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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: wording, throughout.
Replacing:
“Claim 4:
An assembly for assisting ingress and egress into and out of the load bed of a truck, the load bed having a rear opening, the truck having a rear hitch receiver, the load bed having a downwardly pivotable tail gate overlying the rear hitch receiver, the downwardly pivotable tail gate having, upon downward pivoting, a rearward extension, said assembly further being for alternatively illuminating the load bed and ground areas behind the truck, said assembly comprising:
a. a tail gate clearance arm having proximal and distal ends, the tail gate clearance arm having, upon a receipt of it proximal end within the rear hitch receiver, a rearward extension greater than that of the downwardly pivoted tail
b. a handle having upper and lower ends, and having an upper segment and having a lower segment, the handle being rigidly mounted at and extending upwardly from the distal end of the tail gate clearance arm;
c. a step rigidly mounted at the first arm's distal end of the tail gate clearance arm, the step being positioned downwardly from the rearwardly extended end of the tail gate upon the downwardly pivoting of the tail gate;
d. a lamp assembly mounted at the handle's upper end, wherein the lamp assembly comprises a second boom arm fixedly attached to and cantilevering from the handle's upper end, wherein the lamp assembly further comprises an electric light operatively mounted upon a distal end of the second boom arm; and
e. a swivel joint interconnecting the handle's upper and segment and the handle's lower segments segment; wherein the swivel joint is adapted for facilitating pivoting movements of the electric light and the second boom arm between a distally extending position at which ground surfaces behind truck may be illuminated by the electric light and a proximally extending position at which the truck load bed may be illuminated by the electric light.”
with (emphasis added; see note regarding superscript numbers below):
“Claim 4:
An assembly for assisting ingress and egress into and out of a load bed1 of a truck, the load bed having a rear opening, the truck having a rear hitch receiver, the load bed having a downwardly pivotable tailgate2 overlying the rear hitch receiver, the downwardly pivotable tailgate having, upon downward pivoting, a rearward extension, said assembly further being for alternatively illuminating the load bed and ground areas behind the truck, said assembly comprising:
a. a tailgate clearance arm having a proximal end and a distal end, the tailgate clearance arm having, upon a receipt of its proximal end within the rear hitch receiver, a rearward extension having a length greater than a length of the rearward extension of the downwardly pivotable tailgate;
b. a handle having an upper end and a lower end, and having an upper segment and having a lower segment, the handle being rigidly mounted at and extending upwardly from the distal end of the tailgate clearance arm;
c. a step rigidly mounted at the first arm's distal end of the tailgate clearance arm, the step being positioned downwardly from a rearwardly extended end3 of the downwardly pivotable tailgate upon the downwardly pivoting of the downwardly pivotable tailgate;
d. a lamp assembly mounted at the handle's upper end, wherein the lamp assembly comprises a second boom arm fixedly attached to and cantilevering from the handle's upper end, wherein the lamp assembly further comprises an electric light operatively mounted upon a distal end of the second boom arm; and
e. a swivel joint interconnecting the handle's upper 4segment and the handle's lower segments segment; wherein the swivel joint is adapted for facilitating pivoting movements of the electric light and the second boom arm between a distally extending position at which ground surfaces behind the truck may be illuminated by the electric light and a proximally extending position at which the 5 load bed may be illuminated by the electric light.”
is suggested.
It should be noted that superscript numbers in the suggested replacement text above indicate notes, presented below, that are intended only to clarify the suggested replacement text; it would not be relevant or appropriate to include these superscript numbers in any amendments to the existing text. It should be further noted that the present text of Claim 4 includes multiple antecedent basis issues. The suggested replacement text of Claim 4 above effectively corrects the antecedent basis issues but these issues are nonetheless grounds for rejection under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
Notes:
1: The text “the load bed” lacks antecedent basis. See rejection under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, below.
2: The space between “tail” and “gate” has been removed throughout for consistency with the Specification.
3. The text “the rearwardly extended end” lacks antecedent basis. See rejection under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, below.
4: The word “and” has been removed.
5: The word “truck” has been removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 2. Replacing “tail gate” with “tailgate” is suggested, for consistency with Claim 1 and the Specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the limitations “the load bed” (Line 1), “the rearwardly extended end” (Line 16), and “the truck load bed” (Line 28). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The metes and bounds of Claim 10 are unclear. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation “eyes opening at the proximal end of the tail gate clearance arm” will be construed as “latch pin-receiving eyes that open within the proximal end of the tailgate clearance arm”.
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 4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt (US 6409367 B1) in view of Pisciotti (US 7008088 B2) and further in view of Davis (US 5749697 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 4, Pratt teaches an assembly for assisting ingress and egress into and out of the load bed of a truck, the load bed having a rear opening, the truck having a rear hitch receiver, the truck having a rear hitch receiver, the load bed having a downwardly pivotable tail gate overlying the rear hitch receiver, and the downwardly pivotable tail gate having, upon downward pivoting, a rearward extension [Pratt Annotated Fig. 1, below; Pratt “Description” Paragraph 2: “a rear-towing receptacle 12”; Pratt “Description” Paragraph 4: “the tailgate 13 can be opened”]. It should be noted that while Pratt does not explicitly indicate that the downwardly pivotable tailgate pivots downward, downwardly pivoting tailgates are standard in trucks of the claimed invention. It should be further noted that downwardly pivotable tailgates are conventional and common in the art. [Lipski {US 7661693 B1}; Watson {US 5788095 A}; Carroll {US 10286740 B2}]. It should be further noted that applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, D.).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Pratt Fig. 1
Pratt teaches a lamp assembly [Annotated Pratt Fig. 1, above], but does not teach a lamp assembly illuminating the load bed or ground areas. Pisciotti teaches said assembly further being for alternatively illuminating the load bed and ground areas behind the truck [Annotated Pisciotti Fig. 2, below; Pisciotti “Summary of the Invention” Paragraph 13: “The lamps are located at the ends of a crossbar, attached by brackets that will allow the lamps to be reoriented, directing the light as needed.”; Pisciotti “Description” Paragraph 16: “Each lamp assembly 40 includes a lamp 42 pivotally mounted to a bracket 44 such that the angle of the lamp 42 may be moved both horizontally and vertically within the bracket 44.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the assembly of Pratt to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, the assembly illuminating the load bed and ground areas in view of Pisciotti. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pratt and Pisciotti because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing light inexpensively, dependably, and effectively [Pisciotti “Background/Summary” Paragraph 16: “additional lighting for work, recreational, and other purposes.”; Pisciotti “Background/Summary” Paragraph 18: “improved elements and arrangements thereof in an apparatus for the purposes described which is inexpensive, dependable and fully effective in accomplishing its intended purposes.”], as recognized by Pisciotti. It should be noted that while Pisciotti does not explicitly indicate load bed and ground area illumination, the structure of Pisciotti’s invention allows applicability to both of these functions (see above). It should be further noted that while the stated motivation of implementing Pisciotti’s invention is rearward vehicle backing safety, this motivation does not prevent implementation Pisciotti’s invention for load bed and ground area illumination, even if the intended capability inherent in Pisciotti is lost. It should be further noted that and that while Pisciotti criticizes prior art arrangements wherein factory-installed tail lights and backup lights are ineffective, Pisciotti does not indicate that the lights cannot be used for other purposes that might compromise the primary objective of Pisciotti’s invention. It should be further noted that in accordance with MPEP §2144 IV “it is not necessary, in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness,…that there be a suggestion or expectation from the prior art that the claimed [invention] will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered by Applicant.” (In re Dillon, 16 USPQ2d at 1901).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Pisciotti Fig. 2
Pratt teaches a tail gate clearance arm having proximal and distal ends, the tail gate clearance arm having, upon a receipt of it proximal end within the rear hitch receiver, a rearward extension greater than that of the downwardly pivoted tail gate [Annotated Pratt Fig. 1, above; Pratt “Description” Paragraph 4: the bed of the vehicle 11 may be accessed without removing the entire system 10 from the receptacle 12. Specifically, the mounting leg 16 may be pivoted away from the tailgate 13 so that the tailgate 13 can be opened while the mount base 18 remains in place.”]; and a handle having upper and lower ends [Annotated Pratt Fig. 1, above], but does not teach an upper segment and a lower segment. Davis teaches a handle having upper and lower ends, and having an upper segment and having a lower segment, the handle being rigidly mounted at and extending upwardly from the distal end of the tail gate clearance arm [Davis Fig. 1, Reference Characters 16 and 18]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the assembly of Pratt to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, upper and lower handle segments in view of Davis. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to the one-piece handle of Pratt and would have been motivated to combine Pratt and Davis because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the implementation of a swivel joint on the handle, such swivel joint enabling the boom to be swung freely between different positions [Davis Paragraph 6: “The boom arm (to) be swung freely as when moving a load over the ground to a load vehicle or other load structure.”], as recognized by Davis.
Pratt teaches a step rigidly mounted at the distal end of the tail gate clearance arm, the step being positioned downwardly from the rearwardly extended end of the tail gate upon the downwardly pivoting of the tail gate [Pratt Annotated Fig. 1, above]; but does not teach a lamp assembly comprising a boom arm. Pisciotti teaches a lamp assembly mounted at the handle's upper end, wherein the lamp assembly comprises a boom arm fixedly attached to and cantilevering from the handle's upper end, wherein the lamp assembly further comprises an electric light operatively mounted upon a distal end of the boom arm [Pisciotti Annotated Fig. 2, below]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the assembly of Pratt to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a lamp assembly comprising a boom arm in view of Pisciotti. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pratt and Pisciotti because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing light inexpensively, dependably, and effectively [Pisciotti “Background/Summary” Paragraph 16: “additional lighting for work, recreational, and other purposes.”; Pisciotti “Background/Summary” Paragraph 18: improved elements and arrangements thereof in an apparatus for the purposes described which is inexpensive, dependable and fully effective in accomplishing its intended purposes.”]. It should be noted that while Pisciotti does not explicitly indicate load bed and ground area illumination, the structure of Pisciotti’s invention allows applicability to both of these functions (see above). It should be further noted that while the stated motivation of implementing Pisciotti’s invention is rearward vehicle backing safety, this motivation does not prevent implementation Pisciotti’s invention for load bed and ground area illumination, even if the intended capability inherent in Pisciotti is lost. It should be further noted that and that while Pisciotti criticizes prior art arrangements wherein factory-installed tail lights and backup lights are ineffective, Pisciotti does not indicate that the lights cannot be used for other purposes that might compromise the primary objective of Pisciotti’s invention. It should be further noted that in accordance with MPEP §2144 IV “it is not necessary, in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness,…that there be a suggestion or expectation from the prior art that the claimed [invention] will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered by Applicant.” (In re Dillon, 16 USPQ2d at 1901).
Pratt teaches an assembly having a handle having upper and lower ends but does not teach a swivel joint interconnecting the handle’s upper segment and lower segment. Davis teaches a swivel joint interconnecting the handle's upper segment and the handle's and lower segment; wherein the swivel joint is adapted for facilitating pivoting movements of the electric light and the boom arm between a distally extending position at which ground surfaces behind truck may be illuminated by the electric light and a proximally extending position at which the truck load bed may be illuminated by the electric light [Davis Fig. 1, Reference Characters 16, 18, 20, and 22; Davis Abstract: “A boom hoist is disclosed having top and bottom mast sections joined together midway of an upstanding mast at a swivel joint defined by mating flange faces where the top mast section rotates about a central core extending into each mast section.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the assembly of Pratt to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a swivel joint in view of Davis. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to the one-piece non-swivel handle of Pratt and would have been motivated to combine Pratt and Davis because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing rotation to a variety of fixed positions [Pratt Paragraph 5: “a hoist which may be rotated to a variety of fixed positions yet which has increased structural integrity for use with a wide variety of associated implements.”] and further providing easy disassembly for transportation and storage [Davis Paragraph 6: “a boom hoist having increased structural integrity yet which may be easily taken apart for transportation and storage, and for moveability in being used with a variety of implements.”], as recognized by Davis. It should be noted that while Davis does not explicitly describe movement of a boom arm between ground surface and load bed positions, the structure of Davis’ invention clearly allows and promotes rotatability of the boom arm that could attain these positions.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Pratt and Pisciotti teaches an assembly but does not teach a swivel joint comprising friction plates. Davis teaches the assembly for assisting ingress and egress assembly of Claim 4, wherein the swivel joint comprises an upper friction plate and a lower friction plate [Davis Fig. 1, Reference Characters 20 and 22; Davis Paragraph 2: “Affixed to a free end of top mast section 18 is a corresponding flange 22 having a bearing surface which mates with a face of flange 20.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the assembly of the combination of Pratt and Pisciotti, comprising a handle, to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a swivel joint comprising upper and lower friction plates in view of Davis. It should be noted that the use of friction plate joints is common in the art [Li {CN 111362136 A}; Pollia {DE 1201635 B}; Guo {CN 214500411 U}; He et al. {CN 203010056 U}; Dong {CN 204628863 U}]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pratt, Pisciotti, and Davis because this would have achieved the desirable result of preventing one segment from being vertically offset from the other segment and enabling the axial adjustability of the handle. As recognized by Davis, “boom hoist A may be utilized on the side of the vehicle to lift articles outside of the vehicle truck bed, whereon mast section 18 and boom arm 30 may be swiveled about flanges 20, 22 over the pickup bed for loading (or unloading) the article into the bed. This is particularly advantageous since the side mount provides an unobstructive delivery over the tailgate of the vehicle or its side.” [Davis Paragraph 7].
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Pratt and Pisciotti teaches an assembly but does not teach upper and lower eyes. Davis teaches the assembly for assisting ingress and egress of Claim 6, wherein the swivel joint comprises an upper plurality of eyes and a lower plurality of eyes respectively opening at the upper friction plate and the lower friction plate, and further comprising a lock pin extending through a vertically aligned pair of said eyes [Davis Fig. 1, Reference Character 44; Davis Paragraph 6: “The swivel joint which allows the boom arm to swing to a variety of rotational positions is located about midway of the mast and the moment arm is reduced about the swivel. A plurality of apertures (45 degrees apart) are fixed in the flange plates 22 and 20 to receive a bolt 44 by which the top mast section may be rotated relative to the bottom mast section”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the assembly of the combination of Pratt and Pisciotti, comprising a handle, to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a swivel joint comprising upper and lower pluralities of eyes in view of Davis. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to a single upper eye and a single lower eye and would have been motivated to combine Pratt, Pisciotti, and Davis because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing an adjustable axial connection between the handle’s upper segment and lower segment. As recognized by Davis, “the top mast section may be rotated relative to the bottom mast section to fix the relative position of the boom arm. The boom arm may be swung freely as when moving a load over the ground to a load vehicle or other load structure.” [Davis Paragraph 6].
Regarding Claim 8, Pratt teaches the truck load bed ingress and egress assembly of Claim 4, wherein the step comprises a "T" flange having left step surface and a right step surface [Annotated Pratt Fig. 1, above].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Pratt and Davis teaches a receiver hitch but does not teach receiving eyes. Pisciotti teaches the assembly for assisting ingress and egress of Claim 4, further comprising eyes opening at the proximal end of the tail gate clearance arm. [Pisciotti Fig. 2, Reference Character 32; Pisciotti “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 13: “An aperture 32, seen in FIG. 2, is formed in the mounting bar 30 for receiving a locking pin 34”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the assembly of Pratt and Davis to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, eyes in view of Pisciotti. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pratt, Davis, and Pisciotti because this would have achieved the desirable result of securing the tailgate clearance arm to the vehicle, as recognized by Pisciotti [Pisciotti “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 13: “secures the crossbar assembly to the receiver hitch.”]. It should be noted that while Pisciotti does not provide additional motivation for including eyes, featuring eyes at the proximal ends of tailgate clearance arms is common in the art. [Welch {US 5540537 A}; Watson {US 5788095 A}; Walstrom et al. {WO 0234568 A1}]. It should be further noted that applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claims 5 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt (US 6409367 B1) in view of Pisciotti (US 7008088 B2), further in view of Davis (US 5749697 A), and further in view of Robinette (US 5211526 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Pratt, Pisciotti, and Davis teaches an assembly comprising a handle and a second arm but does not teach a telescoping quill and stem. Robinette teaches the assembly for assisting ingress and egress assembly of Claim 4, wherein the boom arm comprises a telescoping quill and stem combination [Robinette Fig. 2, Reference Characters 22 and 18; Robinette Paragraph 12: “The crane is constructed from square or rectangular tubing having telescoping, overlapped joints between tubing members. These joints are secured by penetrating hand pins or by threaded members.”]. It should be noted that while Robinette does not provide an explicit motivation for the use of the telescoping quill and stem, capable of being vehicle-mounted, arrangements of this type are common in the art [Yan et al. {CN 202744222 U}; Moreno-Vallejo WO 2015001144 A1}; Lin {CN 204281123 U}; Wang {CN 105398974 A}]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the assembly for assisting ingress and egress, comprising a second arm, of the combination of Pratt, Pisciotti, and Davis to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a telescoping quill and stem combination in view of Robinette. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to the one-piece, non-adjustable second arm of the combination of Pratt, Pisciotti, and Davis and would have been motivated to combine Pratt, Pisciotti, Davis, and Robinette because this would have achieved the desirable results of varying reach distance of the light assembly (thus allowing light to be distributed in multiple locations) and decreasing the assembly’s storage space requirements. It should be further noted that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Pratt, Pisciotti, and Davis teaches an assembly comprising a second arm but does not teach a set screw. Robinette teaches the assembly for assisting ingress and egress of Claim 5, further comprising a set screw operatively mounted at a distal end of the telescoping quill and stem combination's quill, said set screw being adapted for alternately permitting and resisting extending and retracting movements of said combination's stem [Robinette Fig. 2, Reference Character 24; Robinette Paragraph 3: “The boom arm 18 has an adjustable length extension 22, secured by a setscrew 24.”]. It should be noted that while Robinette does not provide an explicit motivation for the use of a set screw, the use of set screws to permit and resist movement of telescoping tubes is common in the art [Struthers et al. {US 2591662 A}; Gibson {US 2775176 A}; Kaida { JP 2004035180 A}]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the assembly for ingress and egress comprising a second arm of the combination of Pratt, Pisciotti, and Davis to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a set screw in view of Robinette. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to an unsecured connection and would have been motivated to combine Pratt, Pisciotti, Davis, and Robinette because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing secure adjustability of the stem. It should be further noted that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt (US 6409367 B1) in view of Pisciotti (US 7008088 B2), further in view of Davis (US 5749697 A), and further in view of Anderson (US 9085264 B2). [Note that prior art references are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Pratt, Pisciotti, and Davis teaches an assembly comprising a step but does not teach friction pads. Anderson teaches the assembly for assisting ingress and egress of Claim 8, comprising a left friction pad and a right friction pad respectively attached to the left and right step surfaces [Anderson Fig. 1, Reference Character 90; Anderson Paragraph 31: the traction surface 90 may include "tread" attached the top surface 89 of the hitch step body 74 in any appropriate manner…This tread may be rubber, metal, or any other desired material.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the truck load bed ingress and egress assembly, comprising a step, of the combination of Pratt, Pisciotti, and Davis to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, friction pads in view of Anderson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pratt, Pisciotti, Davis, and Anderson because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing the safety of user truck bed ingress/egress. As such, “This tread may provide traction for one standing or stepping on the hitch step.” [Anderson Paragraph 31], as recognized by Anderson.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt (US 6409367 B1) in view of Pisciotti (US 7008088 B2), further in view of Davis (US 5749697 A), and further in view of Walstrom et al. (WO 0234568 A1) (hereinafter “Walstrom”). [Note that prior art references are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Pratt, Pisciotti, and Davis teaches an assembly comprising an operative mount of the electric light but does not a swivel bracket. Walstrom teaches the truck load bed ingress and egress assembly of Claim 4, wherein the operative mount of the electric light comprises a swivel bracket interconnecting the electric light and the boom arm's distal end [Walstrom Figs. 4 and 5, Reference Character 72; Walstrom Page 7, Lines 5-7: “As best shown in Figure 4, the housing 60 is secured to a mounting post 70 by means of a yoke 72. More specifically, a first pivot pin 74 connects the housing 60 to the yoke 72”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the truck load bed ingress and egress assembly, comprising a step, of the combination of Pratt, Pisciotti, and Davis to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a swivel bracket in view of Walstrom. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pratt, Pisciotti, Davis, and Walstrom because this would allow pivotal movement of the light housing which would enable the light to be adjusted as needed [Walstrom Page 7, Lines 7-9: “allows relative pivotal movement of the housing with respect to the yoke through an axis of approximately 30-100° (see action arrows A in Figure 4).], as recognized by Walstrom. It should be noted that swivel brackets for light assemblies mounting on hitch receivers are common in the art [Paine et al. {US 10907777 B2]; Carroll {US 10286740 B2}; Pisciotti { US 7008088 B2}]. It should be further noted that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613