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 10/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 16-19 and 21 have been cancelled. Claim 2 has been amended. Therefore, claims 2-15 and 20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “the latch member engages the second portion of the mobile platform”; which positively requires engagement with the second portion which is part of the non-positively recited mobile platform. Is it applicant’s intention to positively bring in the mobile platform into claim 6 to make it a combination claim?
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willet, US (1439388) in view of Haney, US (10718120).
In regards to claim 2 Willet discloses:
An access deck assembly (upper assembly shown in fig. 1) for a mobile platform on an aerial lift vehicle (intended use), the assembly comprising:
a base (29, 30; fig. 1, 6) sized to fit within an outer perimeter frame of the mobile platform (intended use “sized to fit” further limiting intended use limitation) and having a first side (see annotated drawings) and a second side (see annotated drawings),
a first guide (portion/aperture/fastener in 30 receiving upper end of one of links 31) connected adjacent to the first side of the base (fig. 1, 5, 6), the first guide sized to receive a first portion (portion of one of links 31) of the outer perimeter frame of the mobile platform (where 31 can be considered a portion of non-positively claimed frame of the mobile platform) to limit movement of the base along a first axis (either axis along the front to back of platform 29, 30 or side to side along first and second sides as annotated below);
a second guide (portion/aperture/fastener in 30 receiving upper end of the other of links 31) connected adjacent to the second side of the base, the second guide sized to receive a second portion of the outer perimeter frame of the mobile platform (where 31 can be considered a portion of non-positively claimed frame of the mobile platform) to limit movement of the base along a second axis (either axis along the front to back of platform 29, 30 or side to side along first and second sides as annotated below); Please note: the above limitation under a different interpretation of reference Willet: a second guide (aperture in 29 through which 52 is inserted) connected adjacent to the second side of the base (adjacent at least according to the definition of adjacent provided below as obtained from Adjacent - definition of adjacent by The Free Dictionary), the second guide sized to receive a second portion of the outer perimeter frame of the mobile platform (where 52 can be considered a portion of non-positively claimed frame of the mobile platform) to limit movement of the base along a second axis (either axis along the front to back of platform 29, 30 or side to side along first and second sides as annotated below);
a locking mechanism (either hook 33 and transverse bar 22 or locking levers 40) supported by the base, and cooperating with the second guide (either directly or indirectly) to retain the second portion of the mobile platform within the second guide (by preventing the assembly from moving from the in use position shown in fig. 1 to the collapse position shown in fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
502
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
136
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2 Willet does not disclose a handle comprising a cross-member connecting a first leg to a second leg, wherein the first leg is received for translation within the first aperture, wherein the second leg is received for translation within the second aperture and a locking pin.
Haney teaches the base defining a first aperture (aperture within right hand side support rail 132; as shown in figs. 7 & 8) and a second aperture (aperture within left hand side support rail 132; as shown in figs. 7 & 8);
a handle (104; fig. 7) supported by the base (equivalent to 130) for grasping by an operator (intended use), the handle further comprising a cross-member (142; fig. 7) connecting a first leg (right hand side 134) to a second leg (right hand side 134), wherein the first leg is received for translation within the first aperture (as shown in stowed position shown in fig. 8), wherein the second leg is received for translation within the second aperture (as shown in stowed position shown in fig. 8), and wherein the handle is configured to move relative to the base between a first use position (position shown in fig. 7) and a second storage position (position shown in fig. 8); and a locking pin (138) cooperating with the first leg to retain the handle in the first position (where locking pin 138 is capable of retaining the handle in both positions utilizing apertures in web 136; fig. 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
583
470
media_image4.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 handle and locking pin taught by Haney onto the platform (underside of 30) of Willet for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a hand holding means to the user/worker while climbing on top of or sitting on platform 29 for enhanced safety/stability at elevated heights.
In regards to claim 3 Willet discloses the first guide comprises a first channel (channel in which fastener holding upper portion of 31) oriented in a first direction transverse to the base (side to side; in and out of page as shown in fig. 6); and wherein the second guide comprises a second channel (channel through which 52 extends as shown in fig. 6) oriented in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (where second channel extend up and down versus in and out of the page i.e., orthogonal to the first direction).
In regards to claim 4 Willet discloses the first channel and the second channel are each fixed relative to the base (as shown in fig. 5, 6).
In regards to claim 5 Willet discloses the locking mechanism comprises a latch member (either bar 22 or levers 40) supported by the base for linear translation relative to the base (where both 22 and 40 moves linearly relative to 29, 30).
In regards to claim 6 (as best understood, see objection above) Willet discloses the latch member (lever 40) is movable between a retracted position and an extended position (between latched and unlatched positions), wherein the latch member engages the second portion of the mobile platform in the extended position (at least indirectly engages 52).
In regards to claim 7 Willet discloses the locking mechanism comprises a latch member (lever 40) supported by the base for rotation relative to the base (between latched and unlatched positions; described as “pivotally connected”).
In regards to claim 9 Willet discloses the locking mechanism further comprises a pull pin.
In regards to claim 10 Willet discloses the first side is opposite to the second side (as shown in annotated drawings above).
In regards to claim 11, examiner takes Official Notice that toe boards are old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize toe boards that surrounds at least three sides of the platform, for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for barriers to avoid having a worker’s foot accidentally slip past the edge of the space he/she is standing on while preoccupied by performing work at elevated heights.
In regards to claim 12 Willet discloses a step (14) with a tread member (member onto which a user stands; fig. 3) connected to the base.
In regards to claim 13 Willet discloses the tread member of the step is rotatably connected to the base and movable between a first storage position, and a second use position (between folded and in-use positions shown in figs. 1 versus fig. 4).
In regards to claim 14 Willet discloses the base comprises a substrate (29 or 30) that defines an upper surface sized to support an operator thereon, the upper surface extending between the first and second sides (figs. 1, 5, 6).
In regards to claim 20 Willet discloses a bracket (33) supported by the base, the bracket sized to receive a third portion (22) of the outer perimeter frame (where 22 can be considered a portion of non-positively claimed frame of the mobile platform) to limit movement of the base along a third axis (at least axis along front to back of platform 30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relying upon newly utilized primary reference Willet, US (1439388) does not make applicant’s remarks or matter specifically challenged in the argument relevant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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