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 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 2-3, 5 and 10 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 11, 14 and 22 have been amended. Claims 17-21 remain withdrawn, therefore, claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-16 and 22 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Replacement sheets of drawings submitted 12/02/2025 includes two figure 5s on pages 4 and 5 of the replacement drawings.
Claim 5 recites “a deck-to-leg bracket system enabling rotation between the storage and deployed positions”; drawings objection is due to that the “deck-to-leg bracket” is identified in the specification as element 25 in fig. 16; however, it is not illustrated how said “deck-to-leg bracket” enables the rotation between the storage and deployed positions; hence this recitation is not illustrated. In general, the disclosure does not show what facilitates the motion between the two positions?
There is no numeral in the specification that can be found in the drawings to identify the:
“Vehicle-specific cross bolting frame rail connector bracket”.
“Maintenance platform” “”
“Deck superstructure”.
“Tread bright diamond plate surface”.
“Deck structure”.
“All of the “means for” limitations recited in claim 22”.
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 “storage position” in claim 1 (Note that the drawings only illustrate the maintenance platform in the upright configuration when it is resting on the removable supports i.e., figs. 51, 54, 56, in other words not in a position where it can function as a push bumper as recited) and “a plurality of telescoping handrails storable beneath the deck structure” (i.e., no figure illustrates said condition where the handrails are stored beneath the deck structure), claim 6; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
It is important to note that: Only Non-limiting examples of drawings issues are being presented above. The Drawings in general do not make clear the operation and elements of the invention.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“Quick connect coupler system”
“Maintenance platform”
“Deck structure”
“First half” and “second half” of the “Quick connect coupler system”.
“Retractable barrier”.
“Handrail cap”.
“Deployable steps”.
“Rotatable axle system”.
“Tread bright diamond plate surfaces”.
“Fall protection restraints”.
Important Note: All of the “means for” limitations recited in claim 22 are not in the specification. In other words, the lack of antecedent basis applies to all the means plus function limitations of claim 21. No “means for” language can be found throughout the specification.
NOTE: above are non-limiting examples only.
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 1, 4, 6-9, 11-16 and 22 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 “a second half of the quick connect coupler system attached to the maintenance platform”; it not clear if it is applicant’s intention to positively recite and require the “maintenance platform” in the claims, since the “maintenance platform” is only recited in intended use form in the preamble i.e. “An apparatus for a maintenance platform”, the claim is treated as positively reciting and requiring the “maintenance platform” pending applicant’s clarification.
With regards to claim 22: All of the “means for” limitations recited in claim 22 are not in the specification. In other words, the lack of antecedent basis applies to all the means plus function limitations of claim 22. No “means for” language can be found throughout the specification. As a result, an interpretation for any of the limitations of claim 22 cannot be assigned whether or not under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The claim does not particularly point out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. It is also not possible to understand for examining purposes what is the scope of claim 22. Currently claim 22 is only rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, pending further clarification by the applicant.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-16 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn accordingly.
Applicant's arguments regarding the drawings and specification objections filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
NOTE: that while some components can be identified/assigned by the applicant as being in the drawings, there remains the lack of proper antecedent basis in the specification. Therefore, while some components have been removed from the drawing’s objection, the requirement for proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter in the specification remains.
Also NOTE: below are samples of why applicant’s arguments do not overcome the drawings and specifications deficiencies:
Applicant argues “The deck-to-leg bracket system (element 25 in FIG. 16) enables rotation as a pivot mechanism, where the bracket is mounted on axle 110 (FIG. 16), which passes through axle bushing 119, allowing 90-degree rotation between vertical storage position (FIG. 7) and horizontal deployed position (FIGs. 13 and 14)”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that consulting the specification and drawings pointed to by the applicant, 110 as shown in fig. 16 is a hole which also agrees with what is stated in paragraph [0097] in the specification, hence rendering unclear applicant’s explanation of “the bracket is mounted on axle 110 (FIG. 16), which passes through axle bushing 119”, also since numeral 119 cannot be found neither in the drawings nor in the specification.
Applicant argues “"Vehicle-specific cross bolting frame rail connector bracket": support may be found in reference numeral 43,FIG. 7.”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that 43 cannot be considered the “Vehicle-specific cross bolting frame rail connector bracket” since the “male coupler” and the “frame rail connector bracket” are claimed as two different components in claim 4 and since the specification > paragraph [0086] states that “the Male Coupler consisting of 38, 39, 43”; hence 43 cannot be both.
Applicant argues “Maintenance platform": support may be found in reference numerals 1-5, 12, 13 and 25.”, and later applicant argues “"Deck superstructure": support may be found in reference numerals 2, 3, 4, and ,Figs 2-3”; examiner respectfully disagrees and points attention to the overlap of the numerals to identify two separately claimed components; and since figures 2 and 3 are described as being the deck superstructure, and since the claim recites the “Maintenance platform” and “deck superstructure”, it is presented that numerals identified by the applicant being present in figures 2 and 3 cannot be assigned to the “Maintenance platform”, because they cannot represent both “Maintenance platform” and “deck superstructure”. This issue also extends to “deck structure”; since the numerals identified by the applicant also overlaps i.e., 1-5.
Applicant argues “"Tread bright diamond plate surface": support may be found in reference numeral 13 (this is a material/finish property of element 13)”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that none of said finish properties are illustrated.
Applicant argues “"All of the 'means for' limitations recited in claim 22": Applicant submits the MPEP does not require that each such structure be tied to a specific reference numeral in order for 112(f to operate. Instead, the MPEP directs the identification of the corresponding structure in the specification, regardless of whether that structure is labeled with a numeral in a drawing.”; examiner respectfully disagrees and directs applicant’s attention to the MPEP section 2181 (II) (A) which states “The invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not exempt an applicant from compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs”
AND in MPEP section 2181 (III) which states “the examiner should determine the claimed function and then review the written description of the specification to determine whether the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function are disclosed. Note that drawings may provide a written description of an invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The corresponding structure, material, or acts may be disclosed in the original drawings, figures, tables, or sequence listing. However, the corresponding structure, material, or acts cannot include any structure, material, or acts disclosed only in the material incorporated by reference or a prior art reference”
Hence, there is the condition to at least fulfil the requirement for 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, which as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph section above, the disclosure (specification and drawings) remain lacking.
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