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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “24b in Fig. 36” has been used to designate both 22a and 24b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couto et al. (US 20120233787 A1) in view of Belman (US 9719261 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Couto et al. discloses a ramp apparatus for a vehicle (Fig. 1, 20. Abstract), the ramp apparatus comprising: a housing (Fig. 1, 22), mounted on a vehicle body (paragraph 0031); a first ramp platform (Fig. 5, 30) telescopically movable (Fig. 5) with respect to the housing (Fig. 5, 22), a second ramp platform (Fig. 5, 32) telescopically movable (Fig. 5) with respect to the first ramp platform (Fig. 5, 30).
Couto et al. does not disclose an upper sub-platform pivotally mounted between
the first ramp platform and the second ramp platform.
Belman teaches an upper sub-platform (Fig. 9, 5) pivotally mounted between the first ramp platform (Fig. 9, 4) and the second ramp platform (Fig. 9, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify Couto et al. by incorporating an upper sub-platform pivotally mounted between the first ramp platform and the second ramp platform in view of Belman in order to provide an intermediate support surface between first and second ramp and improve load stability and safety during transfer.
Regarding claim 8, Couto et al. does not disclose the upper sub-platform is configured to move between an inclined position in which the upper sub-platform is inclined with respect to the second ramp platform at a predetermined angle and a parallel position in which the upper sub-platform is substantially parallel to the second ramp platform.
Belman teaches the upper sub-platform is configured to move between an inclined
position in which the upper sub-platform (Fig. 9, 5) is inclined with respect to the second ramp platform (Fig. 9, 3) at a predetermined angle (It can be seen in Fig. 6 and 9, element 5 is moving in inclined position in which the upper sub-platform is inclined with respect to the second ramp platform at a predetermined angle) and a parallel position in which the upper sub-platform is substantially parallel to the second ramp platform (It can be seen in Fig. 9, element 5 move a parallel position in which the upper sub-platform is substantially parallel to the second ramp platform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify the Couto et al. by including the upper sub-platform is configured to move between an inclined position in which the upper sub-platform is inclined with respect to the second ramp platform at a predetermined angle and a parallel position in which the upper sub-platform is substantially parallel to the second ramp platform in view of Belman in order to maintain a consistent transfer interface between moving surface during telescopic movement.
Regarding claim 10, Couto et al. discloses a third ramp platform (Fig. 5, 34) telescopically moving (Fig. 5) with respect to the second ramp platform (Fig. 5, 32).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couto et al. and Belman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Friesen et al. (US 9764674 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Couto et al. and Belman fails to disclose or teach a biasing
member allowing the upper sub platform to be biased toward the parallel position.
Friesen et al. teaches a biasing member (Fig. 5, 132) allowing the upper sub
platform to be biased toward the parallel position (Column 9, lines 38-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify the combination of Couto et al. and Belman by incorporating a biasing member allowing the upper sub platform to be biased toward the parallel position in further view of Friesen et al. in order to maintain continuous support and alignment during the telescopic movement of ramp structure.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couto et al. and Belman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hill et al. (US 20190106042 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Couto et al. and Belman does not disclose or teach a hinge mechanism configured to move the first ramp platform between a stowed position and a deployed position, and allow the first ramp platform to pivot with respect to the housing when the first ramp platform is in the deployed position.
Hill et al. teaches a hinge mechanism (Fig. 7, 638) configured to move the first ramp platform (Paragraph 0028, Fig. 3, 301) between a stowed position (Fig.2) and a deployed position (Fig. 3) and allow the first ramp platform to pivot with respect to the housing in a state in which the first ramp platform is in the deployed position, (See Fig. 3 where it can be seen ramp platform to pivot with respect to the housing in a state in which the first ramp platform is in the deployed position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify the combination of Couto et al. and Belman by incorporating a hinge mechanism of the ramp assembly in view of Hill et al. in order to allow relative angular movement between ramp sections and to reduce bending stresses during extension and retraction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-7 and 11-19 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other telescopic ramp apparatuses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 517-272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652