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
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 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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haimoff (2008/0201873).
Regarding claim 8, Haimoff discloses a plurality of monolithic, polymer ramps for elevating a tire of a vehicle from ground level to an elevated position, each ramp comprising: a slanted portion (102) having a slanted surface extending from a front end (102a, 110), the slanted surface configured to engage the tire and elevate the tire to the elevated position; and a wheel supporting portion (104) having a substantially flat surface extending from the slanted surface and a first chock (120) molded therein proximate a back end, wherein the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface comprise a plurality of spaced apart arrangements of spaced apart columns (142, 144, 146) wherein the spaced apart columns extend from apertures in the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface and terminate at a distal end that is proximately even with the front end wherein the plurality of ramps are configured to nest one on top of the other (see Figs. 6-9).
Regarding claim 9, Haimoff discloses wherein each of the columns of the plurality of arrangements decreases in cross section (tapered cross-sections, see Fig. 5 above) from the opening to the distal end.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimoff (2008/0201873) in view of Zhang (D923,280).
Regarding claim 10, Haimoff teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach three columns. Zhang teaches a ramp having a slanted portion and a wheel portion with a plurality of arrangements wherein the plurality of arrangements comprises three arrangements of columns (Figure 1), wherein the left arrangement comprises an arrangement of staggered columns in a zigzag shape, the middle arrangement comprises a row of columns, and the right arrangement comprises an arrangement of staggered columns in a zigzag shape mirroring that of the left arrangement, wherein the columns are spaced across a width of both the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Haimoff with an arrangement of columns as taught by Zhang as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and to give more support to the structure to improve its’ overall strength.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 08/04/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant presents the same argument for claims 8-10 as claims 1-3, however claim 8 has not been amended in the same manner as claim 1. Applicant has not provided any alternate arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights