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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed June 30, 2026. The application has been updated accordingly.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer (2018/0346149), in view of Martin et al. (2009/0065272) hereinafter Martin, and further in view of Babcock et al. (9,126,381) hereinafter Babcock.
Springer discloses:
Claim 1: A machine comprising:
a mobile stair (Fig. 1; 10), the mobile stair being able to assume a retracted position (Fig. 2; 22) and an extended position (Fig. 1; 22), wherein in the extended position the mobile stair is accessible by an operator (Fig. 1; 10), the mobile stair being configured to be pushed into the retracted position by a transport rack (Fig. 4A; 110) and pulled into the extended position when the transport rack is pulled in the opposite direction (Para. [0061]), and
a coupling mechanism (Fig. 2; nearest 54).
Springer fails to disclose a transport rack.
However, Martin discloses a transport rack (Fig. 2; 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile stairway of Springer to include the transport rack, as taught by Martin, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would aid an operator to move the stairs and provide operator safety (Abstract).
Thus, in combination Springer and Martin disclose a coupling mechanism being arranged on the mobile stair, of Springer, that is configured to couple the transport rack, of Martin, to the mobile stair responsive to the transport rack pushing the mobile stair into the retracted position, and to decouple the transport rack from the mobile stair, of Springer, responsive to the transport rack, of Marting, being moved from the machine beyond the extended position of the mobile stair.
Springer fails to disclose a die cutting machine but does disclose the stair assembly being suitable for use on a variety of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the stair assembly with a die cutting machine, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow operator access to elevated sections of the die cutting machine. However, should the applicant disagree, Babcock discloses a die cutting machine (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Springer to be used with a die cutting machine, as taught by Babcock, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow operator access to elevated sections of the die cutting machine.
Claim 2: Springer and Babcock disclose the die cutting machine (Babcock – Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the mobile stair comprises a locking mechanism (Springer - Fig. 2; 100) that prevents a displacement of the mobile stair from the extended position into the retracted position (Springer - Para. [0035]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-20 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.
Claim 3 is considered allowable based on the recitation of wherein the coupling mechanism comprises a pivot element
Claim 13 is considered allowable based on the recitation of the coupling mechanism being configured to be opened and closed mechanically without any electric or pneumatic devices.
Claims 4-12 and 14-20 are considered allowable due to their dependency from claims 3 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights