Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/483,627

RAMP APPARATUS FOR VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 10, 2023
Examiner
ADDIE, RAYMOND W
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Pha Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
1274 granted / 1567 resolved
+29.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1610
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1567 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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. 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 , 2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hood US 4,827,548 . Hood discloses a vehicle mounted ramp comprising: A housing (not shown) mounted between a vehicle floor (20) and a bottom frame (44). A ramp assembly (18) telescopically movable between a stowed position within the housing, where a cover (23) hangs vertically from the housing to a deployed position where the cover (23) rotates to form a transition plate between the extended ramp (18) and the floor (20). Figs. 1-3; Col. 2, ln. 63-Col. 4, ln. 60. Wherein the cover (23) is pivotally mounted to the housing. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 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. Claim (s) 3- 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood US 4,827,548 in view of Allen et al. US 6,598,253 . Hood discloses a vehicle mounted ramp comprising: A housing (not shown) mounted between a vehicle floor (20) and a bottom frame (44) ; A ramp assembly (18) telescopically movable between a stowed position within the housing, where a cover (23) hangs vertically from the housing to a deployed position where the cover (23) rotates to form a transition plate between the extended ramp (18) and the floor (20). Wherein the cover (23) is pivotally mounted to the housing. What Hood does not disclose are details of the housing. However, Allen et al. teach a telescopic vehicle ramp (50/80) including a housing (1) configured to receive the telescopic ramp (50/80) in a retracted position within the vehicle. The housing comprising a front upper panel (70) pivotably connected to a leading end of the housing (1), and a front lower panel (110) connected to a leading end of the housing opposite the front upper panel (70) the front upper panel having a flat traffic surface or with an inclined edge to improve the transition angle between the ramp section ( 50 ) and the vehicle floor . Wherein the front upper panel (70) has a mounting recess and a hinge bracket is mounted in the mounting recess. See Figs. 6, 7; Col. 2, ln. 10-Col. 4, ln. 65. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle ramp of Hood with the housing and transition plate (70) as taught by Allen et al. in order to improve the transition angle between the ramp section (50) and the vehicle floor. With respect to claims 5, 6 although hood in view of Allen et al. do not disclose the specific features of the hinge bracket slot, it appears to be a matter of design choice and Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape the hinge assembly as claimed above as a matter of convenance. Claim (s) 12 - 1 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washington US 2009/0108614 in view of Smith et al. US 5,380,144. Washington discloses a telescopic ramp assembly (10) for use with motor vehicles and comprising: A plurality of nested ramp sections (48/50/54) pivotally attached to a housing (22) defining an internal cavity (31) configured to receive said nested ramp sections in a stowed configuration. The ramp sections being movable to an extended operational position between an open bed of the vehicle (12) to a ground surface ; Fig. 3; [0031-36]. What Washington does not disclose is a cover for the front face of the housing. However, Smith et al. teaches it is known to provide vehicle (12) mounted ramps (10) with a hinged transition plate (21) mounted to a housing (20/28) within the vehicle (12) and configured to cover a telescopic ramp (40) in a stowed position and provide a transition surface between the angle of a deployed ramp, see Fig. 1, Col. 4, and the top of housing (20/28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle mounted ramp assembly of Washington with the transition plate taught by Smith et al. in order to prevent dust/debris/rain from damaging the ramp assembly. With respect to claim 14 - 16 Washington discloses a hinge assembly (44, 46) including at least one moving body (44) a moving mechanism (40,42) configured to allow the moving body (44), hinges (46) and the plurality of ramp sections (48/50/54) to extend and retract between the stowed and deployed positions. What Washington does not disclose is a drive unit. However, Smith et al. teach it is known to provide vehicle ramps with chain & sprocket drive systems (60/104/125) for extending and retracting said ramps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle mounted ramp assembly of Washington with the drive system taught by Smith et al. in order to accommodate different type of items being loaded onto the vehicle. Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washington US 2009/0108614 in view of Smith et al. US 5,380,144 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Allen US 2015/0052693 . Washington in view Smith et al. disclose a telescopic ramp assembly having a drive means to extend the 1 st ramp sections (48) into and out of the housing. But do not disclose a drive mechanism for the additionally nested ramp sections (50, 54). However, Allen teaches a truck ramp (1) having a plurality of ramp sections (2,3) extendable and retractable from a housing (4). The housing including a flap (16) for closing the front of the housing, see Fig. 3. Wherein a rack and p inion system (6, 7) including a motor (5) carried by the 1 st ramp (2) and is configured to extend the 2 nd ramp (3) into/out of the 1 st ramp (2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle mounted ramp assembly of Washington in view of Smith et al. with the rack and pinion system taught by Allen in order to improve safety by automating a previously manual process. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-11 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 9 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6986 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm . 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 on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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 need help 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. /RAYMOND W ADDIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 3/25/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 10, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601120
OBTAINING PAVING MATERIAL MAT CHARACTERISTICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594639
WALK BEHIND GRINDING TOOL WITH HORIZONTALLY ALIGNED GUIDES AND GRINDING DRUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590425
INTELLIGENT REINFORCING SUPPORT FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE LOW-BOX GIRDERS AND METHOD FOR MINIMALLY INVASIVE REINFORCEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583622
PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584283
GROUND COMPACTING MACHINE WITH A VIBRATION DAMPING ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+8.2%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1567 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month