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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18332591 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to dock levelers having a leg, deck hinge bracket, c-shaped brackets and stock plates.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Di Sieno et al (5,784,740) (“Di Sieno”).
Regarding claim 1, Di Sieno teaches a dock leveler, comprising: a leg (34); a deck hinge bracket (38) coupled to a top portion of the leg, wherein the deck hinge bracket comprises: a rear plate couplable to a back wall of the dock (33); a bottom plate coupled to the rear plate; a deck hinge shaft (39) coupled to the bottom plate of the deck hinge bracket.
Regarding claim 6, DiSieno teaches an adjustment bracket (32) is coupled to a bottom portion of the leg (34).
Regarding claim 7, DiSieno teaches a support plate (vertical piece of element 32) is coupled to the leg (34) at least partially between the adjustment bracket (32) and the deck hinge bracket (38) (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, DiSieno teaches a dock leveler for a loading dock, comprising: a leg bracket assembly, comprising: a leg (34); a deck hinge bracket (38) coupled to a top portion of the leg (34), wherein the deck hinge bracket comprises: a rear plate couplable to a back wall (33) of the dock; a bottom plate (horizontal portion) coupled to the rear plate; a deck hinge shaft (39) coupled to the bottom plate of the deck hinge bracket; and a deck (40) rotatably coupled to the deck hinge shaft (Figures 1, 2).
Regarding claim 13, DiSieno teaches the back wall of the dock (33) comprises a curb angle, and wherein the rear plate (38) of the deck hinge bracket is coupled to the curb angle (See marked up Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, DiSieno teaches a dock leveler for a loading dock, comprising: a leg bracket assembly (38), comprising: a leg (34); a deck hinge bracket coupled to a top portion of the leg and a back wall of the dock (33); a deck hinge shaft (39) coupled to the deck hinge bracket such that the deck hinge shaft is proximate the back wall of the dock; and a deck (40) rotatably coupled to the deck hinge shaft such that a back end of the deck is proximate a top edge of the back wall of the dock (See Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, DiSieno teaches the deck hinge bracket (38) comprises a rear plate and a bottom plate coupled to the rear plate (See marked up Figure 2 above), and wherein the deck hinge shaft is coupled to the bottom plate (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, DiSieno teaches the back wall of the dock (33) comprises a curb angle, and wherein the rear plate of the deck hinge bracket is coupled to the curb angle (See Marked up Figure 2 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Sieno et al (5,784,740) (“Di Sieno”) in view of Le Clear (3,071,790).
Regarding claim 2, DiSieno teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a stock plate. Le Clear teaches a dock leveler having a deck hinge bracket (79) with a rear wall and bottom plate (Figure 1) and further teaches the bottom plate of the deck hinge bracket comprises a stock plate extending upward from a top surface of the bottom plate, and wherein the deck hinge shaft is coupled to a top surface of the stock plate (See marked up Figure 1 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a stock plate on the hinge bracket of DiSieno as taught by Le Clear as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 9, DiSieno teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a stock plate. Le Clear teaches a dock leveler having a deck hinge bracket (79) with a rear wall and bottom plate (Figure 1) and further teaches the bottom plate of the deck hinge bracket comprises a stock plate extending upward from a top surface of the bottom plate, and wherein the deck hinge shaft is coupled to a top surface of the stock plate (See marked up Figure 1 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a stock plate on the hinge bracket of DiSieno as taught by Le Clear as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 16, DiSieno teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a stock plate. Le Clear teaches a dock leveler having a deck hinge bracket (79) with a rear wall and bottom plate (Figure 1) and further teaches the bottom plate of the deck hinge bracket comprises a stock plate extending upward from a top surface of the bottom plate, and wherein the deck hinge shaft is coupled to a top surface of the stock plate (See marked up Figure 1 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a stock plate on the hinge bracket of DiSieno as taught by Le Clear as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
PNG
media_image2.png
520
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3-4,10-11, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Sieno et al (5,784,740) (“Di Sieno”) in view of Hahn (4,570,277).
Regarding claim 3, Di Sieno teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a c-shaped bracket. Hahn teaches a dock leveler having a leg (13a) and a hinge bracket (13d) wherein the deck hinge bracket further comprises a C- shaped bracket (13c) coupled to the rear plate and the bottom plate, wherein the deck hinge shaft (18a) is disposed within the C-shaped bracket (13c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a c-shaped bracket on the hinge bracket of DiSieno as taught by Hahn as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. The combination of DiSieno and Hahn would result in the c-shaped bracket being coupled to the rear plate and bottom plate of DiSieno.
Regarding claim 4, DiSieno as modified by Hahn teaches the deck hinge shaft is coupled to the C-shaped bracket (13c).
Regarding claim 10, Di Sieno teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a c-shaped bracket. Hahn teaches a dock leveler having a leg (13a) and a hinge bracket (13d) wherein the deck hinge bracket further comprises a C- shaped bracket (13c) coupled to the rear plate and the bottom plate, wherein the deck hinge shaft (18a) is disposed within the C-shaped bracket (13c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a c-shaped bracket on the hinge bracket of DiSieno as taught by Hahn as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. The combination of DiSieno and Hahn would result in the c-shaped bracket being coupled to the rear plate and bottom plate of DiSieno.
Regarding claim 11, DiSieno as modified by Hahn teaches the deck hinge shaft is coupled to the C-shaped bracket (13c).
Regarding claim 17, Di Sieno teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a c-shaped bracket. Hahn teaches a dock leveler having a leg (13a) and a hinge bracket (13d) wherein the deck hinge bracket further comprises a C- shaped bracket (13c) coupled to the rear plate and the bottom plate, wherein the deck hinge shaft (18a) is disposed within the C-shaped bracket (13c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a c-shaped bracket on the hinge bracket of DiSieno as taught by Hahn as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. The combination of DiSieno and Hahn would result in the c-shaped bracket being coupled to the rear plate and bottom plate of DiSieno.
Regarding claim 18, DiSieno as modified by Hahn teaches the deck hinge shaft is coupled to the C-shaped bracket (13c).
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Sieno et al (5,784,740) (“Di Sieno”) in view of Stevenson (3,839,761).
Regarding claim 5, DiSieno teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the rear plate of the deck hinge bracket comprises a weld point. Stevenson teaches a dock leveler having a deck hinge bracket (25) wherein the rear plate comprises a weld point (Figure 9, 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a weld point on the bracket of DiSieno as taught by Stevenson to provide a secure connection between the bracket and the hinge and as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 12, DiSieno teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the rear plate of the deck hinge bracket comprises a weld point. Stevenson teaches a dock leveler having a deck hinge bracket (25) wherein the rear plate comprises a weld point (Figure 9, 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a weld point on the bracket of DiSieno as taught by Stevenson to provide a secure connection between the bracket and the hinge and as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 19, DiSieno teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the rear plate of the deck hinge bracket comprises a weld point. Stevenson teaches a dock leveler having a deck hinge bracket (25) wherein the rear plate comprises a weld point (Figure 9, 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a weld point on the bracket of DiSieno as taught by Stevenson to provide a secure connection between the bracket and the hinge and as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Wallis teaches a dock leveler having a hinge bracket coupled to a leg portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 January 19, 2026