DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cover cantilevered from a core, the core including a foam wedge must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 39-42, 44-47, 56, 57 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Layne (U.S. Patent 4,349,992).
Layne discloses a seal (10) for use at a loading dock (Figure 1, for example). The seal has a cover (15) encasing a compressible core (12a). The seal protrudes in a first direction away from the pit floor (vertically, Figure 5, for example) and a second direction away from the pit floor (horizontally, for example, Figure 5) to seal a gap between the floor and a vehicle (Figure 2, for example). The arrangement is such that if a vertically stored dock leveler, which is not a positively recited component, was positioned on the dock, claim recitations would be met.
Regarding claim 40, the cover is a flexible material and fabric (column 2, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 41, the core is a compressible, resilient foam (column 2, lines 7-8).
Regarding claims 42 and 44, Layne seals in in a third direction (lengthwise, Figure 3, for example).
Layne functions in the manner of claims 45, 53 and 58 (Figure 2).
Regarding claims 46, 47 and 57, the core has a non-cylindrical shape that is deemed to meet the recitations of a “wedge,” since the shape tapers forwardly (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 56, the core is mounted to the pit floor (by brackets 14, 21, 22 and fasteners 18, 27, for example). See Figure 5.
Claims 56, 57 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moody (U.S. Patent 5,125,196).
Moody discloses a seal apparatus including a compressible seal (14, 15) and a cover (11) coupled to the compressible seal (Figures 2 and 4, for example) and is positionable in the manner claimed, since it is for a loading dock (Figure 1, for example). The cover is structured to deflect (from the position in Figure 2) relative to the compressible seal as claimed, since movement of the truck (28) moves the compressible seal (14, 15) relative to the cover (Figure 4, for example).
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 47 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layne or Moody, as applied above, and further in view of Hahn et al. (U.S. Patent 5,442,825).
As discussed above, Layne is within the scope of a wedge. Further, Hahn teaches this shape to be useful as a compressible seal configuration (Figure 3, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Layne in the shape of Hahn since Hahn exemplifies that this is a configuration known to use to seal loading docks.
Claims 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layne, as applied above, and further in view of Miller et al. (U.S. Patent 6,948,285).
Layne does not teach flexible flaps. Miller teaches flexible flaps (fabric straps 58) with a seal for connection between the seal and a dock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Layne with the flaps of Miller since Miller teaches these to be useful connection features in dock seals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 51-54 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 December 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The manner in which the seal is positionable relative to other, unclaimed devices/structures is not patentably distinguishing because the relied upon references could be positioned as claimed.
The reference relied upon with respect to claim 56 has been withdrawn and replaced. As with the preceding paragraph, the functional recitations are not patentably distinguishing.
As stated in the final Office action, because applicant did not specifically challenge examiner’s assertion of Official notice in the reply to the non-final Office action, this has been taken as admitted prior art.
Claim 51 is allowed; therefore, the argument is not being addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Thomas Will can be reached on 571272-6998. 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671