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 filed 06/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 16-19 and 21 have been cancelled. Claims 2, 6, 8 and 15 have been amended. Applicant added new claim 22. Therefore, claims 2-15, 20 and 22 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
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 “latch member extends across the second channel in the extended position to define a space sized to receive the second portion of the mobile platform” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites “the latch member extends across the second channel in the extended position to define a space sized to receive the second portion of the mobile platform”; indefiniteness arises because while the specification does not specify first and second channels, per the claim recitation it appears that the recited latch element is 72 as shown in fig. 7 and the second channel is that formed by support guides 64 also shown in fig. 7; hence the indefiniteness arises because it is not clear how when latch 72 is in the extended position, it define a space sized to receive the second portion, because it appears to block the channel where it would not be possible for any portion i.e., rail portion to be received, where it may lock a component already inserted but not allow for a component such as a rail to be received. Claim 6 is currently only rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, pending further clarification. Also note that the lack of
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 2-5, 7, 9-14, 20 and 22 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) extending therethrough (where the apertures / openings through rails 132 between webs 136 and edges 137; figs. 7 and 8 extends through the rails 132 as shown in figures 7 and 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 (note that “for translation” being an intended use limitation, i.e., the leg is not required to be translated but only “received for translation”, hence while the legs of Haney pivot rotationally, they would meet the limitation “received for translation” for the intended use purpose, since they have the structure that allows them to translate, since their size lengthwise fits within the width of the apertures through 132 in case the intention is for translation; figs. 7, 8), wherein the second leg is received for translation within the second aperture (in the same manner for the first leg), 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 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).
In regards to claim 22 Haney teaches the first leg is received for linear translation within the first aperture, wherein the second leg is received for linear translation within the second aperture (note that both limitations for the first and second legs are strictly intended use limitations, i.e., the legs need not be translated linearly with the apertures, only “received for linear translation”, hence while the legs of Haney pivot rotationally, they would meet the limitation “received for linear translation” in that they have the structure that allows them to / for linear translation, since their size fits within the width of the apertures through 132).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “The Office Action indicates that 'Willet does not disclose a handle comprising a crossmember 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" and relies on Haney to provide these limitations. The Office Action indicates that "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) ... the stabilizing rails 134 are pivotally coupled to the webs 136 forming pivotal hinges,.. such that it can pivot from a use position (FIG. 7) into a storage position (FIG. 8)" (Emphasis added, Column 7, line 34 - Column 8, line 10)”; examiner provides that while Willet does not disclose the above-mentioned features (not repeated for brevity), it is presented that Haney indeed teaches 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 (note that “for translation” being an intended use limitation, i.e., the leg is not required to be translated but only “received for translation”, hence while the legs of Haney pivot rotationally, they would meet the limitation “received for translation” for the intended use purpose, since they have the structure that allows them to translate, since their size lengthwise fits within the width of the apertures through 132 in case the intention is for translation; figs. 7, 8), wherein the second leg is received for translation within the second aperture (in the same manner for the first leg), 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).
Applicant argues “Haney does not provide first and second apertures extending through the base as is required by claim 2. Instead, Hanel teaches channels or rails 132 that are pivotally coupled to and receive element 104 on the underside of the base. Haney teaches that "Referring to FIGS. 7 and 8, the scaffold tool holder 100 is shown such that the stabilizing member 104 is mounted to the underside surface 130 of the base platform 102 by a pair of parallel support rails 132”; examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that 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) extending therethrough; where the apertures / openings through rails 132 between webs 136 and edges 137; figs. 7 and 8 extends through the rails 132 as shown in figures 7 and 8.
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
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights