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 .
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. 9,213,367 and in view of Sato et al. 4,911,084.
In Re Claims 1, 3, 13 Nelson teaches an equipment platform, comprising: a top portion (17, 24a, 24b, 30, Fig. 7), wherein the top portion comprises at least one rectangular lower section (24a, 24b) and at least one rectangular upper section (17), wherein the upper section has a smaller surface area than the lower section; (Fig. 7) a pair of opposed sidewalls (See Sidewalls, Fig. 7) coupled to the lower section, wherein the pair of opposed sidewalls extends upward from the lower section along a longitudinal axis L (longitudinal axis of 17, 24a, 24b, Fig. 7) and terminates at a bottom edge of the lower section (See Fig. 7); a bottom portion (18);
Nelson et al. do not teach a hollowed portion that is between the top portion and the bottom portion, wherein the hollowed portion extends along the longitudinal axis L and a traverse axis T.
However, Sato et al. teach a hollowed portion (Fig. 2) that is between the top portion (3C, 4, Fig. 2) and the bottom portion (2, Fig. 2), wherein the hollowed portion extends along the longitudinal axis L and a traverse axis T (See Fig. 2); and wherein the hollowed portion comprises at least two entry inlets located on a short axis on an outer edge of the hollowed portion; (See Fig. 2) and wherein the two entry inlets are configured to receive at least two forklift tynes; (See Fig. 2) and wherein the hollowed portion comprises a plurality of entry inlets configured to receive a plurality of forklift tynes. (See Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a bottom portion with a hollowed portion between top and bottom in the platform of Nelson et al. as taught by Sato et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to make the platform more durable.
In Re Claim 4, Nelson et al. teach wherein the lower section is sloped upwards towards the upper section, from a first short edge of the equipment platform to a second short edge of the equipment platform. (See fig. 7)
In Re Claim 7, Nelson et al. teach at least one safety mechanism (14).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. ‘367/Sato et al. and in view of Wittman 5,505,140.
In Re Claims 5 and 6, Nelson et al. ‘367/Sato et al. teach the platform of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Nelson et al. ‘367/Sato et al. do not teach the upper section elevated above the lower section.
However, Wittman teaches an upper section (24, 24a) elevated above a lower section (50). (See Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to arrange the upper rectangular section elevated above the lower rectangular section in the platform of Nelson et al. ‘367/Sato et al. as taught by Wittman with a reasonable expectation for success in order to create a smooth transition between lower and upper sections.
Nelson et al. ‘367/Sato et al. is silent concerning the border being at least six inches above the lower section. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the invention was filed to have the border at least six inches above the lower section in order to capture the cargo, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. ‘367/Sato et al. and in view of Kolharkear et al. 9,327,952.
In Re Claims 8 and 9, Nelson et al. ‘367/Sato et al. teach the platform of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Nelson et al. ‘367/Sato et al. do not teach wherein the safety mechanism comprises at least one of: a handrail, a cable, a cable and a harness, and a combination thereof.
However, Kolharkar et al. teach wherein the safety mechanism comprises at least one of: a handrail (104, Fig. 1), a cable, a cable and a harness, and a combination thereof; and wherein the at least one handrail is affixed to a border of the upper section. (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a handrail to the platform of Nelson et al. ‘367/Sato et al. as taught by Kolharkar with a reasonable expectation for success in order to inhibit items from falling off.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. ‘367/Sato et al. and in view of Martin 2024/0017881.
In Re Claims 10-12, Nelson et al. ‘367/Sato et al. teach the platform of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Nelson et al. ‘367/Sato et al. do not teach at least one cable.
However, Martin teaches at least one cable (154); and wherein the at least one cable is affixed to a border of the upper section; (Fig. 1) and wherein the at least one cable is affixed to at least one handrail that is affixed to a border of the upper section. (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add at least one cable to the platform of Nelson et al. ‘367/Sato et al. as taught by Martin with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide stability to objects on the platform.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson 4,900,217 and in view of Clark et al. 5,803,523.
In Re Claim 14, Nelson ‘217 teaches an equipment platform, comprising: a top portion (27a-d, 37, 48) comprising a sloped, rectangular lower section (37, 48) and an elevated, rectangular upper section (27a-d), wherein the upper section comprises a smaller surface area than the lower section; (Fig. 1) a border (24d) affixed to the outer edge of the upper section, wherein the border is above the lower section; (Fig. 1, 5 and 6) and a pair of opposed sidewalls (41) coupled to the lower section; a hollowed portion (section between 27a-d and bed of truck, Fig. 2), wherein the hollowed portion comprises an interior space between the top portion and a bottom portion (pickup truck bed, Fig. 2).
Nelson ‘217 does not teach the pair of wherein the pair of opposed sidewalls extends upward from the lower section along a longitudinal axis L and terminates at a bottom edge of the lower section;
However, Clark et al. teach a pair of opposed sidewalls (20) coupled to the lower section (12), wherein the pair of opposed sidewalls extends upward from the lower section along a longitudinal axis L and terminates at a bottom edge of the lower section; (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use opposed sidewalls that extend upward from the lower section in the platform of Nelson ‘217 as taught by Clark et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to make the platform stronger.
Nelson et al. ‘217 is silent concerning the border being at least six inches above the lower section. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the invention was filed to have the border at least six inches above the lower section in order to capture the cargo, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson ‘217/Clark et al. and in view of Carling 2014/0133952.
In Re Claims 15-17, Nelson ‘217/Clark et al. teach the platform of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Nelson ‘217/Clark et al. do not teach wherein the hollowed portion is triangular shaped. (See fig. 1)
However, Carling teaches wherein the hollowed portion is triangular shaped; (See fig. 1) and wherein the hollowed portion comprises at least two entry inlets, configured to receive at least two forklift tynes; (See Fig. 1) (Paragraph 53) and wherein the top portion and bottom portion are constructed of at least one of: steel (Paragraph 66), titanium, impact resistant plastic, high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polycarbonate, and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a triangular shaped bottom section in the platform of Nelson ‘217/Clark et al. as taught by Carling with a reasonable expectation for success in order to be supported on a smaller surface.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson ‘217/Clark et al. and in view of Kolharkar et al. 9,327,952.
In Re Claims 19, Nelson ‘217/Clark et al. teach the platform of Claim 14 as discussed above.
Nelson ‘217/Clark et al. do not teach at least one handrail.
However, Kolharkar et al. teach at least one handrail (104, Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a handrail to the platform of Nelson ‘217/Clark et al. as taught by Kolharkar with a reasonable expectation for success in order to inhibit items from falling off.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. 9,213,367 and in view of Wittman 5,505,140 and in view of Carling 2014/0133952.
In Re Claim 20, Nelson et al. ‘367 teach an equipment platform, comprising: a top portion (17, 24a, 24b) wherein the top portion comprises a lower rectangular section (24a, 24b) and an upper rectangular section (17), wherein the lower rectangular section is sloped, and wherein the upper rectangular section has a smaller surface area than the lower rectangular section; (Fig. 7) a pair of opposed sidewalls (See Sidewalls of 24a, 24b, Fig. 7) coupled to the lower section; wherein the pair of opposed sidewalls extends upward from the lower rectangular section along a longitudinal axis L and terminates at a bottom edge of the lower rectangular section; (Fig. 7) a bottom portion (14) that is connected to the top portion via at least four sides; (Fig. 3)
Nelson et al. do not teach wherein the upper rectangular section is elevated above the lower rectangular section.
However, Wittman teaches wherein the upper rectangular section (24, 24a) is elevated above the lower rectangular section (50). (Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to arrange the upper rectangular section elevated above the lower rectangular section in the platform of Nelson et al. ‘367 as taught by Wittman with a reasonable expectation for success in order to create a smooth transition between lower and upper sections.
Nelson et al. do not teach a hollowed portion that is between the top portion and the bottom portion, wherein the hollowed portion comprises two entry inlets configured to receive at least two forklift tynes, wherein the hollowed portion is triangular shaped.
However, Carling teaches a hollowed portion (Opening between 63 and top, Fig. 1), wherein the hollowed portion comprises two entry inlets (two openings at 63, Fig. 1) configured to receive at least two forklift tynes, (Paragraph 53) wherein the hollowed portion is triangular shaped (Fig. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a triangular shaped bottom section in the platform of Nelson et al. ‘367 as taught by Carling with a reasonable expectation for success in order to be supported on a smaller surface.
Nelson et al. ‘367 do not disclose the lower rectangular section sloped at a 45 degree angle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the invention was filed to have the lower rectangular section sloped at a 45 degree angle in order to ease loading and unloading of cargo, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In Response to Applicant’s remarks that the cited art does not teach “a pair of opposed sidewalls coupled to the lower section and the sidewall extend upward from the lower section along a longitudinal axis and terminates at a bottom edge of the lower section”, the Examiner notes that Nelson et al. 9,213,367 teaches the pair of “opposed sidewalls” as discussed above. Regarding Claim 14, Clark et al. 5,803,523 teach the pair of “opposed sidewalls” as discussed above.
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 GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652