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 .
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) 7-12, 15-19 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huddleston et al. (2020/0189892) in view of Kristoff et al. (US 2,768,043).
Huddleston et al. disclose:
Claims 7, 15 and 21: A lift device (20, figure 1), comprising:
a base assembly (chassis of 20, figure1),
a lift assembly (22, figure 1) coupled with the base assembly (figure 1); and
a platform (24, figure 1) coupled with the lift assembly (22), the platform comprising:
a base (26 (figure 1),
a plurality of rails (28, 30, figure 1); and
deck (40, figure 2) for a/the lift device (figure 1), the deck comprising:
a floor (50, figure 3) defining a surface (56, figure 3);
a pair of inner walls (left- and right-hand walls of 80, figure 3) positioned on opposite sides of the floor (figure 3);
a rear wall (rear wall of 80, figure 3) positioned extending between the pair of inner walls on a rear end of the floor (figure 3); and
a pair of hooks (62, 64, figure 4) configured to couple with middle rails of a platform of the lift device on opposite sides of the platform (figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
506
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 21: while Huddleston et al. does not specify that the deck is configured to support at least 250 pounds, they do disclose that the deck is configured to support an operator to stand thereon ([0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the deck of Huddleston et al. to support at least 250 pounds so as to safely support the weight of a user thereon. For further support on obviousness of such an adjustment examiner refers to MPEP 2144.04
Huddleston et al. do not disclose the pair of hooks extending from opposite exterior surfaces of the pair of inner walls, wherein the pair of hooks are discretely adjustable/repositionable/ removable and replaceable between discreet positions/ an upper position along the pair of inner walls and a lower position along the pair of inner walls in order to accommodate different models of lift devices to maintain a consistent height between a support surface of the platform and the floor of the deck.
However, Kristoff et al. teach a pair of hooks (each hook comprising 18, 19, 20; figure 2) extending from exterior surfaces of the pair of inner walls (17, figures 1-2), wherein the pair of hooks are discretely adjustable/repositionable, and removable and replaceable between a plurality of discrete positions including an upper position along the pair of inner walls and a lower position along the pair of inner walls (hooks can be adjusted/repositioned and/or removed via connecting means 57-61, best seen in figure 7 and adjustment slot 40 best seen in figure 2) in order to accommodate different models of lift devices to maintain a consistent height between a support surface of the platform and the floor of the deck.
PNG
media_image2.png
286
795
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the deck of Huddleston et al. with a pair of hooks that are adjustable between an upper and lower positions on opposing exterior surface of the pair of inner walls, as taught by Kristoff et al., so as to provide a more adaptable deck readily adjustable to different heights, depending on user needs, and/or levels of the supporting structure.
Re: claims 8, 16 and 22: wherein the pair of hooks are adjustable between the upper position and the lower position to accommodate platform assemblies of lift devices that have different rail heights (hooks as taught by Kristoff et al, as advanced above, via mounting of 17 along slot 40; figure 2).
Re: claims 9, 17 and 23: Kristoff et al. teaches; wherein one of the inner walls (17) comprises an inwards corner (formed by arrangement of 16,17 with respect to 11) formed between the one of the inner walls (17 [w/ 16 being part of 17]) and the rear wall (11) to provide space for vertical rails of the platform of the lift device.
PNG
media_image3.png
649
717
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the deck of Huddleston et al. with an inner corner between an inner wall and rear wall, as taught by Kristoff et al., so as to provide a more adaptable deck that is configured to fit around and/or up against adjacent structure, for a more compact fit when needed.
Re: claims 10, 18, and 24: Huddleston et al. further disclose wherein the deck comprises an open end opposite the rear wall between the pair of inner walls (figure 3), the deck further comprising a double-bent hook (58 at front end, figure 4) along an edge of the floor at the open end (figure 3), the double-bent hook comprising a first section (vertical extent of 58, figure 4) extending downwards from the edge of the floor (figure 3), and a second section (lower horizontal portion of 58, figure 4) extending substantially parallel with the floor in a direction beneath the floor towards the rear wall (figure 4).
Re: claims 11 and 19, Huddleston et al. wherein the double-bent hook (Huddleston et al., 58 at front end) is sized to receive a rail of the platform of the lift device (configured to be incapable of), the double-bent hook configured to allow storage of the deck by hanging the deck on the rail of the platform (configured to and capable of).
Re: claims 12 and 25, Huddleston et al. further disclose: wherein the deck comprises a platform interface (82, figure 4) on a rear of the rear wall (figure 4), the platform interface configured to removably couple the deck with rails of the platform of the lift device (figure 2) .
Claim(s) 13-14, 20 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huddleston et al. in view of Kristoff et al. as applied to claims 7, 12, 15 and 21 above, and further in view of Seiders et al (US 5,683,063).
While Huddleston et al. disclose wherein the deck comprises a platform interface (82, figure 4) on a rear of the rear wall (figure 4), the platform interface configured to removably couple the deck with rails of the platform of the lift device (figure 2); they do not disclose the interface to comprise comprising: a pair of hooks at an upper edge of the rear wall, the pair of hooks disposed a distance apart along the rear wall and defining slots having an open end that faces upwards, wherein the hooks are configured to receive a bar of the platform through the open end to removably couple the removable deck with the platform; and a curved member that protrudes from a bottom portion of the rear wall, the curved member configured to be rotated into engagement with a horizontal rail as the bar of the platform is inserted into the slots of the hooks and rotated downwards.
However, Seiders et al. teach:
13, 14, 20, 26: wherein platform interface comprising: a pair of hooks (40) at an upper edge of the rear wall (figure 5), the pair of hooks (40) disposed a distance apart along the rear wall (figure 5) and defining slots having an open end that faces upwards (bottom receiving surface 42 of 40 that receives 16, figure 2) wherein the hooks are configured to receive a bar (16) of the platform through the open end to removably couple the deck with the platform (figure 1); and
a curved member (86, figure 3) that protrudes from a bottom portion of the rear wall, the curved member configured to be rotated into engagement with a horizontal rail as the bar of the platform is inserted into the slots of the hooks and rotated downwards (figure 3 versus figure 4).
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 deck of Huddleston et al. having the adjustable hooks of Kristoff et al., with a platform interface comprising: a pair of hooks at an upper edge of the rear wall, the pair of hooks disposed a distance apart along the rear wall and defining slots having an open end that faces upwards, wherein the hooks are configured to receive a bar of the platform through the open end to removably couple the removable deck with the platform; and a curved member that protrudes from a bottom portion of the rear wall, the curved member configured to be rotated into engagement with a horizontal rail as the bar of the platform is inserted into the slots of the hooks and rotated downwards, as taught by Seiders et al., so as to evenly distribute the weight of the assembly to both upper and lower rails, while still providing an assembly that can be quickly and easily mounted on or removed from the rails (Abstract, Seiders et al.) .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 3rd, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the hooks 19 and 20 of Kristoff both extend from the same side of a single member, plate 18, and that the claimed requires the hooks to extend from opposite exterior surfaces of the pair of inner walls. This argument is not persuasive because as clearly seen in Kristoff figures 1 and 3, there are hooks provided at both ends of the tray, therefore teaching hooks extending from opposite exterior surfaces of the pair of inner walls, the inner walls being identified as walls 17 which are provided at opposing ends of the tray.
Applicant also argues that Huddleston and Kristoff do not teach or suggest wherein the pair of hooks are discreetly adjustable between an upper position along the pair of inner walls and a lower position along the pair of inner walls. This argument is also not persuasive because Kristoff teaches the hooks (each hook comprising 18,19,20) being adjustable between an upper position along the pair of inner walls 17 and a lower position along the pair of inner walls 17 by adjusting the position of 18 with respect to 17 via the clamping/fastening means 57-60, figure 7, along the positioning slots in each of 17 and 18. The same fastening/clamping means 57-60 allow for removing and replacing as claimed in claim 21.
For at least these reasons applicant’s remarks are not found persuasive in the claims remain rejected as advanced above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights