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 because in Figure 15, 1508 is disclosed to be a hinge, but it just looks like a bracket. There is no hinge structure shown. 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: in paragraph [0030], it appears “interior walking surface 118” should be “exterior walking surface 118” to be consistent with the disclosure in paragraph [0025] and what is shown in Figure 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a hinge to rotatable couple…” appears to contain a typographical error. Did Applicant intend “a hinge to rotatably couple…”?
Claim 20 recites “means for moving the platform providing means between…” is poorly worded and confusing. It appears Applicant mixed two incomplete thoughts here.
Additionally, claim 20 recites “platform providing means to cross the threshold” which is poorly worded and confusing; did Applicant intend “platform provides means to cross the threshold”?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20220104912 A (hereinafter will be referred to as “KR ‘912”).
Regarding claim 1, KR ‘912 teaches an apparatus (Figures 13-14) comprising:
a ramp (2) to be positioned adjacent a threshold (100) of a door (Abstract, see English translation), capable of being a sliding door;
a bridge plate (33); and
a hinge (hinge barrel shown on left edge of plate 33 in Figure 14) to rotatably couple the bridge plate to the ramp, the bridge plate to rotate between a stowed position (Figure 13) and a deployed position (on the threshold as shown in Figure 14), the bridge plate capable of being positioned clear of a path of a panel of the sliding door when in the stowed position, the bridge plate to extend across the threshold when in the deployed position.
Regarding claim 2, as shown in Figures 13-14, the ramp is a first ramp, and the apparatus further includes a second ramp (other 2) to be positioned adjacent the threshold, the first and second ramps on opposite sides of the threshold, the bridge plate to rest on the second ramp when in the deployed position (Figure 14).
Regarding claim 3, as shown in Figures 13-14, a first height (portion abutting the hinge) of the first ramp (ramp on the left side) is greater than a second height (at the right end) of the second ramp (ramp on the right side).
Regarding claim 17, KR ‘912 teaches an apparatus (Figures 13-14) comprising:
a first ramp (2 on the left side);
a second ramp (2 on the right side), the first and second ramps positioned on opposites side of a door (Abstract, see English translation) capable of being a sliding door; and
a bridge (33) to extend across a threshold (100) of the sliding door, the bridge to be supported by the first and second ramps, the bridge to be selectively movable to a stored position (Figure 13) away from a path of a panel of the sliding door without moving the first ramp and without moving the second ramp.
Regarding claim 18, as shown in Figures 13 and 14, the bridge (33) is coupled to the first ramp (2 on the left side) via a hinge (unnumbered but clearly shown in Figures 13-14), the bridge selectively movable to the stored position by rotating about an axis of the hinge (Figure 13).
Regarding claim 19, KR ‘912’s second ramp includes (see reproduction of KR ‘912’s Figure 14 provided below with Examiner’s annotations) a ramp surface including a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge, the first edge corresponding to a bottom of the second ramp and the second edge corresponding to a top of the second ramp; and an L-shaped back plate, the L-shaped back plate attached to the ramp surface along the second edge, the L-shaped back plate to define a lip extending beyond the second edge in a direction away from the first edge, the bridge to rest on the lip (KR ‘912’s Figure 14) when the bridge is extended across the threshold of the sliding door and supported by the first and second ramps.
PNG
media_image1.png
285
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, KR ‘912 teaches an apparatus (Figures 13-14) comprising:
a ramp (2) positioned adjacent a threshold (100) of a door capable of being a sliding door;
means for providing a platform that extends across the threshold (as shown in Figure 14); and
means for moving the platform providing means between (i) a first position in which the platform providing means to cross the threshold (Figure 14) and (ii) a second position in which the sliding door is capable of being closed (Figure 13).
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 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘912 as applied above, alone.
Regarding claims 4-5, the inclusion of both claims proves a lack in criticality of whether the first ramp or the second ramp is on the exterior side and whether the first ramp or the second ramp is on the interior side. It is obvious that one of the first ramp or second ramp needs to be on the interior side and the other needs to be on the exterior side of the sliding door based on the use and orientation as disclosed by KR ‘912.
Regarding claim 11, while KR ‘912 fails to explicitly disclose that the hinge is coupled to the ramp via threaded fasteners extending through first openings in the ramp and second openings in the hinge, the Examiner takes Official Notice that openings in two elements to allow a threaded fastener (bolt) to connect the two elements is old and well-known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR ‘912’s ramp to have the hinge be coupled to the ramp via threaded fasteners extending through first openings in the ramp and second openings in the hinge since that is a commonly known way to attach two components together.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘912 as applied to claim 1 in view of KR 20210112202 A (hereinafter will be referred to as “KR ‘202”).
