Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/364,820

Foldable Ramp System

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Aug 03, 2023
Examiner
ADDIE, RAYMOND W
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
1274 granted / 1567 resolved
+29.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1610
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§102
27.0%
-13.0% vs TC avg
§112
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1567 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the foldable ramp in the second position must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: The elements necessary to mount the landing and inclined region to the wall and the elements necessary to place the landing and inclined region in a “folded against the wall” position. * Because the rejected claims are vague with respect how the foldable ramp is mounted and folded against a wall, and the claims are indefinite as to the scope of “a wall”, as claimed the wall is not necessarily part of a building; the limitations are seen to include any vertical structure and any device capable of mounting/attaching/coupling a planar body to said vertical structure, such as nails, hooks, hinges etc. Claim 11 recites the limitation "a second handrail" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not provide for handrails. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9, 10, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heartsill et al. US 7,185,381. Heartsill et al. disclose a foldable ramp comprising: A landing (12) pivotably attached to a stair assembly (20/22). Figs. 1-3. A ramp assembly (14, 16) pivotably attached to one another and said landing. A pivoting support leg (18) pivotably attached to a bottom side of the landing. Figs. 4,9. A bracket and strap assembly (11) attached to a wall (24) of a stair assembly (20/22). Wherein in a deployed position the landing is parallel with a ground surface and the ramp assembly being pivotably attached to the landing contacts the ground providing an inclined ramp and expanded landing area (12/22). Figs. 5-6. Although Heartsill et al. disclose and illustrate the landing/ramp assembly folded against the wall “stair riser” (24) of the stair assembly (20/22) Fig. 7; Heartsill et al. illustrate the hinge assembly (30) mounted to the upper step (22) and not the wall (24) of the stair (20/22). However, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the hinge (30) to the underside of the landing (12) and the wall (24) of the step (20/22) in order to facilitate mounting the landing flush with the upper step (22) as reasonably suggested by Heartsill et al. See Col. 2, ln. 67-Col. 3, ln. 6. With respect to claim 5 although Heartsill et al. only discloses a single support leg (18) it would be a matter of design choice, as to how many support legs are needed for an intended use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pet ramp of Heartsill et al. with additional support legs in order to improve safety. Claim(s) 4, 12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heartsill et al. US 7,185,381 in view of Churchfield et al. US 2,579,797. Heartsill et al. disclose a foldable ramp comprising: A landing (12) pivotably attached to a stair assembly (20/22). Figs. 1-3. A ramp assembly (14, 16) pivotably attached to one another and said landing. A support leg (18) pivotably attached to a bottom side of the landing. Figs. 4,9. A bracket and strap assembly (11) attached to a wall (24) of a stair assembly (20/22). Wherein in a deployed position the landing is parallel with a ground surface and the ramp assembly being pivotably attached to the landing contacts the ground providing an inclined ramp and expanded landing area (12/22). Figs. 5-6. What Heartsill et al. does not disclose is a handrail. However, Churchfield et al. teaches a pet ramp and exercise landing having a detachable repositionable handrail (12) arranged on said landing in a variety of arrangements for an access ramp (14) can be disposed as desired for a particular use, Figs. 1-7; Col. 1, ln. 55-Col. 3, ln. 47. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pet ramp of heartsill et al. with a handrail/screen as taught by Churchfield et al. in order to improve safety. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heartsill et al. US 7,185,381 in view of Osterholm US 5,076,547. Heartsill et al. disclose a foldable ramp comprising: A landing (12) pivotably attached to a stair assembly (20/22). Figs. 1-3. A ramp assembly (14, 16) pivotably attached to one another and said landing. A support leg (18) pivotably attached to a bottom side of the landing. Figs. 4,9. A bracket and strap assembly (11) attached to a wall (24) of a stair assembly (20/22). Wherein in a deployed position the landing is parallel with a ground surface and the ramp assembly being pivotably attached to the landing contacts the ground providing an inclined ramp and expanded landing area (12/22). Figs. 5-6. What Heartsill et al. does not disclose is a pivoting handrail mounted to the wall of the truck. However Osterholm teaches it is known to pivotably mount a collapsible handrail (18) adjacent a truck door (15). The handrail providing support to a user on a staircase (24) adjacent the door of the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pet ramp of Heartsill et al. with the pivoting handrail taught by Osterholm in order to improve safety. Claim(s) 1, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Ahn et al.) KR 102259165 in view of Jakubowski et al. 2020/0308842. Ahn discloses a riding arena (1) comprising: A landing (22) foldably mounted to a wall of the arena. A pivoting handrail (24) mounted to the landing and foldable between an operation position and a storage position. A stair (24) having a handrail (27) attachable to the landing and pivoting handrail (24). What Ahn et al. do not disclose is the use of a ramp. However, Jakubowski et al. teach a free standing pet ramp comprising a landing (14) and a ramp section (12). The ramp having pivotably connected support legs (20, 24) and a pivotable connection between the landing and the ramp. See fig. 1; Col. 2, ln. 44-Col. 3, ln. 20. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the riding arena of Ahn et al. with a pivotably mountable ramp as taught by Jakubowski et al. in order to meet ADA requirements. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8, 19 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. Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you need help from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 02/09/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 03, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 26, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 12, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 12, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601120
OBTAINING PAVING MATERIAL MAT CHARACTERISTICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594639
WALK BEHIND GRINDING TOOL WITH HORIZONTALLY ALIGNED GUIDES AND GRINDING DRUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590425
INTELLIGENT REINFORCING SUPPORT FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE LOW-BOX GIRDERS AND METHOD FOR MINIMALLY INVASIVE REINFORCEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583622
PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584283
GROUND COMPACTING MACHINE WITH A VIBRATION DAMPING ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+2.7%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1567 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month