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 § 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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first hinge is comprised of a telescopic ramp". It is unclear how can the hinge be a ramp. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as “the ramp is comprised of a telescopic ramp”.
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, 4-6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US 20190037799 A1) in view of Longo (US 20160050882 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murray discloses a vehicle pet ramp device (Murray, Fig. 3) comprising: a housing (Murray, housing of 17 in Fig. 1) comprised of a top surface (Murray, 15 in Fig. 1) and an interior space (Murray, space of tunnel 17 in Fig. 1); a padding (Murray, paragraph 39, a covering; Fig. 8 also shows mattress 57); a track (Murray, 34 in Fig. 1); a fastener (Murray, 25 and 27 in Fig. 8; fastened together to provide support for the housing); a ramp (Murray, 21 in Fig. 3) comprised of a handle (Murray, Fig. 1, handle on rearward surface of 21) and a first hinge (Murray, 42 in Fig. 4 and paragraph 35, a pivot connection).
Murray fails to disclose a side wall attached to the ramp via a second hinge.
Longo teaches a side wall (Longo, one of the walls 4-7 in Fig. 1) attached to the ramp via a second hinge (Longo, paragraph 56, side walls are foldable by hinge).
Longo is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of pet ramp for vehicles as Murray.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Murray to incorporate the teachings of Longo with a reasonable expectation of success and have a sidewall. Doing so provides protection to pets when they are using the ramp.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Murray in view of Longo teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 1, wherein the second hinge is comprised of a locking hinge (Longo, Fig. 8, hinge lock in place by 46 and 51).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Murray in view of Longo teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 1, wherein the ramp is comprised of a folding ramp (Murray, Fig. 4-5, folds at the front between a horizontal position and an inclined position).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Murray in view of Longo teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 1, wherein the first hinge is comprised of a telescopic ramp (Murray, paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 20, Murray discloses a method (Murray, paragraph 55-57) of using a vehicle pet ramp device, the method comprising the steps of: providing a vehicle pet ramp device (Murray, Fig. 3) comprised of a housing (Murray, housing of 17 in Fig. 1) comprised of an interior space (Murray, space of tunnel 17 in Fig. 1) and a top surface (Murray, 15 in Fig. 1) comprised of a padding (Murray, paragraph 39, a covering; Fig. 8 also shows mattress 57), and a ramp (Murray, 21 in Fig. 3) that attaches to the housing; placing the housing within a trunk of a vehicle (Murray, Fig. 1, trunk 20 of vehicle 13); pulling the ramp out of the interior space (Murray, paragraph 55) and placing the ramp on a ground surface (Murray, paragraph 55); and pushing the ramp back into the interior space (Murray, paragraph 57).
Murray fails to disclose unfolding a side rail; folding a side rail.
The combination of Murray in view of Longo teaches a device that performs the function disclosed in the method claim 20 when used in normal and usual operation. Longo teaches unfolding a side rail; folding a side rail (Longo, side rails 4-7 in Fig. 1; foldable as described in paragraph 56 between use position and not in use position).
Longo is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of pet ramp for vehicles as Murray.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Murray to incorporate the teachings of Longo with a reasonable expectation of success and have a side rail. Doing so provides protection to pets when they are using the ramp.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Murray in view of Longo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DiMucci-Flannery et al. (US 20220349184 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Murray in view of Longo teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 1, but fails to teach the fastener attaches to the padding and the top surface.
DiMucci-Flannery teaches the fastener attaches to the padding and the top surface (DiMucci-Flannery, paragraph 14, Velcro use to attach a mat to a platform).
DiMucci-Flannery is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of pet ramp for vehicles as Murray in view of Longo.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Murray in view of Longo to incorporate the teachings of DiMucci-Flannery with a reasonable expectation of success and have a fastener between the padding/covering and the top surface. Doing so secures the padding in place to prevent movements which could cause damages or injuries.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Murray in view of Longo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Washington (US 7549692 B2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Murray in view of Longo teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 1, but fails to teach a locking hinge.
Washington teaches a locking hinge (Washington, abstract).
Washington is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of foldable and telescopic vehicle ramp as Murray in view of Longo.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Murray in view of Longo to incorporate the teachings of Washington with a reasonable expectation of success and have a locking hinge. Doing so allows the ramp to be secured in position in order to provide a stable surface for pets or other users.
Claims 7-9, 12-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US 20190037799 A1) in view of Longo (US 20160050882 A1) and Ehler (US 7771154 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Murray discloses a vehicle pet ramp device (Murray, Fig. 3) comprising: a housing (Murray, housing of 17 in Fig. 1) comprised of a top surface (Murray, 15 in Fig. 1) and an interior space (Murray, space of tunnel 17 in Fig. 1); a padding (Murray, paragraph 39, a covering; Fig. 8 also shows mattress 57); a track (Murray, 34 in Fig. 1) positioned in the interior space (Murray, Fig. 1); a fastener (Murray, 25 and 27 in Fig. 8; fastened together to provide support for the housing); a ramp (Murray, 21 in Fig. 3) comprised of a top surface (Murray, Fig. 3), and a handle (Murray, Fig. 1, handle on rearward surface of 21); a first hinge (Murray, 42 in Fig. 4 and paragraph 35, a pivot connection).
Murray fails to disclose a traction material, and a side wall attached to the ramp via a second hinge.
Longo teaches a side wall (Longo, one of the walls 4-7 in Fig. 1) attached to the ramp via a second hinge (Longo, paragraph 56, side walls are foldable by hinge).
Longo is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of pet ramp for vehicles as Murray.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Murray to incorporate the teachings of Longo with a reasonable expectation of success and have a sidewall. Doing so provides protection to pets when they are using the ramp.
Ehler teaches a traction material (Ehler, Col. 5 line 51 and lines 59-60, can have a layer that increases friction)
Ehler is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle ramp as Murray in view of Longo.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Murray in view of Longo to incorporate the teachings of Ehler with a reasonable expectation of success and have a traction material. Doing so enhances the safety of pets using the ramp so that they don’t slip and injure.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 7, wherein the ramp is comprised of a folding ramp (Murray, Fig. 4-5, folds at the front between a horizontal position and an inclined position).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 7, wherein the ramp is comprised of a telescopic ramp (Murray, paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 7, wherein the traction material is comprised of a granulated material (Ehler, Col. 5 lines 59-60, impregnated with particles).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 7, wherein the padding is comprised of a waterproof padding (Murray, paragraph 45, can have an impervious cover).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 7 further comprised of a support member (Murray, Fig. 3 and paragraph 55; foot supporting the ramp on the ground).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 14, wherein the support member attaches to the ramp (Murray, Fig. 3 and paragraph 55, foot at the lower end of the ramp).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 7 further comprised of an internal frame member (Murray, 41 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 7, wherein the internal frame member attaches to the track and to the first hinge (Murray, Fig. 4, and paragraph 41 and 35 also described the frame member 41 attaches to the hinge and the track).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of DiMucci-Flannery et al. (US 20220349184 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 7, but fails to teach the fastener attaches to the padding and the top surface.
DiMucci-Flannery teaches the fastener attaches to the padding and the top surface (DiMucci-Flannery, paragraph 14, Velcro use to attach a mat to a platform).
DiMucci-Flannery is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of pet ramp for vehicles as Murray in view of Longo and Ehler.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Murray in view of Longo and Ehler to incorporate the teachings of DiMucci-Flannery with a reasonable expectation of success and have a fastener between the padding/covering and the top surface. Doing so secures the padding in place to prevent movements which could cause damages or injuries.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Murray in view of Longo, Ehler, and DiMucci-Flannery teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 10, wherein the fastener is comprised of a hook and loop fastener (DiMucci-Flannery, paragraph 14, Velcro is a hook and loop fastener).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Keck (US 20180178703 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 7, but fails to teach a spring-loaded track.
Keck teaches a spring-loaded track (Keck, Fig. 11, loaded by spring 390).
Keck is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of pet ramp for vehicles as Murray in view of Longo and Ehler.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Murray in view of Longo and Ehler to incorporate the teachings of Keck with a reasonable expectation of success and have a spring-loaded track. Doing so assists user in using the device (Keck, paragraph 120).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 20190150400 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Murray in view of Longo and Ehler teaches the vehicle pet ramp device of claim 7, but fails to teach a locking mechanism that stops the movement of the track.
Kumar teaches a locking mechanism that stops the movement of the track (Kumar, Fig. 3B-4A and paragraph 51)
Kumar is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of pet ramp for vehicles as Murray in view of Longo and Ehler.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Murray in view of Longo and Ehler to incorporate the teachings of Kumar with a reasonable expectation of success and have a locking mechanism that stops the movement of the track. Doing so prevents unintentional movement of the ramp which could cause damage to the device or injury to users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle attached ramps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571.270.5500. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612