teaches at least one retainer (recess 38; fig. 3) in said extension deck (floor) that has a shape operable to receive a distal end (36) of said step support leg (as shown in reproduced fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
568
449
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to teach the depression/hook assembly taught by Kebbe onto the extension deck of Crook and the leg of Rosario for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e. to provide for an improved manner to secure the work step when in the in-use position especially when operating at elevated heights where slight movements could cause slippage/fall of the operator.
In regards to claim 34 Crook, Weston, Rosario and Kebbe teaches two step support legs (two legs 23; fig. 1; Rosario) and two step support leg hinges (at top of each respective leg; fig. 1, 2; Rosario), said step support leg hinges connecting said step support legs to spaced sides of said step (two separate hinge at top of each leg connected at each end of the step 11; fig. 1, 2; Rosario) thereby permitting said step support legs to pivot alongside said step (as they finally end up in position in fig. 3b; Rosario) from a step support position (figs. 1, 2) into a nested storage position (fig. 3b; Rosario) within the lower guardrail frame without protrusion of said support step and said support step legs (in the manner shown in fig. 3b where the step and the step support legs are not protruding beyond handle 17), and two depressions in said extension deck (38; Kebbe) that each have a shape operable to receive a distal end of one of said step support legs (as shown in reproduced fig. 3 above; Kebbe).
In regards to claim 35 Kebbe does not teach depressions being concave. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the floor/depression of the retainer to be concave in shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the components. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have the depressed floor of the retainer to have a concave shape instead of the rectangular shape, since a concave shape would naturally assist in leading the bottom of the leg to a specific resting point (at the bottom of the concave) which would enhance safety and ease of use of the step; and occur as an advantage over having multiple resting points along a flat surface. The modification above subsequently teaches the depressions being complementary to said distal ends of legs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “Weston discloses a manually collapsible scaffold tower having telescoping ladder rails and fixed safety rails (see Weston, Figs. 1-2). It does not teach or suggest a guardrail system having a C-shaped configuration, open-facing access, or structural integration with a lower guardrail frame that permits stowage within the platform architecture. It is the equivalent of the lower guardrail of Crook. There is no suggestion in Crook or Weston to add an upper guard rail extension frame to provide safety to a worker that is positioned above the level of the deck. There is no need presented in either of Crook or Weston for this added safety guardrail ... Weston doesn't disclose an upper, extendable guardrail either. This can confirmed by observing that Weston does not disclose both a lower guardrail frame that extends around an entire perimeter of a deck and an upper guardrail frame that extends to a higher level around a particular area of a deck to provide extended protection around a higher platform (a step) in that area. The purpose of Weston's system is to achieve a compact, foldable ladder profile. Weston simply discloses a single level guardrail that is collapsible so that the whole scaffold or ladder can be compactly stored and transported. There is no accommodation in Weston for a step or work position above the deck of the scaffold”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that:
First, teaching the retractable guardrail of Weston onto the extension deck of Crook would result in an open side open to the main deck in the same manner the existing guardrail of Crook are open to the main deck, since the upwardly extending guardrails are only taught onto the guardrails of the extension deck, hence teaching three rigid sides in a C-shaped configuration (three sides of frame surround extension deck open to main deck; Crook) with an open side facing said main deck (fig. 3, 6; Crook).
Second, regarding applicant’s comment that: “There is no suggestion in Crook or Weston to add an upper guard rail extension frame to provide safety to a worker that is positioned above the level of the deck. There is no need presented in either of Crook or Weston for this added safety guardrail”; examiner presents that KSR v Teleflex made it explicitly clear that that the TSM does not have to be explicitly taught in a reference –an examiner can apply common sense and intellect that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (now filing) would know and recognize as long as the examiner provided a reasonable explanation of why it is obvious/advantageous to make the combination.. For example, a reference does not need to disclose why aluminum might be advantageous for ladder parts—one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the inherent properties of aluminum (light weight, low cost, strength) being advantageous for ladders not used in electrical work. Examiner provides that the motivation with reasonable expectation of success of providing for the compact design that allows for enhanced safety by pulling the frame upward when needed where work is being performed at elevated heights with a worker on the platform, and also allows for a compact configuration for when the vehicle is traveling on the road, under underpasses and/or during storage in warehouses would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the a
PNG
media_image14.png
653
676
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Examiner also presents that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Third, regarding applicant’s comment that: “Weston doesn't disclose an upper, extendable guardrail either. This can confirmed by observing that Weston does not disclose both a lower guardrail frame that extends around an entire perimeter of a deck and an upper guardrail frame that extends to a higher level around a particular area of a deck to provide extended protection around a higher platform” it is presented that, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the current case, as detailed above, examiner asserts that teaching the retractable guardrail of Weston onto the extension deck of Crook would result in an open side open to the main deck in the same manner the existing guardrail of Crook are open to the main deck, since the upwardly extending guardrails are only taught onto the guardrails of the extension deck, hence teaching three rigid sides in a C-shaped configuration (three sides of frame surround extension deck open to main deck; Crook) with an open side facing said main deck (fig. 3, 6; Crook).
Applicant argues “Rosario is directed to a luggage cart having a fold-down seat, not a work step ... Rosario is directed to allowing the user of the luggage cart to sit down and rest (see the Summary of the Invention). There is no suggestion or hint in Rosario to utilize the fold down seat as a work step for reaching higher areas”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that: the fact that Rosario’s folding seat being defined as a “seat” and is indeed intended to support the weight of a fully grown person dictates that it is at least sturdy enough to withstand a weight of a worker. And in regards to the integration into a frame, it is submitted that it is well within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the seat of Rosario onto the guardrail frame of Crook at least in the same manner it is being integrated onto frame 17 of Rosario. In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the non-analogous nature of the reference of Rosario; examiner presents that it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Examiner presents that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find that a foldable seat/surface on a frame structure such as 17 of Rosario is indeed teachable onto the guard frame of Crook for the obvious and predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide a higher stand point for the operator to reach objects that requires additional height.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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 Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634