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 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 1-2, 7, 10-11, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Merrick et al, US 3,475,778.
Regarding claim 1, Merrick teaches a dock leveler comprising:
a counterbalancing assembly comprising a spring (47; Figure 4); and
an anchor plate (channel 46; Figure 4) spanning a width of the spring to permit coupling of the counterbalancing assembly and a linkage system (latch member 41 pivoted to the frame), the anchor plate comprising:
a first end portion (see detail of Figure 4 reproduced below with Examiner’s annotations) wrapped around a first outer surface of the spring of the dock leveler to secure the anchor plate to the spring;
a middle portion adjacent to the first end portion; and
a second end portion (see detail of Figure 4 reproduced below with Examiner’s annotations) adjacent the middle portion, the second end portion wrapped around a second outer surface of the spring to secure the anchor plate to the spring.
PNG
media_image1.png
249
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as shown in Figure 4, the anchor plate and the spring forcibly secure themselves to one another.
Regarding claim 7, as shown in Figure 4, the anchor plate is configured to couple to the linkage system through a hole defined in the middle portion.
Regarding claim 10, Merrick teaches a dock leveler comprising:
at least one spring (47; Figure 4) having a first end and a second end, the first end coupled (via anchor plate 46 and frame) to a face plate (top plate 16) of the dock leveler; and
at least one anchor plate (channel 46; Figure 4) spanning a width of the second end of the at least one spring to permit coupling of the at least one spring and a linkage system (latch member 41 pivoted to the frame) of the dock leveler, the at least one anchor plate comprising:
a first end portion (see detail of Figure 4 reproduced below with Examiner’s annotations) wrapped around a first outer surface of the second end of the at least one spring to secure the at least one anchor plate to the at least one spring;
a middle portion adjacent to the first end portion; and
a second end portion (see detail of Figure 4 reproduced below with Examiner’s annotations) adjacent the middle portion, the second end portion wrapped around a second outer surface of the second end of the at least one spring to secure the at least one anchor plate to the at least one spring.
PNG
media_image1.png
249
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, as shown in Figure 4, the at least one anchor plate and the at least one spring forcibly secure themselves to one another, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, as shown in Figure 4, the at least one anchor plate is configured to couple to the linkage system through a hole defined in the middle portion.
Regarding claim 19, Merrick teaches a spring anchor comprising:
an anchor plate (channel 46; Figure 4) configured to span a width of a spring (47; Figure 4) of a dock leveler to permit coupling of a counterbalancing assembly and a linkage system (latch member 41 pivoted to the frame), the anchor plate comprising:
a first end portion (see detail of Figure 4 reproduced below with Examiner’s annotations) configured to wrap around a first outer surface of the spring of the dock leveler to secure the anchor plate to the spring;
a middle portion adjacent to the first end portion; and
a second end portion (see detail of Figure 4 reproduced below with Examiner’s annotations) adjacent the middle portion, the second end portion configured to wrap around a second outer surface of the spring to secure the anchor plate to the spring.
PNG
media_image1.png
249
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, as shown in Figure 4, the anchor plate and the spring are configured to forcibly secure themselves to one another.
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 3-6 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrick as applied above in view of Schaefer et al., US 2022/0128084 A1.
Regarding claims 3-6 and 12-15, while Merrick shows a channel which has the first end portion and the second end portion but there is no detailed view of the channel, Schaefer discloses a channel with curved edges (Figure 1A) and discloses that a channel such as that is “usually formed from metal sheet, folded over to define an open channel with inward-curving lips to provide additional stiffness” and is commonly used in construction for structural support ([0002]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Merrick’s channel to be a channel with curved edges in view of Schaefer’s disclosure since it is a commonly-available type of channel that is known to provide additional stiffness. Since claims 3-6 and 12-15 include the limitations that the curved inner surface extends “greater than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees” and also “equal to or greater than 180 degrees”, this proves a lack in criticality of the exact degree of curvature as long as it is greater than 90 degrees. The resulting combination yields the first end portion having a first curved inner surface that extends greater than 90 degrees about a longitudinal axis of the first end portion and the second end portion having a second curved surface that extends greater than 90 degrees about a longitudinal axis of the second end portion. The resulting combination makes obvious that the first curved inner surface and second curved inner surface could extend less than 180 degrees about a longitudinal axis of the first end portion and second end portion respectively or extend equal to or greater than 180 degrees about a longitudinal axis of the first end portion and second end portion respectively based on obvious design choice (slightly a few degrees more or less such as 178 degrees or 182 degrees), since Schaefer shows first and second curved inner surfaces of about 180 degrees. Additionally, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap with that disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (on the page numbered “7”) that Merrick’s spring 47 does not meet the claim limitation because it is “at most, a small latch-disengaging biasing spring”. This is not persuasive. A definition of “counterbalancing” is “to act against with an equal and opposite force”. By Applicant’s own argument, since it is biasing, it must act against with an equal and opposite force, and therefore meet the claim limitation. Applicant’s specification does not disclose “counterbalancing” to require a particular or specific definition. It appears Applicant is arguing more than what is claimed.
Applicant argues (on the page numbered “8”) that channel 46 does not permit coupling of a counterbalancing assembly to a linkage system and asserts that channel 46 is merely fixed to the frame assembly and at most houses plunger 45 and spring 47. Applicant argues as if channel 46, plunger 45, and spring 47 are isolated from everything else in the dock leveler. This argument is not persuasive since it is not in accordance with Merrick’s disclosure. Channel 46 holds the plunger and spring at the desired location, which engages with member 41 which pivots. It appears Applicant is arguing more than what is claimed.
Applicant argues (also on the page numbered “8”) that channel 46 does not have any end portions that are wrapped around outer surface of the spring. This argument is not persuasive. Channel 46 has two corners attached with perpendicular plates; the channel literally wraps around the spring, with a first outer surface of the spring being adjacent the top corner of the channel as shown and annotated in the reproduction of Figure 4 and a second outer surface of the spring being adjacent the bottom corner of the channel as shown and annotated in the reproduction of Figure 4.
Applicant argues (on the page numbered “9”) that Merrick’s channel 46 is not wrapped around outer surfaces of the second end of the at least one spring. This argument is not persuasive because Applicant is arguing more than what is claimed. The “ends” can be considered as the spring being split vertically, i.e. with one end facing a viewer looking at Figure 4, and the other end facing away from the viewer looking at Figure 4. Both corners of the channel still wrap around first and second outer surfaces of the second end (the end facing away from the viewer looking at Figure 4).
Applicant relies on the arguments for claim 1 to apply to claim 19, which have been addressed above.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Applicant argues that Merrick’s channel does not have a hole defined in the middle portion. However, channel 46 has empty space between the two perpendicular legs which is part of the middle portion. That allows coupling of the at least one spring and a linkage system, since as discussed above, channel 46 holds the plunger and spring at the desired location, which engages with member 41 which pivots. Applicant has not claimed any specific structure for “linkage system”.
Applicant does not provide any additional arguments for claims 3-6 and 12-15, only relying on the arguments which have been addressed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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