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 Interpretation
Claims 1, 11, 18, and 20 require a pivot anchor or body of a pivot anchor to project “laterally” away from a face plate. Looking at Applicant’s Figure 5, 16, and 19, the pivot anchor (plate 203A) has a greater depth than face plate (125), and so would only project “laterally” away from the face plate only when looking at the side view (such as in Figure 16). If one were to stand in front of the dock leveler and look directly, straight-on at the dock leveler, the pivot anchor would not project “laterally” since it is much thinner compared to the entire length of the face plate (there is no elevation view provided, but similar to when looking at Figure 5). Accordingly, “laterally” will be considered along any plane.
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.
Claims 11 (and 12-19 through dependency) and 20 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 11 recites “a dock” in line 2, then “a dock” in line 9. It is unclear whether Applicant is requiring two different docks or whether Applicant is referencing the same dock. Correction is required.
Claim 20’s preamble is only for a pivot anchor. Applicant’s pivot anchor is a plate 202, as shown in Figures 13-15. The body of claim 20 includes limitations pertaining to a face plate, a dock leveler, a dock, etc which are not part of the pivot anchor. The claim as written is indefinite because as written, it is unclear whether Applicant is trying to claim a system, rather than just the pivot anchor plate 202 as the preamble dictates. As such, these additional features are considered as intended use, as they fall outside the scope of the required structure of the pivot anchor. Correction is required.
Claim 20 as written is additionally indefinite because the claim includes “a face plate” in the second line, but then Applicant also includes recitations of “the face plate” in line 5, “a face plate” in line 6, and “the face plate” in line 8. This is indefinite because it is unclear whether a face plate is required, and whether Applicant is referring to the same face plate or different face plates. Correction is required.
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 11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meichtry et al., US 6,240,587 B1.
Regarding claim 11, Meichtry teaches a dock leveler (Figures 3-6) comprising:
a face plate (42) disposed to abut against a wall of a dock (to the right of the face plate 42 in Figures 5 and 6);
a pivot anchor (54+58+102) comprising:
a first body (54+58) projecting laterally away from the face plate, the first body having a first hole (unnumbered, shown where 86 sits in Figure 5) configured to anchor a pivotable member (66+86) of the dock leveler, the first body comprising:
a first top portion (top surface of 58) extending from the face plate; and
a first bottom portion (portion below top portion of 58) disposed below the face plate and having a first support surface (back surface) configured to contact the wall of a dock, wherein a first bottom edge (near where bolt 62 is shown in Figure 6) of the first bottom portion is positionable lower on the wall of the dock than a bottom edge of the face plate (clearly shown in Figure 6).
Regarding claim 17, as shown in Figure 6, a height of the first bottom portion is greater than a height of the first top portion.
Regarding claim 18, as shown in Figure 4, Meichtry’s dock leveler further comprises:
a second body (duplicate of the first body since there is another one on the other side of the dock wall; other 54+58 on the other side of the dock wall) projecting laterally away from the face plate, the second body having a second hole (unnumbered, where the other 86 sits) configured to anchor a second pivotable member (other 66+86) of the dock leveler, the second body comprising:
a second top portion (top surface of other 58) extending from the face plate; and
a second bottom portion (portion below top portion of other 58) disposed below the face plate and having a second support surface (back surface) configured to contact the wall of a dock, wherein a second bottom edge of the second bottom portion is positionable lower on the wall of the dock than a bottom edge of the face plate (clearly shown in Figure 6).
Regarding claim 19, as shown in Figure 4, the first and second body, collectively, are centered about a length of the face plate (the first and second body are placed symmetrically from a shared center about a length of the face plate, since a definition of “centered” is “having a specified center” according to the Oxford English Dictionary) when the first and second top portions are coupled to the face plate.
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 1-2, 5-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloppenburg et al., US 2008/0313826 in view of Robinson, US 169,293.
Regarding claim 1, Kloppenburg teaches a dock leveler comprising:
a face plate (11) disposed to abut against a wall of a dock (top wall of 10); and
a pivot anchor (in Figures 1a-1c, vertical plate and pivot joint 14 underneath and directly connected to 11) projecting laterally away from the face plate, the pivot anchor having a pivot hole (shown inside 14) configured to receive a pivot pin of the dock leveler, the pivot anchor comprising:
a top portion (top surface of vertical plate as shown in Figures 1a-1c) configured to abut against the face plate (shown in Figures 1a-1c), and
a bottom portion (everything below the top surface of vertical plate as shown in Figures 1a-1c) disposed below the face plate and having a support surface (left surface of vertical plate as shown in Figures 1a-1c) configured to contact a wall (vertical side wall) of a dock.
While Kloppenburg discloses that the top portion of the pivot anchor is welded to the face plate of the dock leveler (as shown in Figures 1a-1c), but fails to disclose a protrusion configured to couple with at least one hole in the face plate, Robinson discloses connecting two perpendicularly-arranged elements together and riveting or welding as alternate ways to connect those two elements together (column 2 line 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the weld with riveting in view of Robinson’s disclosure as they are known alternate ways to connect two elements together that are perpendicularly arranged. While the resulting combination fails to specify that the face plate has at least one hole, as is required of a riveted connection, one element has to have the body of the rivet and the other element has to have a hole to form a riveted connection. In this case, the hole must either be on the face plate or the pivot anchor to form the riveted connection; the hole must be on one or the other. It has been held that rearrangement of parts involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F .2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). 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 face plate to have at least one hole and the pivot anchor to have at least one protrusion which is the rivet body to couple with the at least one hole of the face plate to form the riveted connection of the resulting combination.
Regarding claim 2, the resulting combination includes the pivot hole being positioned in the bottom portion (since it is part of the structure of the pivot anchor that is below the top surface of the vertical plate as shown in Figures 1a-1c).
Regarding claim 5, the resulting combination from claim 1 includes a height of the bottom portion being greater than a height of the top portion.
Regarding claim 6, looking at Kloppenburg’s Figures 1a-1c, the resulting combination from claim 1 makes obvious a first protrusion (rivet body) of the at least one protrusion extending from an uppermost wall of the pivot anchor to be able to connect to the at least one hole of the face plate (11).
Regarding claim 8, looking at Kloppenburg’s Figures 1a-1c, the resulting combination from claim 1 includes a bottom edge of the bottom portion being positioned lower on the wall of the dock than a bottom edge of the face plate.
Regarding claim 10, looking at Kloppenburg’s Figures 1a-1c, the resulting combination from claim 1 includes a length (measured from left to right of the vertical wall and pivot joint) of pivot anchor being less than a height (measured from top to bottom) of the pivot anchor.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikstra, US 2024/02533918 A1 (it is noted that the provisional application was checked for the disclosure) in view of Brainard & Newton, US 12,667.
Regarding claim 20, Kikstra teaches a pivot anchor (614; Figure 6) comprising:
at least one body capable of projecting laterally away (angled side) from a face plate of a dock leveler and having a hole (unnumbered, clearly shown in Figure 6) capable of receiving a pivot pin of the dock leveler, the at least one body comprising:
a top portion (top horizontal portion) capable of abutting against the face plate, and
a bottom portion (bottom curved portion) disposed below the face plate and having a support surface capable of contacting a wall of a dock.
While Kikstra discloses the pivot anchor being coupled ([0050] lines 2-4) to a plate but does not provide further details, Brainard & Newton teaches an element with at least one protrusion (bolt) secured/coupled to another element which is a plate with at least one hole to receive the bolt to secure the two elements together (column 1 lines 34-35). 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 top portion to have at least one protrusion configured to couple with at least one hole in a face plate in view of Brainard & Newton’s disclosure as discussed above as an alternate way to secure the pivot anchor to a face plate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 9 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.
Claims 12-16 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 a claim, allowability will be reconsidered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet.
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