DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 02/09/26 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 3-4, 7-9 and 11-12 have been amended and claims 2, 5-6, 10 and 13 have been cancelled. In view of amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC § 103 (details below) and claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-12 and 14-16 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see [ ‘Remarks’, pages 5-10], filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejections under 35 USC § 103 are made over Welschof Bernward (DE 102018104810 A1) in view of Major, Sr. (US 7540689 B1), details below. The present office action is a non-final rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 11, line 2-3, the limitation “a horizontal transverse axis” should read “the horizontal transverse axis” as its was cited in claim 1 before. Appropriate correction is required.
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,
In claim 3, line 3, “a stop flange” is not shown in the figures 1 to 6. The feature 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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4.Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or no obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welschof Bernward (DE 102018104810; hereinafter, “Bernward”) in view of Major, Sr. (US 7540689 B1; hereinafter, “Major”).
Regarding claim 1, Bernward discloses: a mobile forestry machine (1, figs. 1-11; “Abstract”), comprising:
a chassis (2);
a drive unit (3);
a rope winch (4);
a stanchion (5) configured to be rotated around a vertical axis [ see 0028], the stanchion comprising two vertical stanchion rods (see fig. 5) separated by a distance in a transverse (Q, claim 22) direction [ para 0009 teaches: “the winch tower, which is positioned longitudinally between the drive motor and the stake (stanchion) and centrally in the transverse direction of the vehicle] of the mobile forestry machine (1); and
an adjustable ramp plate (“adjustable ramp shield 6”; ‘Abstract’),
wherein the drive unit (3), rope winch (4), stanchion (5), and adjustable ramp plate (6) are arranged in the longitudinal direction (“L”, fig. 3 and ‘Abstract’) of the mobile forestry machine (1), such that:
the drive unit (3) is located at a front end (see para. [0003]), the adjustable ramp plate (6) is arranged at a rear end (see para. [0005]) the rope winch (4) is arranged between the drive unit (3) and adjustable ramp plate (6), and the stanchion (5) is arranged between the rope winch (4) and the adjustable ramp plate (6; [ see para. 0005] and figs. 1-3),
wherein the adjustable ramp plate (6) is adjustable around a horizontal transverse axis (7, fig. 9 and [0040]), wherein the two vertical stanchion rods (left and right stanchion rods 5, fig. 9) are fastened to a cross member (“cross stiffener” 65; fig. 3 and [0070] and claim 21) that rotates around a vertical axis (via axis 7, fig. 1),
wherein the working mobile forestry machine is remotely controlled and does not have a driver workplace for an operator and is a remotely controlled working machine [ para. 0040 teaches: “the forestry machine 1 does not have a driver's workstation for an operator and can be operated by an operator using a remote control not shown in detail”]., and
Bernward teaches an adjustable ramp plate, but fails to explicitly teach that the ramp plate comprising a first fastening interface, a second fastening interface and a third fastening interface as required by the remaining limitations of claim 1; however,
Major in another counterweight system for maintain stability of a tractor similar to Bernward teaches that an adjustable ramp plate (“adjustable table”- 36; col. 2, line 50-60) comprising a first fastening interface (A, see annotated fig. of page 1 below), a second fastening interface (B), and a third fastening interface (C),
wherein the ramp plate (36) is provided with first fastening interface (A) and the second fastening interface (B, opposite to A) are separated by a distance (“D”, see annotated fig.-page 1 below) in the transverse direction (Q, fig- page 1 shows transverse direction),
wherein the first fastening interface (A) is formed by a first receptacle sleeve (sleeve 32 at the first fastening interface as depicted in fig. 2 and col. 2, line 43-45), the second fastening interface (B) is formed by a second receptacle sleeve (sleeve 32 at B), and the third fastening interface (C) is formed by a third receptacle sleeve (sleeve 32 at C),
wherein the first fastening interface (A) and the second fastening interface (B) are both configured to be releasably fastened to an additional stanchion (stanchion 18, fig. 2), and
wherein the third fastening interface (C) is arranged substantially centrally (fig. 2 shows C is positioned centrally) in the transverse direction (Q, fig. 2 shows in transverse direction) and is configured to be releasably fastened to a trailer hitch head (via hitch ball 26, col. 2, line 20-30) at least one fastening interface (at C), to which an additional stanchion can be releasably fastened, and/or the ramp plate (36) is provided with a fastening interface (C) to which a trailer hitch head (26) can be releasably fastened (fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a ramp plate with fastening interfaces for detachable stanchions and a trailer coupling head as taught by Major into the invention of a remotely controlled mobile working machine of Bernward with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the design, ensuring such a modifications represent predictable uses of prior art elements according to their established functions, and the combination yields no unexpected results.
PNG
media_image1.png
503
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bernward as modified above further teaches that the additional stanchions (18 to the left side 18a and 18 to the right side 18b; see annotated fig.-page 1 of Bernward above) and the trailer hitch head comprise a stop flange (stop flange at A and B; see annotated fig-page 1 of Bernward above) with which, when inserted in a respective receptacle sleeve (sleeve 32), the additional stanchions (18) and the trailer hitch head (26) are in contact with the top of the respective receptacle sleeve (32).
