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 . 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al. US 2017/0275886 in view of Zuckerbrod US 5,457,837.
Ueno et al. discloses a wheelchair ramp (1) comprising:
A traffic member (2), A reinforcing part (6) comprising a plurality of hollow tubes (6a-g).
A pair of inclined end members (3, 4) fitted to an end of the traffic member. [0048-59].
A support part (14) to support the end of the reinforcing part from below. Figs. 1-5, 10
What Ueno et al. do not disclose is an insertion part. However, Zuckerbrod teaches it is known to provide ramp members (10a, b) with insertion members (50, 52) and receiving
ports (54, 56) at opposing ends of said ramp sections (16, 18) such that a series of ramp sections can be assembled. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ramp sections of Ueno et al. with connection members as taught by Zuckerbrod
in order to prevent separation and failure of the ramp assembly.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al. US 2017/0275886 in view of Zuckerbrod US 5,457,837 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sandberg US 2009/0229060. Ueno et al. in view of
Zuckerbrod do not disclose the use of fiber reinforced plastic or resin. However, Sandberg teaches an E-Z modular ramp system made of 3/8” thick FRP and wood, vinyl or steel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ramp assembly of Ueno et al. in view of Zuckerbrod from FRP and vinyl resin, as taught by Sandberg in order to minimize weight and improve handling.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 571-272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)
system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you need help from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 12/5/2025
Prosecution Insights