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
Applicant is advised that should claim 20 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shafer et al US 2021/0276849.
Regarding claim 7, Shafer discloses a gate assembly for a safety rail on an aerial work platform, the gate assembly comprising a gate (76) pivotally connected to the safety rail via a hinge (80), wherein the hinge comprises a quick release pin (Shafter, ¶0049), and wherein the hinge is configured such that removal of the quick release pin enables separation of the gate from the safety rail (74).
Regarding claim 12, Shafer discloses a work platform for an aerial lift, the platform comprising: a platform floor (40); a safety rail (74); and a gate assembly coupled with the safety rail, the gate assembly including a gate (76) pivotally connected to the safety rail via a hinge (80), wherein the hinge comprises a quick release pin (Shafer, ¶0049), and wherein the hinge is configured such that removal of the quick release pin enables removal of the gate from the safety rail.
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafer et al US 2021/0276849 in view of Francis et al US 20230056050.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Shafer discloses the gate assembly of claim 7 but fails to disclose the quick release pin having a finger pull. Francis teaches a gate assembly with a quick release pin (122) having a finger pull (124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the quick release pin of Shafer with a finger pull as taught by Francis as to provide a way to easily grasp the pin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims rejected under Crick GB 2487505 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims rejected under Shafer et al US 2021/0276849 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Safety rails of the instant invention are not claimed in a way that excludes the lower rails of Shafer (Shafer, ¶0049). The gate of Shafer pivots about lower safety rails and therefore meets the limitations of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, and 13-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose either alone or in combination a gate assembly as claimed having a R-clip, a second door, or a hinge having sandwiched plates.
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 KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 571.272.1467. 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.
/KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights