DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
All claims have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcichtry et al. (U.S. Patent 6,240,587)
Mcichtry discloses a dock leveler (title, for example) including a deck platform (30) and a beam (38) extending between the front and back thereof (Figure 15, for example). The beam is a vertical plate (Figure 3, for example) having a cutout (not labeled) shaped to fit around the deck hinge shaft (at 40, see Figure 5, for example). There are no horizontal plates; however, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to arrange deck supports in this manner (I-beams and C-shaped beams, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Mcichtry with top and bottom horizontal plates in order to withstand higher deck loads as desired.
Given the inclusion of the horizontal plates, claim 2 and 3 recitations would be met.
Regarding claim 4, Mcichtry includes a plurality of plates (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 all plates in the manner discussed above in order to optimally support the deck platform and loads thereon.
Regarding claim 5, the beams are spaced (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, there is no structure recited with respect to the extension; therefore, at least the portion tapered to the cutout (Figure 5, for example) meets this recitation.
Regarding claim 7, there is a hinge bracket as claimed (Figure 11, for example).
Regarding claim 8, there is a back plate (42), but it is unclear if there is a top plate. The examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use plates extending from both sides of a hinge in order to ensure proper attachment of the hinge to parts intended to be relatively movable. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a top plate.
Regarding claim 9, given attachment of the bracket to the deck, the beam would be positioned as claimed.
Because the cutout is concave, it meets recitations of claims 10, 12 and 13.
Regarding claim 11, the cutout is not V-shaped; however, there is no patentable distinction in cutout shapes, as V-shaped cutouts are known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any shape deemed best suited to a particular application.
Regarding claim 14, there is a leg bracket assembly (54, for example) coupled to a back wall (Figure 6, for example).
Claims 15-19 are met as discussed above with respect to other dependent claims.
Regarding claim 20, because there is a concave portion on the extension, it meets claim recitations. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured an additional concave portion as needed in order to suit a particular application. This is essentially a duplication of existing parts, which cannot patentably distinguish an apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach hinged decks.
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, 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights