DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show all the structure as described in the specification (Fig. 5). Paragraphs [0048] and [0049] state that “[d]etailed here is the relationship between the lift plate 102, fixed plate 101, and the first and second arms 103A and 103B with respect to the existing accessible lift mechanism 400 and the pressure plate 410”. However, Fig. 5 appears to only show a side view partially detailing only 1 arm (103) and part of the existing lift. The description in paragraphs [0048] and [0049] are difficult to follow as they describe positions, connections, and operations that cannot be ascertained from Fig. 5 (or any of the other Figures). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include numerous reference signs mentioned in the description. The examiner herein lists many of the missing reference signs. However, it should be noted that this list may not be all inclusive as the reference signs can be confusing. Missing reference signs include: 100, 101_E1, E1a, E1b, E1c, _E2, E2a, E2b, E2c, 101_m, W1, W2, W3, W4, and 101_H.
Further, it is not understood what is meant by the “legend” that appears on the left hand side (when oriented horizontally) of Fig. 1 below the drawing. For example, the “legend” appears to indicate that 101_ M includes two parts (i.e. M1, M2). However, such is not clear from the drawings or the specification.
Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the drawings and specifications for any other missing reference signs.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
1) it is a single run-on sentence and thus not in narrative form; and
2) it does not seem to be a description of the instant disclosure or claimed 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears that in paragraph [0005], the statement “and wherein each of the first and second arms comprises a first vertical arm portion, a second vertical arm portion, and a contact arm portion” is incorrect as based on the remaining parts of the specification and drawings that the first arm has only the first vertical arm portion and the second arm has only a second vertical portion.
It appears that in paragraph [0033], “beveled edge 101_BE may have a sixth width W6 between the bend line 102_BL” should be “beveled edge 102_BE may have a sixth width W6 between the bend line 102_BL”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 1, lines 6-7 recite that “each of the first and second arms comprises a first vertical arm portion, a second vertical arm portion, and a contact arm portion”. This claim is indefinite as it is not clear how many portions are part of each of the first and second arms (i.e. it appears, from the description, that the first arm has only the first vertical arm portion and the second arm has only a second vertical portion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goodrich (US 6837670).
Regarding claim 1: Goodrich discloses a lift safety apparatus 10 (Figs. 1, 2; abstr.; col. 4, lines 13-27). Goodrich discloses a fixed plate 34 configured to be removably attached within a vehicle (Fig 3; col. 5, lines 7-8). Goodrich discloses a lift plate 36 adjacent to the fixed plate (Fig 3; col. 5, lines 28-45). Goodrich discloses a hinge connecting the lift plate to the fixed plate (Fig. 3 illustrates several hinge assemblies that meet the recited limitation). Goodrich discloses that the lift plate comprises first and second arms (Fig. 3 illustrates several arm structures/assemblies that meet the recited limitation). Goodrich discloses that each of the first and second arms comprises a first vertical arm portion, a second vertical arm portion, and a contact arm portion (Figs. 3-6 illustrate several arm structures/assemblies that meet the recited limitation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DeLeo et al. (US 6042327), Taylor (US 6024528), Czech et al. (US 5180275), O’Leary et al. (US 20070183881), Ablabutyan et al. (US 20050238471), and Kameda (US 6379102). These references, alone or in combination disclose many if not all of the recited limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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 would like assistance 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
3/4/2026