DETAILED ACTION
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, 7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mui (U.S. Patent 3,592,423).
Regarding claim 1, Mui discloses an adjustable leg bracket assembly (Figures 1, 4 and 5, for example) having a horizontal plate (1) with a threaded hole (not labeled). There is a threaded adjustment shaft (4) extending through the hole and configured to adjust the height of the leg bracket by rotation thereof (column 2, lines 5-11, for example). The shaft (4) has a leading end that abuts against a base plate (2, 3) in a fixed position on a floor (not shown, column 2, line 4, for example). The base plate is independent from the adjustment shaft (column 1, lines 48-51, for example). Mui specifically discloses the assembly to be usable among a variety of devices; thereby leaving the decision to one skilled in the art. The examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use leveling devices with dock levelers positioned on floors of loading docks in order to ensure a fully level assembly. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Mui with a dock leveler in a loading dock. Regarding the newly added recitations of “immobile,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fixed the plate (2, 3) in order to prevent movement and, thereby, increasing user safety. Looking to Figure 1, for example, it can be seen that the bottom surface of the device includes grooves therein. These grooves increase the surface area and would allow for adhesive to be easily accommodated. Using adhesive to fix the position would not only be within ordinary skill, but would also meet claim limitations.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the shaft diameter appears to be constant, including at the bottom end, which does not include a foot.
Regarding claim 18, the nut is coupled (via bolt 4) to the adjustment bracket.
Regarding claim 19, there is a leg (7) coupled to the adjustment bracket.
Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included additional nuts and bolts as desired in order to achieve precise leveling as desired. This is a duplication of existing parts which cannot patentably distinguish the device.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mui (U.S. Patent 3,592,423) in view of Wallis et al. (U.S. Patent 7,996,943).
Regarding claim 9, since Mui is silent regarding the details of the device, the leg bracket couplable to a back wall of a dock is not disclosed. Wallis teaches a dock leveler having a leg bracket (14) couplable to a back wall (not shown) as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the dock leveler of Wallis with the assembly of Mui in order to properly level the device, as is the purpose of Mui.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, looking to Figure 18 of Wallis, it can be seen that a front bracket (206) extends over half the width of the dock leveler. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used this bracket as the bracket of Mui in order to level the dock leveler across width of the device. Given this arrangement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used additional holes and shafts in order to support and level the leveler across this width.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, given the rear bracket (14) as the plate, the “L” angle configuration is met.
Claims 7 and 13 are met as discussed with respect to claim 16, above.
Claim 10 is met as discussed with respect to claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Wallis includes a deck hinge bracket, shaft and rotatable deck as claimed. Given the addition of Wallis, these claims would be met.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included access holes as necessary in order to access the shaft (4) and nut (5) to level the device.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallis et al. (U.S. Patent 7,996,943) in view of Mui (U.S. Patent 3,592,423).
Wallis teaches the dock leveler discussed above. Mui teaches the adjustable leg bracket assembly discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the assembly of Mui with the dock leveler of Wallis in order to efficiently level the device.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mui/Wallis or Wallis/Mui as applied above, and further in view of Johnson (U.S. Patent 3,868,079).
Mui includes a nut (5); however, the nut is not arranged as claimed. Johnson teaches an arrangement (Figure 3) in which a nut (18) is integrated with a horizontal plate (14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the plate-nut configuration of Mui in the manner of Johnson, since Johnson teaches this to be a stable manner of threadingly connecting a leveling fastener.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. It is not outside of ordinary skill to have fixed a bracket in place and there is nothing recited which precludes the resilient material of Mui from being considered as part of the base plate. Given the adhesive attachment of the resilient material to a loading dock, as discussed in this as well as in the previous Office action, the recitation of “immobile” would be met. Note that the term “immobile” is not used in the specification; therefore, no special meaning that precludes a resilient material can be given to this term.
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, 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
Prosecution Insights