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 § 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, 4, 6-7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 10,077,016).
In re claims 1 and 15, Smith teaches a vehicle body, a vehicle door and a step device (fig. 1), comprising: a mounting frame (vehicle, fig. 1); a fixed step (100) mounted on the mounting frame; a retractable mechanism mounted to one of the mounting frame or the fixed step (fig. 7-9); and a retractable step mounted on the retractable mechanism so that the retractable mechanism is configured to drive the retractable step to move between an extended position and a retracted position (fig. 7-9), wherein, in the extended position, at least a part of the retractable step extends outward beyond the fixed step from underneath the fixed step so that the retractable step and the fixed step form two steps (fig. 9), and in the retracted position, the retractable step retracts to a position underneath the fixed step (fig. 7); wherein the mounting frame of the step device is mounted on the vehicle body (fig. 1-2).
In re claim 4, Smith teaches the retractable mechanism comprises a mounting support seat (1080), a step support seat (1030) and an arm assembly (1030, 1040, 1060), wherein the arm assembly is connected between the mounting support seat and the step support seat, the mounting frame has a mounting groove (149), and at least a part of the mounting support seat is accommodated in the mounting groove.
In re claim 6, Smith teaches the fixed step has an accommodating groove (149), the mounting frame is mounted in the accommodating groove, and the retractable mechanism is mounted at the accommodating groove, and in the retracted position, the whole or part of the retractable step is accommodated in the accommodating groove (fig. 7, 14).
In re claim 7, Smith teaches in the retracted position, at least a part of a surface of the retractable step is flush with a surface of the fixed step (fig. 7, 14).
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) 14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied above.
In re claim 14, the examiner takes the position that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include a plurality of steps (see abstract in Smith) and to operate them independently. The examiner notes that it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
In re claim 18, Smith teaches the vehicle door comprises a left door and a right door (clear from fig. 1 – it’s a pick up truck), and the step device comprises a left step device mounted on a left side of the vehicle body and a right step device mounted on a right side of the vehicle body (see abstract). Likewise, the examiner takes the position that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the step device is configured in at least one of the following manners. any one of the retractable steps of the left step device and the right step device is configured to independently move between the extended position and the retracted position, or the retractable step of the left step device is configured to move synchronously and the retractable step of the right step device is configured to move synchronously, or the retractable step of the left step device is configured to move synchronously with or independently of the retractable step of the right step device. The examiner notes that while Smith is silent about multiple steps working synchronously or independently, the Courts have held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, which can be fairly regarded as working independently. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Likewise, the courts have held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, which can be fairly regarded as working synchronously. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
In re claim 19, Smith teaches the fixed step of the left step device is one fixed step corresponding to the left front door and the left rear door (fig. 3a-b) or comprises two fixed steps having a one-to-one correspondence to the left front door and the left rear door, and the retractable step of the left step device is one retractable step corresponding to the left front door and the left rear door (fig. 3a-b) or comprises two retractable steps having a one-to-one correspondence with the left front door and the left rear door; and the right door comprises a right front door and a right rear door (it’s a puck up truck, so would expect the sides to be symmetrical), the fixed step of the right step device is one fixed step corresponding to the right front door and the right rear door or comprises two fixed steps having a one-to-one correspondence with the right front door and the right rear door, and the retractable step of the right step device is one retractable step corresponding to the right front door and the right rear door or comprises two retractable steps having a one-to-one correspondence with the right front door and the right rear door (it’s a puck up truck, so would expect the sides to be symmetrical); or the vehicle door further comprises a tailgate (language allows this to be optional), and the step device further comprises a tail step device mounted at a tail of the vehicle body, wherein the tail step device comprises one fixed step and one retractable step corresponding to the tailgate, and any one of the retractable steps of the left step device, the right step device and the tail step device is configured to independently move between the extended position and the retracted position, or the retractable step of the left step device is configured to move synchronously, and the retractable step of the right step device is configured to move synchronously, or the retractable step of the left step device, the retractable step of the right step device and the retractable step of the tail step device are configured to move synchronously with or independently of each other (language allows this to be optional).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5, 8-13, 16-17 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EREZ GURARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/EREZ GURARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights