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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the assembly comprises a transport rack” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to the examiner if this is the same transport rack recited in claim 1 or if this is an additional transport rack. For the purpose of this Office Action the examiner assumes this is the same transport rack.
Claims 10-12 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 9.
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 1-5, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houston et al. (2022/0185189) hereinafter Houston, in view of Babcock et al. (9,126,381) hereinafter Babcock.
Houston discloses:
Claim 1: A machine comprising:
a mobile stair (Fig. 4A; 310), the mobile stair being able to assume a retracted position (Fig. 1) and an extended position (Fig. 4A), wherein in the extended position the mobile stair is accessible by an operator (Fig. 4A; when deployed 310 becomes accessible), 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. 4A; 260, Para. [0061]) being arranged on the mobile stair that is configured to couple the transport rack to the mobile stair to pull the mobile stair from the retracted into the extended position (Para. [0061]) and to decouple the transport rack from the mobile stair when the transport rack is moved from the machine beyond the extended position of the mobile stair (Fig. 4A; via 260, Para. [0061]).
Houston fails to disclose a die cutting machine but does disclose the stair assembly being suitable for use on a variety of vehicles (Para. [0004]). 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 Houston 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: Houston and Babcock disclose the die cutting machine (Babcock – Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the mobile stair comprises a locking mechanism (Houston - Fig. 7D; 250) that prevents a displacement of the mobile stair from the extended position into the retracted position (Houston - Para. [0056]).
Claim 3: Houston and Babcock disclose the die cutting machine (Babcock – Fig. 1) according to claim 2, wherein the coupling mechanism comprises a pivot element (Houston - Fig. 9A; 282, Para. [0070]) pivotally arranged at the mobile stair configured to interact with a counterpart portion (Houston - Fig. 5, 124, Para. [0070]) on the transport rack.
Claim 4: Houston and Babcock disclose the die cutting machine (Babcock – Fig. 1) according to claim 3, wherein a connecting portion (Houston - Fig. 9A, 284, Para. [0070]) on the pivot element (Houston - Fig. 9A; 282, Para. [0070]) is configured to engage the counterpart portion to couple the transport rack to the mobile stair (Houston - Fig. 5; 124, Para. [0070]).
Claim 5: Houston and Babcock disclose the die cutting machine (Babcock – Fig. 1) according to claim 3, wherein the locking mechanism comprises a stopper element (Houston - Fig. 7D; 254) that is fixedly mounted (Houston - Fig. 7A; 254 is fixedly mounted to 250) at the die cutting machine (Babcock – Fig. 1) and the pivot element engages the stopper element (Houston - Fig. 4C; via the connection with 230) when the mobile stair is in the extended position (Houston - Fig. 4A), thereby preventing a displacement of the mobile stair into the retracted position (Houston - Para. [0056]).
Claim 9 as best understood by the examiner: Houston and Babcock disclose an assembly with the cutting machine (Babcock – Fig. 1) according to claim 3, wherein the assembly comprises a transport rack (Houston - Fig. 4A; 110) separate from the die cutting machine that is configured to be pushed against the die cutting machine and removed therefrom, having a counterpart portion for engaging with the coupling mechanism (Houston - Fig. 5; via 118, Para. [0041 & 0045]).
Claim 11: Houston discloses the assembly according to claim 9, wherein the counterpart portion (Fig. 5, 124, Para. [0070]) comprises a connection opening (Fig. 5; an opening is visible at the top of 124) that is configured to be engaged by the coupling mechanism (Fig. 9A; 260 via 282, Para. [0070]) to couple the mobile stair (Fig. 4A; 310) to the transport rack (Fig. 4A; 110).
Claim 12: Houston discloses the assembly according to claims 9, wherein the mobile stair and the transport rack comprise corresponding pushing faces (Fig. 3; using 310 for the mobile stair and 110 for the transport rack), and a pushing force (the force required to perform the function described in Para. [0061]) to transfer the mobile stair from the extended position to the retracted position is transferred from the transport rack to the mobile stair through the pushing faces (Para. [0061]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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 6 is considered allowable based on the recitation of the pivot element being configured to be moved out of engagement with the stopper element when the pivot element is pivoted in a release direction.
Claims 7-8 are considered allowable due to their dependency from claim 6.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 is considered allowable based on the recitation of the counterpart portion and the pivot element have corresponding contact faces that serve to pivot the pivot element when the transport rack is pushed against the mobile stair.
Conclusion
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