Regarding claim 6, while KR ‘912 fails to disclose that the ramp is dimensioned to keep the bridge plate spaced apart from and above a track associated with the sliding door when the bridge plate is in the deployed position, KR ‘202 teaches a threshold ramp with similar first and second ramps and a bridge plate for use over a threshold and clearly shows in Figure 11 the bridge plate being spaced apart from and above the threshold (101 in Figure 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR ‘912’s ramp in view of KR ‘202 to be dimensioned to keep the bridge plate spaced apart from and above a track associated with the sliding door when the bridge plate is in the deployed position based on design choice and versatility to ensure that the ramp clears different doors/thresholds.
Regarding claim 7, the resulting combination from claim 6 includes the bridge plate extending over the track without any material connected to the bridge plate extending into the track.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘912 as applied to claim 1 in view of CN 209976319 U (hereinafter will be referred to as “CN ‘319”).
Regarding claim 8, while KR ‘912 fails to disclose the bridge plate including at least one of a slot or hook accessible from above the bridge plate when the bridge plate is in the deployed position, CN ‘319 teaches a threshold ramp with similar first and second ramps and a bridge plate and discloses a slot (2; Figures 1-2) which is a hinged handle to make the bridge plate more convenient to grasp by a user (fourth paragraph on page 3 of English translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR ‘912’s bridge plate in view of CN ‘319 to include a slot accessible from above the bridge plate when the bridge plate is in the deployed position to make the bridge plate easier to move from the deployed position to the stowed position by a user grasping the slot/handle.
Regarding claim 9, the resulting combination includes the bridge plate including a first edge proximate the hinge and a second edge distal to the hinge. While the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitation claimed of the position of the slot, the limitation appears to be merely a matter of rearranging a part by shifting the slot/handle slightly. 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 position the at least one slot closer to the second edge than the first edge based on ergonomics or design choice based on a user’s preference.
Regarding claim 10, the claimed limitation of the slot being on a tab (Applicant’s 1534 in Figure 15) is simply the body of Applicant’s 1534 with a hole. The resulting combination includes a tab (body of CN ‘319’s 2) with the slot (slot in the middle of CN ‘319’s 2), the tab being connected to the bridge plate and protrudes upwards from the bridge plate when the bridge plate is in the deployed position (the tab protruding upwards as shown in CN ‘310’s Figures 1-2).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘912 as applied alone to claim 11 in view of Franco, US 9,963,883 B1.
Regarding claim 12, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that at least one of the first openings or second openings are elongate slots, Franco teaches a ramp and discloses that providing slots allows for fasteners passing through to secure one element to another in a variety of relative positions (column 12 lines 40-43). 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 at least one of the first openings or second openings to be elongate slots to enable a position of the bridge plate to shift relative to the ramp to allow for proper positioning during installation.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘912 as applied to claim 1 in view of Czaplewski, US 5,380,145.
Regarding claim 13, while KR ‘912 fails to disclose the limitations claimed, Czaplewski teaches a ramp and discloses that each ramp member is made of sheet metal (column 2 lines 44-45) and the ramp includes an L-shaped brace (42, Figure 4) for a hinge joint, the L-shaped brace being attached to the top edge of the ramp. 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 of KR ‘912 to have the ramp be made of sheet metal in view of Czaplewski’s disclosure based on design choice since it has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an L-shaped brace being attached to the top edge of the ramp in view of Czaplewski’s disclosure as an alternate way to attach a hinge to a ramp. The resulting combination includes the sheet of metal including a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge, the first edge corresponding to a bottom of the ramp and the second edge corresponding to the top of the ramp, and the L-shaped brace being attached to the ramp along the second edge of the sheet of metal.
Regarding claim 14, the resulting combination includes the hinge being coupled to the L-shaped brace.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘912 in view of Czaplewski as applied to claim 13, further in view of CN 209976319 (hereinafter will be referred to as “CN ‘319”).
Regarding claim 15, while the resulting combination fails to include a second L-shaped brace and the remaining claimed limitations, CN ‘319 teaches a threshold ramp and discloses that the underside of the ramp surface has a plurality of supporting members which can be considered as L-shaped braces (14+horizontal portion, 15+horizontal portion) in decreasing heights since the ramp surface slopes from the top of the ramp toward the bottom of the ramp. 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 L-shaped brace to be a first L-shaped brace, to include a second L-shaped brace attached to the ramp between the first edge (bottom of ramp) and the second edge (top of ramp) of the sheet metal, the first L-shaped brace being taller than the second L-shaped brace in view of CN ‘319’s disclosure to have supporting members on the underside of the ramp surface for structural support.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘912 as applied to claim 1 in view of Altieri et al., US 4,864,672.
Regarding claim 16, while KR ‘912 fails to disclose the ramp including rails extending along lateral sides of the ramp, Altieri teaches a ramp and discloses rails (11, Figure 1) extending along lateral sides of the ramp. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR ‘912’s ramp to include rails extending along lateral sides of the ramp in view of Altieri’s disclosure (column 6 lines 1-2) to provide guide rails to guard against something rolling on the ramp from slipping off of the ramp.
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. Thompson, US 9,174,113 B2 is cited for teaching a ramp for crossing a threshold. Multiple references are cited for teaching a rail with side bumpers or a ramp made of metal components.
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
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671