Regarding claim 4, Bernward as modified above further teaches that the additional stanchion (18 of Major) and the trailer hitch head (26 of Major) are configured to be secured with a locking element [see annotated fig-page 1 of Major above where locking elements are used in the sleeve 32 to secure stanchion and the hitch ball head in a respective receptacle sleeve (32 of Major). Also, para 0028 of Bernward teaches: “the rotatable stanchion can advantageously be locked in one or more positions by means of a locking device”]
Regarding claim 11, Bernward as modified above further teaches that the adjustable ramp plate (6) is configured to be adjusted around
Regarding claim 12, Bernward as modified above further teaches that the hydraulic cylinder (“hydraulic cylinders”; [para. 0050]) is configured to be actuated by a control valve (38) that has a floating position [ para. 0050 teaches that the hydraulic valves 38 are used to control the hydraulic drive motors, the drive motor 21 of the cable drum 20 and hydraulic cylinders (not shown) for actuating the ramp plate 6 and further fig. 5 shows a floating position].
Regarding claim 14, Bernward as modified above further teaches that a cross brace (“cross-bracing”; [0029]) is located on the vehicle body in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle between the stanchion and the ramp plate [ para. 0029 teaches: “the cross-bracing enables a torsionally rigid and stable design of the forestry machine at the rear of the vehicle, where the adjustable ramp shield is mounted and over which logs are pulled onto the stake using the winch; thus, a cross brace is located on the vehicle body in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle between the stanchion and the ramp plate; note that the use of cross brace is always positioned on the vehicle body and in a longitudinal direction.]
Regarding claim 15, Bernward as modified above further teaches that the locking element is a cotter pin or lock nut [see annotated fig-page 1 of Major above for the locking element wherein the locking element depicted in the figure is a lock nut.]
Claims 7-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernward in view of Major and further in view of Cohn et al. (US 20030007853 A1; hereinafter “Cohn”).
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 1, Bernward as modified above teaches the mobile forestry machine (1) according to claim 1, wherein the ramp plate (6, fig. 1), but fails to further teach that the ramp plate is configured to be supported by at least one support strut -in substantially horizontal position on the vehicle body of the working machine; however,
Cohn in another low floor vehicle ramp assembly, similar to the modified Bernward teaches that the ramp plate (20, ‘Abstract’) can be supported by at least one support strut (198 including 196, fig. 2) in substantially horizontal position on the vehicle body (fig. 2 shows 198 in substantially horizontal position) of the working machine [vehicle].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bernward to incorporate the teaching of Cohn and support an adjustable ramp plate in a substantially horizontal position using at least one support strut, as such structural reinforcement techniques are well known in vehicle body to ensure load-bearing capacity that does not yield any unexpected technical effect and merely applies conventional support mechanics to a known ramp structure.
Regarding claim 8, Bernward as modified above doesn’t appear to explicitly teach that the support strut, is in the form of a threaded strut particular a double threaded; however,
Cohn teaches that the support strut, is in the form of a threaded strut particular a double threaded rod [ para. 0108 teaches that the threaded rod 196 (fig. 19) is inserted through and supported by a guide tube 198 (support strut) attached to the rectangular enclosure 24. The guide tube 198 also limits the full stroke (emphasized) of the T-handle 194 by its length (thus, doubled threaded); also, fig 1 and 19 shows thread spans both the end, thus forming double threaded strut].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ramp support of the mobile machine of claim 7 by employing a threaded support strut, as taught by Cohn into the invention of the modified Bernward with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the design so that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that replacing the generic ramp support legs of the ramp with a threaded strut or double-threaded rod would be a straightforward and predictable modification to achieve precise height adjustment and maintain the ramp in a horizontal to an inclined position as required.
Regarding claim 9, Bernward as modified above teaches the ramp plate, but fails to explicitly teach that the support strut can be releasably fastened by a bolted connection to the vehicle body and to the ramp plate by a bolted connection; however,
Cohn teaches that the support strut (198) can be releasably fastened (via bolt 324, [0127]) by a bolted connection to the vehicle body (via enclosure 24, ramp platform 28 and to ramp assy. 20) and to the ramp plate by a bolted connection (via bolts 380, 544) [ para. 0068 taches that the side panels 32, 34, the end panel 36, and the bottom panel 38 that provides a structural frame to house the ramp platform 28 and the reciprocating mechanism 26 along the plane of the rectangular enclosure 24; note that 24 has connection with ramp assembly 20, see also the ’Abstract’].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Bernward to incorporate the teaching of Cohn and provide the support strut that can be releasably fastened by a bolted connection to the vehicle body and to the ramp plate with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the design using bolted connections to allow removal, adjustment or maintenance of the structural element, such as trailing end of the ramp platform, when deployed, is raised to the floor level of the low floor buss [ ‘Abstract’ of Cohn].
Regarding claim 16, depending on claim 8, Bernward as modified above further teaches that the support strut (198 of Cohn) is in the form of a double threaded rod (196 of Cohn, [0108]). See claim rejection 8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4037564 A to Andrew teaches: a livestock ramp which is pivotally connected at one end to a vehicle, and which includes opposite side walls connected to opposite side edges of the platform. The platform is shiftable from an inclined position in which livestock may enter or leave the vehicle and an upright position in which the platform spans the door opening into the vehicle.
USRE47192 E to Walker teaches: a liftgate for loading and unloading cargo from a vehicle. The liftgate includes a moveable load platform having a proximal deck section and a distal deck section pivotally coupled to the proximal deck section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST. 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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights