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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species A in the reply filed on 8/6/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Invention II would not impose a search burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the restriction requirement, each of these inventions require different structural characteristics that would force the Examiner to conduct independent searches. While Applicant argues that they have the same classification, classification alone does not determine search burden. Each invention having different structural characteristics requires different search queries, and a rejection that is applicable for one invention will likely not be applicable for the other invention.
Accordingly, claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/6/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the rear header is a unitary structure formed of sheet of material, the rear header including a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion, and wherein the tilt plate is coupled to the first portion of the rear header.” Applicant appears to be confusing parts of the invention. In claim 1, the rear header includes the hinge lug, mounting plate, and tilt plate. How can a part of the rear header be coupled to the rear header? Based on Applicant’s specification and drawings, for purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Applicant intended to claim the mounting plate in claim 6. Accordingly, claim 6 will be examined as “wherein the mounting plate is a unitary structure formed of sheet of material, the mounting plate including a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion, and wherein the tilt plate is coupled to the first portion of the mounting plate.” Correction is required.
Claim 7 will be examined similarly as discussed above for claim 6. Accordingly, claim 7 will be examined as if Applicant intended “wherein the tilt plate and the first portion of the mounting plate form an angle that is between approximately 30 degrees and 90 degrees.” Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morris et al., US 8,230,539 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Morris teaches a fold out ramp (Figures 6-8) capable of being a dock leveler, the dock leveler comprising:
a deck (60) movable between a stored position and an operating position (Figures 6-8); and
a rear header coupled to the deck, the rear header including (see reproduction of Morris’s Figure 6 provided below with Examiner’s annotations):
a hinge lug;
a mounting plate to couple to the hinge lug, the mounting plate defining a first sloped surface (inside of top curved corner as shown in Figure 6); and
a tilt plate coupled to the mounting plate, the tilt plate defining a second sloped surface oriented away from the rear surface of the deck when the dock leveler is in the stored position (Figure 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the second sloped surface provides an angle relative to a horizontal of approximately between 5 degrees and 50 degrees when the dock leveler is in the stored position (see reproduction of Figure 6 provided below with Examiner’s annotations).
PNG
media_image2.png
261
523
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the second sloped surface of the tile plate is capable of preventing the rear header from accumulating debris when the dock leveler is in the stored position. Additionally, Morris discloses that the closeout assembly 35 reduces the amount of dirt and debris that can make its way into the interior portion of the frame (column 7 lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 4, as shown in Figures 6-8, the tilt plate extends along a width of the deck (a width of the deck being into and out of the paper to the viewer) since the tilt plate is three-dimensional.
Regarding claim 8, the hinge lug includes a foot (portion shown closest to the tilt plate), and wherein the tilt plate is coupled to the foot of the hinge lug (coupled at least by the mounting plate; this limitation does not require any specific connection).
Regarding claim 21, the first sloped surface (inside surface of the top corner of mounting plate as shown in Figure 6) is oriented toward a bottom surface of the deck when the dock leveler is in the stored position.
Regarding claim 22, the second sloped surface is oriented away from the bottom surface of the deck when the dock leveler is in the stored position as shown in Figure 6.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris as applied above, alone.
Regarding claim 6 (see 112(b) rejection above), as shown in Figures 6-8, the mounting plate is a unitary structure, the mounting plate including a first portion (top horizontal portion shown in Figure 6), a second portion (vertical portion shown in Figure 6), and a third portion (bottom horizontal portion shown in Figure 6), and wherein the tilt plate is coupled to the first portion of the mounting plate.
While Morris fails to disclose that the mounting plate is formed of sheet metal, the Examiner takes Official Notice that sheet metal is old and well-known. It has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounting plate to be formed of sheet metal since sheet metal is a well-known mechanical component and is commonly available.
Regarding claim 7 (see 112(b) rejection above), looking at the tilt plate and the first portion of the mounting plate (top horizontal portion shown in Figure 6), they form an angle that is approximately 90 degrees (the first portion of the mounting plate is horizontal and the tilt plate runs down).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 are allowed.
Claim 5 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. US 8,544,130 and US 2007/0294845 A1 are cited for teaching a dock leveler with a hinge, a hinge lug, and plates that could be applicable to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
