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. 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. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim (s) 1 -6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fragale US 4,496,265 in view of Rohrs et al . US 4,084,716. Fragale discloses a work machine having a walk way (18) pivotably coupled to a screed (16) for movement between a horizontal operable position and a vertical stored position. Fig. 5, Col. 2, lns . 58-65. But does not disclose the catwalk being biased toward a stowed position. However, Rohrs et al . teach a pivotable walkway (10) pivotably mounted to a vehicle (28). Wherein coil springs (32) are mounted to the vehicle, as at (29), and to opposing sides of the walkway (10). Such that the springs are charged when the walkway (10) is deployed, and the springs assist in raising the walkway (10) to a vertical stored position. See Figs. 1, 4, 6; Col. 2, lns . 14-49. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pivoting walkway of Fragale with the lift assist system taught by Rohrs et al. in order to improve safety. With respect to claim 5 Rohrs et al. teaches the use of coil springs without limitation as to what type. Hence the teaching is seen to include any type of coil spring. Claim (s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdtmann US 9,371,628 in view of MacDonald et al. US 2002/0174496 . Erdtmann discloses a pivotable walkway (12) pivotably mounted to a paving screed (B) or a frame (20) of the paving machine. Wherein a locking mechanism (30) prevents the walkway from rotating from a horizontal operating position to a stored vertical position. See Figs. 1-3. Although Erdtmann teaches the locking mechanism can be rotated by a biasing element, such as a coil spring, Erdtmann does not disclose is a lift assist mechanism to raise the walkway into the stored position. However, MacDonald et al. teach a pivoting walkway (1 8 ) that is raised from a horizontal operational position to a vertical stowed position by a pair of actuators (51,52). [0012-13]. The actuator being controlled by a manually operated control system (61, 62) including an electrically controlled solenoid valve (67) and switches ( 116-118) . [0015]. Wherein the pivoting walkway (18) can be latched in the stowed position by latch lever (102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pivoting walkway of Erdtmann with the power lift/control system taught by MacDonald et al. in order to improve safety. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-13 are allowed. Conclusion 6 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6986 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm . 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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you need help from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RAYMOND W ADDIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 3/17/2026