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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because Figure 19 fails to show “chain 63”, “drive sprocket 61”, or “driven sprocket 62” as described in the specification in paragraphs [0120] and [0121]. In fact, the entirety of the drive mechanism 60 in Figure 19 appears to be shown incorrectly, as all that is shown is a rod next to, not even connected to, a motor. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraphs [0120] and [0121] disclose “chain 63”, “drive sprocket 61”, and “driven sprocket 62”, but does not match what is shown in Figure 19. There is a discrepancy between Figure 19 and the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al., US 10,040,385 B2 in view of Alten, US 4,670,928.
Regarding claim 1, Stevens teaches a ramp apparatus for a vehicle, the ramp apparatus comprising:
a first ramp platform (32; Figure 2);
a second ramp platform (34; Figure 2) configured to telescopically move with respect to the first ramp platform; and
a third ramp platform (36; Figure 2) configured to telescopically move with respect to the second ramp platform.
While Stevens only discloses that the ramp can be powered by at least one servo motor to selectively deploy or retract a ramp comprising a plurality of segments (column 4 lines 22-27) but fails to provide details, Alten teaches a loading ramp and discloses a selectively deploying and retracting by using a drive mechanism including a motor connected to a drive sprocket (unnumbered, shown in dashed lines connected to endless chain 22 in Alten’s Figure 2), a driven sprocket (unnumbered, shown in dashed lines at the middle of shaft 11 in Alten’s Figure 2) spaced apart from the drive sprocket, a chain (22 in Alten’s Figure 2) connecting the drive sprocket to the driven sprocket, a drive pinion (12; Alten’s Figure 2) coupled to the drive sprocket, a drive rack gear (13; Alten’s Figure 2) meshing with the drive pinion (12), a driven pinion (other 12; Alten’s Figure 2) coupled to the drive sprocket, and a driven rack gear (other 13; Alten’s Figure 2) meshing with the driven pinion. Alten’s Figure 2 is reproduced below with Examiner’s annotations.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steven’s ramp to include the drive mechanism disclosed by Alten as an alternate way to selectively deploy and retract the ramp comprising a plurality of segments since they must selectively extend and retract as disclosed by Alten. The resulting combination includes the drive mechanism being configured to move the second platform and the third platform since Stevens discloses that the ramp comprising a plurality of segments selectively deploys and retracts.
Regarding claim 2, the resulting combination includes the motor having an output shaft fitted into the drive sprocket, the drive pinion opposing the motor (at an end), and the drive sprocket being disposed between the drive pinion and the motor (see reproduction of Alten’s Figure 2 with Examiner’s annotations on the previous page).
Regarding claim 3, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the drive sprocket and the driven sprocket are rotatably mounted on the second ramp platform, since Alten discloses that the drive sprocket and the driven sprocket are rotatably mounted on a deployable and retractable portion (connection apparent in Alten’s Figures 1 and 2) and the second ramp platform of the resulting combination needs to deploy and retract, it is an obvious modification to rotatably mount the drive sprocket and driven sprocket on the second platform. Additionally, it has been held that rearrangement of parts involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The resulting combination makes obvious the drive sprocket and the driven sprocket being spaced apart from each other along the length of the second ramp platform, based on the suggested arrangement of the drive sprocket and driven sprocket as shown in Figure 2.
Regarding claim 5, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the drive rack gear is fixed to the first ramp platform, it has been held that rearrangement of parts involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). 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 resulting combination to have the drive rack gear be fixed (which does not require direct contact) to the first ramp platform to allow the drive pinion to move the second ramp platform.
Regarding claim 8, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the driven rack gear is fixed to the third ramp platform, it has been held that rearrangement of parts involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). 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 resulting combination to have the driven rack gear be fixed to the third ramp platform to allow the driven pinion to move the second ramp plaform.
Regarding claim 9, the resulting combination includes a housing (Stevens’s 30 shown in Figures 1 and 2) mounted on a vehicle body (shown in Figure 2), wherein the first ramp platform is movable between a stowed position in which the first ramp platform is stowed in the housing (Figure 1) and a deployed position in which the first ramp platform is deployed from the housing (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, the resulting combination includes a hinge mechanism (“comprises a hinge member and is rotatable relative to the primary housing about at least one axis”, Stevens’s column 3 lines 16-17) allowing the first ramp member (Stevens’s 32) to pivot when the first ramp platform is deployed from the housing (the first ramp member extends out and then pivots down). While the resulting combination fails to disclose the remaining limitations, it would appear that the resulting combination includes the limitations that the hinge mechanism includes a moving body connected to the first ramp platform through a hinge shaft, and a hinge drive unit mounted on the moving body, the moving body is movable in the housing, the hinge shaft is fixedly connected to the first ramp platform, and the hinge drive unit configured to rotate the hinge shaft since Stevens explicitly discloses that the ramp could be motor-powered to deploy or retract the ramp, the first platform is clearly pushed out of element 30 so there must be a moving body movable in the housing (Figures 1 and 2) and the hinge mechanism is clearly at the top end of the first platform (Figure 2); the arrangement claimed with the hinge and hinge drive unit on the first ramp platform is obvious given what Stevens shows in Figures 1 and 2 to function as shown.
Regarding claim 11, while the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose the elements that allow the moving body to move, in view of the resulting combination with Alten’s use of a drive sprocket, a driven sprocket spaced apart from the drive sprocket, a chain connecting the drive sprocket and the driven sprocket, and a motor driving the drive sprocket, to move (deploy/retract, which moves linearly and longitudinally just like the moving body of the resulting combination), 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 resulting combination to include a drive sprocket, a driven sprocket spaced apart from the drive sprocket, a chain connecting the drive sprocket and the driven sprocket, and a motor driving the drive sprocket to extend the teaching of using those elements to move (in the same linear and longitudinal way as deploying and retracting) and apply it to the moving body. The resulting combination makes obvious that the chain is connected to the moving body through a chain attachment because something has to attach the chain to the moving body for the moving body to move with the chain.
Regarding claim 18, the resulting combination from claims 1 and 9 include the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the resulting combination from claims 1, 9, and 10 include the limitations of the claim.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens in view of Alten as applied above to claim 11, further in view of Pocobello et al., US 8,926,254 B2.
Regarding claim 15, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the first ramp platform has the claimed limitations, Pocobello teaches a power-actuated ramp and discloses a first recess (groove 104; Figure 4) for receiving a portion of a trolly assembly that actuates the ramp (column 6 lines 32-36). 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 resulting combination to have the first ramp platform include a first recess at least partially receiving the moving mechanism in view of Pocobello’s disclosure of including a recess to make space for a moving mechanism. The resulting combination makes obvious that the first recess extends along the length of the ramp since that is the longitudinal direction of movement.
Regarding claim 16, in view of Stevens disclosing the ramp sections nesting (Stevens’s column 6 line 1), since the resulting combination includes the first ramp platform having a longitudinal recess (groove as modified by Pocobello), and Pocobello additionally disclosing that a further extendable/retractable section (220 as shown in Pocobello’s Figure 4) also includes a longitudinal groove/recess, 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 resulting combination to have the second ramp platform have a second recess which is complementary to the first recess of the first ramp platform and the second recess extends along the length of the second ramp platform.
Regarding claim 17, in view of the resulting combination including the first and second ramp platforms having first and second longitudinal recesses that extend along the length of the first and second ramp platforms, in view of Stevens disclosing the ramp sections nesting (Stevens’s column 6 line 1), 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 resulting combination to have the third ramp platform have a third recess which is complementary to the second recess of the second ramp platform and the third recess extending along a length of the third ramp platform for a better nesting configuration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-7, and 12-14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. Hartman, US 3,268,932 is cited for the teaching of a loading ramp having a motor, sprockets, gear, and endless chain as the drive mechanism. Cooper, US 6,484,344 is cited for teaching a ramp with telescopic sections that extend out of, and retract into, a housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 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 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674