DETAILED ACTION Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is a run-on type sentence, essentially written as a claim, rather than a concise explanation of the invention . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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. Claim s 1, 2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nageshkar et al. (U.S. Patent 11,472,326) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent 11,135,108). Nageshkar discloses a door ramp structure including a ramp assembly ( 22 ) disposed on a sliding door ( 18 ) and configured to selectively operate in connection with operation of the sliding door ( Figures 2 and 3, for example ). The ramp assembly has a ramp panel configured to be fixed (Figures 2 and 3, for example) or decoupled (Figure 4, for example) from the sliding door ( 18 ). There is a mover ( Figure 5, for example ) configured to be selectively coupled or decoupled from a lower end of the ramp panel and to rotate to turn the ramp ( Figure 4, for example ). There is a lead screw ( 84 ) coupled to the mov e r and configured to rotate the mover by rotating ( column 4, lines 43-47, for example ). The ramp panel is disposed outside of the sliding door, rather than inside. Kim teaches disposing a ramp assembly ( 300 ) inside a sliding door ( Figure 3, for example ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have disposed the ramp of Nageshkar in the manner of Kim in order to, for example, protect the ramp from weather, use an existing vehicle door or to obtain a desired appearance, since Kim teaches not exposing the ramp to the outside of the vehicle ( column 1, lines 62-65, for example ). Regarding claim 2, Nageshkar includes a pin (92) and hook (90), rather than a bar and ring; however, bar-ring combinations are known to use for securing components in stored configurations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Nageshkar/Kim in this manner in order to effectively store the device inside of a sliding door. Given the arrangement of the pin and hook of Nageshkar, replaced with the bar and ring, claim 4 and 5 recitations would be met. While not explicitly shown in Nageshkar, screw actuators include threads on the outer surface thereof and interact with a mating inner thread on an element movable with respect thereto. Therefore, claim 6 is deemed to be met. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the arrangement as claimed in order to properly actuate the ramp of Nageshkar. Regarding claim 8, there is a motor (82). Regarding claims 9-15, 17, 18 and 20, the claims essentially recite devices of the previous claims arranged in symmetrical, opposite sliding doors. The examiner takes Official notice that vehicles having such doors are well known (trains, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the structure of Nageshkar/Kim in such a vehicle in order to provide access to the vehicle, as is the purpose of each of Nageshkar and Kim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 7 , 16 and 19 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach ramp assemblies . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6989 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 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 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT GARY S. HARTMANN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3671 /GARY S HARTMANN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671