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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fair et al. (US 8,322,739).
With respect to claim 1, Fair et al. disclose a boat trailer step device (Fig 1), comprising: a mounting plate (1); a support arm (2 and 3) having a first end joined to the mounting plate (Fig 3) at a first fixed oblique angle (column 3, lines 48-53 and Fig 3); a top planar step (top step 29 shown in Figs 2-3) joined to a second end of the support arm at a second fixed oblique angle (Fig 3); and at least one other planar step joined to the support arm between the mounting plate and the top planar step (middle and lower steps 29 in Figs 2-3), wherein the at least one other planar step is laterally offset from the top planar step (Fig 3); and wherein the mounting plate, the top planar step, and the at least one other planar step are arranged in parallel planes (Fig 3).
With respect to claim 3, wherein the mounting plate has apertures (column 3, lines 58-60) operative to accommodate U bolts (the Examiner notes that “to accommodate” is a functional limitation, wherein the structure must only be capable of performing the function; in the instant case, while U bolts are not specifically disclosed, Fair et al. disclose that the apertures in plates 1 and 10 receive bolts, and these bolt could be U bolts; therefore the apertures are able “to accommodate” U bolts).
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 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickford (US 6,986,523) in view of Fair et al. (US 8,322,739).
With respect to claim 1, Bickford discloses a boat trailer step device (Fig 7), comprising: a mounting plate (16 or 42); a support arm (15) having a first end joined to the mounting plate at a first fixed oblique angle (Fig 1); a top planar step (12) joined to a second end of the support arm at a second fixed oblique angle (Figs 1 and 3); and wherein the mounting plate and the top planar step are arranged in parallel planes (Fig 3), but Bickford does not disclose at least one other planar step joined to the support arm between the mounting plate and the top planar step, wherein the at least one other planar step is laterally offset from the top planar step and is parallel to the mounting plate and the top planar step. Fair et al., however disclose at least one other planar step joined to the support arm between the mounting plate and the top planar step (middle step 29 in Figs 2), wherein the at least one other planar step is laterally offset from the top planar step (Fig 3) and parallel to the top step and mounting plate (Fig 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Bickford in view of the teachings of Fair et al. to have multiple steps in order accommodate different sized boats and/or individuals.
With respect to claim 2, wherein the top planar step and the at least one other planar step have a nonslip top surface (column 2, lines 30-34).
With respect to claim 3, wherein the mounting plate has apertures (when interpreting mounting plate as plate 42, apertures that receive bolts 48a, 48b, 50a, and 50b in Fig 1) operative to accommodate U bolts (the Examiner notes that “to accommodate” is a functional limitation, wherein the structure must only be capable of performing the function; in the instant case, while U bolts are not specifically disclosed, Bickford discloses that the apertures in plates 42 and 44 receive bolts, and these bolt could be U bolts; therefore the apertures are able “to accommodate” U bolts).
With respect to claim 4, further comprising an adaptor (when interpreting mounting plate as plate 16, adaptor is bracket 38 and 42) comprising two perpendicularly joined adaptor plates (38 and 42); wherein the two perpendicularly joined adaptor plates are operative to fasten to the mounting plate and to a trailer tongue, respectively (Figs 1-3).
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair et al. in view of Bickford (US 7,766,357).
With respect to claim 2, Fair et al. disclose the claimed invention discussed above but do not disclose wherein the top planar step and the at least one other planar step have a nonslip top surface. Bickford, however, disclose a step assembly with a nonslip surface on the top surface of the steps (column 2, lines 30-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Fair et al. in view of the teachings of Bickford to have a nonslip surface in order to provide more traction to protect the user from slipping, which may commonly be used in wet environments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-1362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
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, Paul Dickson can be reached on 571-272-7742. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 would like assistance 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.
DREW BROWN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DREW J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617