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 .
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 “blocking strips” (plural) as recited in claim 7 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. It is noted that Figure 1 shows a single blocking strip (5), but does not disclose a plurality of blocking strips. 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 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, the phrase “a sunken arc-shaped inclined plane” is indefinite because it is unclear how a “plane” can be “arc-shaped.” By definition, an arc-shape is not planar, and a plane is not arc-shaped. Therefore, it is unclear whether the element is planar or arc-shaped.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “all resist to the rear side plate perpendicularly” is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “resist” to the rear side plate. For purposes of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as --all extend to the rear side plate perpendicularly--.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “the reinforcing ribs penetrate through up and down” is indefinite because it is unclear what the ribs are “penetrating.” For purposes of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as --the reinforcing ribs extend up and down--.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the part that the carrying part (2) resists to the slope part” is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “resist[ing] to the slope part.” For purposes of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as --the part of the carrying part that connects to the slope part--.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (D1,058,989) in view of Kress (EP 3530610) (machine translation attached) and Widgery (US 11,618,418).
Regarding independent claim 1, Zhang discloses a wheel lifting pad for a sports car (see Title, Claim, FIGS. 1-10), comprising a slope part (A) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) and a carrying part (B) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) which are integrally arranged (see FIG. 1), and an upper end of the carrying part has a sunken arc-shaped inclined plane (C) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
631
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the dip angle of the slope part or the length or the length and height of the slope part.
Kress teaches a wheel lifting pad (see e.g. machine translation, ¶ 0016) comprising a slope part (1), wherein a dip angle (13) between the slope part and a horizontal plane is ∠ α, 10° ≤ ∠ α ≤ 30° (see ¶ 0028), the slope part has a length (LR) of d, 20 cm ≤ d ≤ 50 cm (see ¶ 0031), and a maximum height (HU) of h, 10 cm ≤ h < 15 cm (see ¶ 0033).
It would have been obvious to configure the wheel lifting pad of Zhang to have the dimensions of the wheel lifting pad of Kress to utilize known dimensions that are suitable for use in wheel lifting pads.
Zhang discloses a dip angle between the carrying part and the horizontal plane (see FIG. 1), but does not explicitly disclose that the dip angle between the carrying part and the horizontal plane is ∠ β, 60° ≤ ∠ β ≤ 90°.
Widgery teaches a wheel pad (see Abstract, FIG. 8), wherein a dip angle (216) between a carrying part (100, 126) and the horizontal plane (202) (see FIG. 8) is ∠ β, 60° ≤ ∠ β ≤ 90° (see col. 7, lines 3-25).
It would have been obvious to configure the dip angle between the carrying part and the horizontal plane in Zhang to be within the claimed range to maximize the load-bearing capacity of the carrying part (see e.g. Widgery, col. 7, lines 3-25).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses that the carrying part comprises a first left side plate (D) (see Annotated FIG. 1, above), a first right side plate (E) (see Annotated FIG. 1, above), a first middle side plate (F) (see Annotated FIG. 1, above) and a rear side plate (G) (see Annotated FIG. 1, above), the first left side plate, the first right side plate and the first middle side plate are arranged in a manner of being parallel to each other (see FIG. 1), and one end of the first left side plate, one end of the first right side plate and one end of the first middle side plate all resist to the rear side plate perpendicularly (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the slope part comprises a second left side plate (H) (see Annotated FIG. 1, above), a second right side plate (I) (see Annotated FIG. 1, above), a second middle side plate (J) (see Annotated FIG. 1, above) and a front side plate (K) (see Annotated FIG. 1, above), and the second left side plate, the second right side plate and the second middle side plate are respectively formed by extending the first left side plate, the first right side plate and the first middle side plate to the front side plate (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses that the rear side plate is provided with a baffle (L) (see Annotated FIG. 1, above), and the baffle is raised upwards along an upper part of the rear side plate (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses that reinforcing ribs (M) (see Annotated FIG. 1, above) are arranged between the first left side plate and the first middle side plate (see Annotated FIG. 1, above), between the first right side plate and the first middle side plate (see Annotated FIG. 1, above), between the second left side plate and the second middle side plate (see Annotated FIG. 1, above), and between the second right side plate and the second middle side plate (see Annotated FIG. 1, above), and the reinforcing ribs penetrate through up and down (see Annotated FIG. 1, above).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses that the reinforcing ribs are regularly or irregularly arranged (see Annotated FIG. 1, above).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses that the front side plate and/or the carrying part are provided with hanging holes (N) (see Annotated FIG. 1, above).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses an included angle between the first left side plate and the rear side plate or between the first right side plate and the rear side plate (see FIGS. 5, 6).
Zhang, however, does not disclose that the included angle is ∠ Ω, 80° ≤ ∠ Ω ≤ 90°. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). In the present case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the angled configuration as disclosed in Zhang provides stability to the wheel lifting pad by widening the base. As such, it would have only been routine experimentation to produce an included angle ∠ Ω, 80° ≤ ∠ Ω ≤ 90° to optimize the stability of the wheel lifting pad, without unduly increasing the size of the wheel lifting pad.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses that the rear side plate is provided with a baffle (L) (see Annotated FIG. 1, above), and the baffle is raised upwards along an upper part of the rear side plate (see FIG. 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (D1,058,989) in view of Kress (EP 3530610) (machine translation attached) and Widgery (US 11,618,418), and further in view of Haimoff (US 2008/0201873).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang does not disclose that the part that the carrying part resists to the slope part is integrally provided with blocking strips.
Haimoff teaches a wheel lifting pad (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-5) comprising a carrying part (104) and a slope part (102), wherein the part that the carrying part resists to the slope part is integrally provided with blocking strips (103) (see FIGS. 2, 5; ¶ 0054).
It would have been obvious to combine the blocking strip with the device of Zhang to increase arresting force acting on the vehicle wheel when the wheel is located on the carrying part (see e.g. Haimoff, ¶ 0054).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (D1,058,989) in view of Kress (EP 3530610) (machine translation attached), Widgery (US 11,618,418), and Haimoff (US 2008/0201873), and further in view of Muth (US 2018/0029856).
Regarding claim 8, neither Zhang nor Haimoff disclose raised antiskid sites arranged on the blocking strips.
Muth teaches a wheel lifting pad (see Abstract, FIGS. 9-12, 15) comprising a blocking strip (A) (see Annotated FIG. 12, below) comprising raised antiskid sites (34) arranged thereon (see FIGS. 12, 15; ¶ 0049).
PNG
media_image2.png
172
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to combine the raised antiskid sites of Muth with the Zhang/Haimoff device to provide increased traction to the wheel as the vehicle mounts and dismounts the wheel liftin pad (see e.g. Muth, ¶ 0049).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571)272-7124. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
February 25, 2026