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.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the last line includes the recitation “said first said insulating panel” which appears to contain a typographical error and should be “said first insulating panel”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 recites “a first insulating panel fixedly positioned underneath and at least partially onto said bridge plate”. Looking at Figure 2, the first insulating panel (13) is actually not directly positioned “onto” the bridge in any way, not even at least partially; there is no contact at all with the bridge plate. As shown in Applicant’s Figure 2, there are many layers/elements separating the bridge plate from the first insulating panel. As such, the limitation will be interpreted as “a first insulating panel fixedly positioned underneath and connected (via other elements) to the bridge plate”.
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.
Claim 12-13 (and claims 14-20 through dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “the lip being movable to a retracted position underneath said lip”. Any structure cannot be underneath itself. It is unclear what Applicant is trying to claim. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Applicant intended “the lip being movable to a retracted position underneath said bridge plate”.
Claim 13 recites “said catch slides out of the lip” in line 4. This limitation does not appear to be in accordance with Applicant’s specification and drawings. As disclosed in the specification on page 5 lines 17-18 and as shown in Figures 4-5, the catch 25 is attached to the underside of the lip 8 and moves with the lip. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Applicant intended “said catch slides out with the lip”.
Correction is required for each rejection.
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)(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.
Claims 12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Borgerding, US 8,800,086 B1.
Regarding claim 12, Borgerding teaches a loading ramp assembly comprising:
a loading platform (structure shown with cross-hatching on the left side of Figures 16-18);
a bridge plate (16) having a loading platform side rotatably connected (hinge shown but unnumbered in Figures 16-18 on the left side) to said loading platform, said bridge plate having a front side with a lip (18), the lip being movable to a retracted position (Figure 16) underneath said bridge plate (see 112(b) rejection above) and extendable forwardly from the front side of said bridge plate to an extended position (Figure 17), the lip having a foremost lip part on a front side thereof, the foremost lip part adapted to rest upon a loading floor of a vehicle (vehicle shown in Figure 2; disclosure in Background section) when in the extended position;
a first insulating panel (84) fixedly positioned underneath and at least partially onto said bridge plate (see Claim Interpretation above); and
a second insulating panel (120+126+128) positioned underneath the lip when in the extended position (Figure 17), said second insulating panel positioned above said first insulating panel below the lip, said second insulating panel being movable relative to said first insulating panel, said second insulating panel being pulled toward the front side of said bridge plate when the lip slides from the retracted position to the extended position (Figure 17).
Regarding claim 15, Borgerding's loading ramp includes a beam (C-shaped beam 76) underneath the bridge plate, extending transverse to the direction of the movement of the lip, which beam limits the path of movement backwards of the second insulating panel, in such a way, that the second insulation panel in the retracted position lies with its rear edge against this beam (126 is disclosed to be the rear section of the second insulating panel; Figure 16).
Regarding claim 17, as shown in Figure 16, said first insulating panel (84) has a rear edge (at the loading platform) and a front edge (towards the lip) and a pair of side edges, wherein said second insulating panel (120+126+128) has a rear edge (facing 76) and a front edge towards the lip) and a pair of side edges, wherein a distance between the front edge and the rear edge of said first insulting panel is greater than a distance between the front edge and the rear edge of said second insulating panel (Figures 16-17).
Regarding claim 18, as shown in Figure 16, the second insulating panel (120+126+128) rests on said first insulating panel (84) when in the retracted position.
Regarding claim 19, as shown in Figure 16, a front edge (towards the lip) of said second insulating panel has a strip (128) protruding downwardly, the strip lying sealing against an upper side of said first insulating panel when in the retracted position. The claim as written appears to say that a front edge and a strip are part of the second insulating panel.
Regarding claim 20, as shown in Figure 16, a rear edge (rear side of second insulating panel attached to 66) has a strip (128) protruding downwardly, the strip laying sealing against an upper side of said first insulating panel when in the retracted position. The claim as written appears to say that a rear edge and a strip are part of the second insulating panel.
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgerding as applied above to claim 15 in view of Thole et al., US 11,649,121 B2.
Regarding claim 16, while Borgerding fails to disclose that the rear edge of the second insulating panel or a side of the beam facing the second insulating panel has at least one magnet, Thole teaches a dock leveler and discloses using magnets to releasably secure a seal element to another element (column 15 lines 63-64). Looking at Borgerding’s Figures 16-17, since the rear side of the second insulating panel lies completely flat against the side of the beam facing the second insulating panel (Figure 16) and the rear side of the second insulating panel peels away from the beam in the extended position (looking at rear side of 126 with 76 in Figure 17), 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 rear edge of the second insulating panel or a side of the beam facing the second insulating panel to have at least one magnet in view of Thole’s disclosure to be able to ensure that the rear side of 126 of the second insulating panel does not peel away from the beam in the retracted position and secure it in place.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. If Applicant amends the claims in a way that changes the scope of the claims, allowability will be reconsidered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues using Borgerding’s Figures 1-3. Examiner notes that the previous rejection and the rejection above relies on Borgerding’s Figures 16-18.
Applicant argues (in the bottom half of the page numbered “9” that panel 84 is not connected to the deck and cannot follow along with any movement of the deck. Applicant is arguing far more than what is claimed. Additionally, the panel 84 is connected to the deck/bridge plate 16 via the loading platform and hinge on the left side and via a plurality of elements on the right side as shown in Borgerding’s Figures 16-18.
Applicant does not provide arguments to the dependent claims, only relying on the argument to independent claim 12.
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 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
Prosecution Insights