DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 24 August 2026 is acknowledged.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sveum et al. (U.S. Patent 8,443,474).
Sveum discloses a method for increasing friction on a traffic surface of a deck (14), including applying a slip resistant coating (24) and curing the coating (brief description of Figure 9, for example).
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 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, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sveum et al. (U.S. Patent 8,443,474), as applied above.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Sveum includes a pivotally attached lip (), but is silent regarding the coating thereon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the coating on the lip in order to improve traction thereon, as is the purpose of the coating of Sveum. Note that this is essentially a duplication of parts, which cannot patentably distinguish the product.
Regarding claim 4, the coating meets the recitation of “a raised gripping surface.”
Regarding claim 19, Sveum meets the recitation of the pit leveler.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sveum et al. (U.S. Patent 8,443,474), as applied above, and further in view of Sveum (U.S. Patent 8,544,130).
Sveum ‘474 is silent regarding a diamond plate; however, Sveum ‘130 teaches this feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a diamond plate, since ‘130 teaches that this feature provides “greater traction” and is “commonly known.”
Claims 2, 3, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sveum et al. (U.S. Patent 8,443,474), as applied above, and further in view of Mathiesen et al. (U.S. Patent 7,793,470).
Sveum is silent regarding powder coating; however, as exemplified by Mathiesen (column 6, lines 40-43, for example), powder coating decks for texture is known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have powder coated Sveum, since Sveum leaves the coating to one skilled in the art and Mathiesen teaches this to be a known arrangement.
Regarding the particles extending above the matrix, given the purpose of increasing traction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Sveum as claimed in order to maximize contact with the gripping particles; thereby increasing traction, as is the purpose of Sveum.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sveum et al. (U.S. Patent 8,443,474), as applied above, and further in view of Leum et al. (U.S. Patent 9,938,094).
Leum exemplifies that edge of dock levelers are well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Sveum in the manner of Leum in order to increase traction on an edge of dock leveler.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leum et la. (U.S. Patent 9,938,094) in view of Sveum et al. (U.S. Patent 8,443,474).
Leum teaches an edge of dock leveler. Sveum teaches that slip resistant coating, as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the coating of Sveum on the leveler of Leum in order to increase traction thereon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach traction increasing surfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights