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 Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26 appears twice in the claim set Filed November 29, 2023. It appears it was a typographical error and should be renumbered as Claim 27. For the purposes of advancing prosecution the claims have been rejected under the renumbered claim 27.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-6, 8, 21-22, 24-26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haimoff US 2008/0201873.
Haimoff discloses a monolithic, polymer ramp for elevating a tire of a vehicle from ground level to an elevated position, the ramp comprising: a slanted portion (102) having a slanted surface extending from a front end (102a, 110), the slanted surface configured to engage the tire and elevate the tire to the elevated position; and a wheel supporting portion (104) having a substantially flat surface extending from the slanted surface and a first chock (120) molded therein proximate a back end, wherein the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface comprise a plurality of spaced apart rows of spaced apart columns (142, 144, 146) wherein the spaced apart columns extend from apertures in the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface and terminate at a distal end that is proximately even with the front end.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, Haimoff discloses wherein each of the columns of the plurality of rows decreases in cross section (tapered cross-sections, see Fig. 5 above) from the opening to the distal end.
As for claim 4, Haimoff discloses wherein the distal ends of the columns are configured to engage a foot pad (rubber sole members / anti-skid member, ¶0053).
As for claim 5, Haimoff discloses left and right side walls (106) engaging side edges of the slanted surface (102) and the substantially flat surface (104) and extending to be substantially even with the front end (see Fig. 1).
As for claim 6, Haimoff discloses wherein each of the left and right side walls (106) comprise exterior indents (136a-136d) that are uniformly spaced along a length of each side wall.
As for claim 8, Haimoff discloses a through bore (126) proximate the front end, the through bore configured to engage an anchor and retain the ramp in a selected location (¶0045).
As for claim 21, Haimoff discloses a plurality of monolithic, polymer ramps for elevating a tire of a vehicle from ground level to an elevated position, each ramp comprising: a slanted portion (102) having a slanted surface extending from a front end (102a, 110), the slanted surface configured to engage the tire and elevate the tire to the elevated position; and a wheel supporting portion (104) having a substantially flat surface extending from the slanted surface and a first chock (120) molded therein proximate a back end, wherein the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface comprise a plurality of spaced apart rows of spaced apart columns (142, 144, 146) wherein the spaced apart columns extend from apertures in the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface and terminate at a distal end that is proximately even with the front end wherein the plurality of ramps are configured to nest one on top of the other (see Figs. 6-9).
As for claim 22, Haimoff discloses wherein each of the columns of the plurality of rows of each ramp decreases in cross section (tapered cross-section, see Fig. 5 above and Figs. 3 and 8) from the opening to the distal end.
As for claim 24, Haimoff discloses wherein the distal ends of the columns of each ramp are configured to engage one or more foot pads (rubber sole members / anti-skid member, ¶0053).
As for claim 25, Haimoff discloses where each ramp further comprising left and right side walls (106) engaging side edges of the slanted surface (102) and the substantially flat surface (104) and extending to be substantially even with the front end (see Figs. 1-2).
As for claim 26, Haimoff discloses wherein each of the left and right side walls (106) of each ramp comprises exterior indents (136a-136d) that are uniformly spaced along a length of each side wall.
As for claim 28, Haimoff discloses wherein each ramp further comprises a through bore (126) proximate the front end, the through bore configured to engage a projection on a wall to store the ramps above ground level (¶0045).
Claim(s) 1-2, 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Igwemezie et al. US 2009/0100613.
Igwemezie discloses a monolithic, polymer ramp for elevating a tire of a vehicle from ground level to an elevated position, the ramp comprising: a slanted portion (6) having a slanted surface extending from a front end (16), the slanted surface configured to engage the tire and elevate the tire to the elevated position; and a wheel supporting portion (8) having a substantially flat surface extending from the slanted surface and a first chock (32) molded therein proximate a back end, wherein the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface comprise a plurality of spaced apart rows of spaced apart columns (20, 22, 24) wherein the spaced apart columns extend from apertures in the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface and terminate at a distal end that is proximately even with the front end (see Figs. 1-5).
PNG
media_image2.png
410
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, Igwemezie discloses wherein each of the columns of the plurality of rows decreases in cross section (cross-sectional of grids 22 and 24 decreases by spine 20) from the opening to the distal end (different shape of grids, ¶0017).
As for claim 3, Igwemezie discloses wherein the plurality of rows comprises three rows of columns that are substantially uniformly spaced apart across a width of both the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface (see Fig. 1 above).
As for claim 5, Igwemezie discloses left and right side walls (14) engaging side edges of the slanted surface (6) and the substantially flat surface (8) and extending to be substantially even with the front end (see Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 3, 7, 23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimoff US 2008/0201873 in view of Zhang US D923280 and Forbis et al. US 8782839.
As for claims 3 and 23, Haimoff discloses all the limitations as recited above wherein the plurality of rows comprises at least two columns (142, 146) that are substantially uniformly spaced apart across a width of both the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface. Haimoff, however, does not specify wherein the plurality of rows comprises three rows of columns that are substantially uniformly spaced apart across a width of both the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, as a mere duplication of parts to provide a third column as claimed as the third column would not provide an unexpected result. Furthermore, the prior art of Zhang further illustrates wherein a plurality of rows comprises at least three columns in the slanted surface and substantially flat surface. Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the ramp of Haimoff to include three columns as claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
546
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claims 7 and 27, the prior art of Haimoff does not specify wherein raised projections are located about the apertures in the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface. However, the use of projections located around the apertures in the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface of a ramp is well known in the art as evidence by Zhang (see Fig. 1 above) and Forbis (78, see Fig. 1 below). Forbis discloses wherein said projections (78) are provided as “conventional diamond tread pattern” to improve grip as is commonly known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the ramp of Haimoff to include raised projections located around the apertures in the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface in order to improve the grip of the ramp while a vehicle is being loaded.
PNG
media_image4.png
470
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9-14, 16-18, 20 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimoff US 2008/0201873 in view of Jung et al. WO 2022/198266.
PNG
media_image5.png
448
624
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As for claims 9 and 29, Haimoff discloses all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein a plurality of receptacles proximate the back end, each of the plurality of receptacles configured to removably retain a plurality of chocks. However, Jung teaches a ramp assembly (10, 20) having receptacles (32) proximate the back end (see Fig. 22 above), each of the plurality of receptacles are provided to removably retain a chock (40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the ramp of Haimoff to include a plurality of receptacles for retaining a chock in order to provide an additional means for securing the wheel to the ramp support surface. Furthermore, though Jung teaches the use of a single chock it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, as a mere duplication of parts to provide additional chocks for the plurality of ramps provided.
As for claim 10, the modified Haimoff teaches a kit for elevating a tire of a vehicle from ground level to an elevated position and retaining the tire in the elevated position, the kit comprising: a ramp comprising: a slanted portion (102) having a slanted surface extending from a front end (102a, 110), the slanted surface configured to engage the tire and elevate the tire to the elevated position; and a wheel supporting portion (104) having a substantially flat surface extending from the slanted surface and a first chock (120) molded therein proximate a back end, the wheel supporting portion having a plurality of receptacles (as taught by Jung, 32) proximate the back end; and a plurality of chocks (as taught by Jung, 40), a portion of the plurality of chocks having a complementary configuration (as taught by Jung, 47, ¶0079) to that of the receptacles such that the plurality of chocks are configured to be retained to the receptacles and removed from the receptacles to secure, a wheel in a selected position on the wheel supporting portion (as taught by Jung, ¶0073).
As for claim 11, the modified Haimoff teaches wherein each of the plurality of receptacles (Jung, tapered stems, 32) has a dove tail configuration and each of the plurality of chocks has a complementary dove tail opening (Jung, tapered opening 47). Furthermore, absent persuasive evidence, the particular configuration of a dovetail shape configuration is a mere design consideration of which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
As for claim 12, the modified Haimoff teaches wherein each of the plurality of receptacles (Jung, 32) includes an opening and wherein each of the plurality of chocks includes a securing mechanism (Jung, 47) that is positionable within the opening to retain each chock to each receptacle.
As for claim 13, the modified Haimoff teaches wherein the slanted surface (102) and the substantially flat surface (104) of the ramp comprise a plurality of spaced apart rows of spaced apart columns (142, 144, 146) wherein the spaced apart columns extend from apertures in the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface and terminate at a distal end that is proximately even with the front end (see Fig. 5).
As for claim 14, the modified Haimoff teaches wherein each of the columns of the plurality of rows decreases in cross section from the opening to the distal end (tapered cross-sections, see Fig. 5 above).
As for claim 16, the modified Haimoff teaches wherein the distal ends of the columns are configured to engage one or more foot pads (rubber sole members / anti-skid member, ¶0053).
As for claim 17, the modified Haimoff teaches wherein the ramp further comprises left and right side walls (106) engaging side edges of the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface and extending to be substantially even with the front end.
As for claim 18, the modified Haimoff teaches wherein each of the left and right side walls comprise exterior indents (136a-136d) that are uniformly spaced along a length of each side wall.
As for claim 20, the modified Haimoff teaches wherein the ramp further comprising a through bore (126) proximate the front end, the through bore configured to engage a projection on a wall to store the ramps above ground level.
Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimoff US 2008/0201873 in view of Jung et al. WO 2022/198266 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Zhang US D923280 and Forbis et al. US 8782839.
As for claim 15, the modified Haimoff teaches all the limitations as recited above wherein the plurality of rows comprises at least two columns (142, 146) that are substantially uniformly spaced apart across a width of both the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface. Haimoff, however, does not specify wherein the plurality of rows comprises three rows of columns that are substantially uniformly spaced apart across a width of both the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, as a mere duplication of parts to provide a third column as claimed as the third column would not provide an unexpected result. Furthermore, the prior art of Zhang further illustrates wherein a plurality of rows comprises at least three columns in the slanted surface and substantially flat surface. Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the ramp of Haimoff to include three columns as claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
546
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claim 19, the modified Haimoff does not teach wherein raised projections are located about the apertures in the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface. However, the use of projections located around the apertures in the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface of a ramp is well known in the art as evidence by Zhang (see Fig. 1 above) and Forbis (78, see Fig. 1 below). Forbis discloses wherein said projections (78) are provided as “conventional diamond tread pattern” to improve grip as is commonly known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the ramp of Haimoff to include raised projections located around the apertures in the slanted surface and the substantially flat surface in order to improve the grip of the ramp while a vehicle is being loaded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723