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 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “liner” should be replaced with - -linear- -.
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, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Theis (DE 20 2020 105 492 U1).
As for claim 1, Theis discloses a boarding device (20) comprising a shiftably arranged sliding step, having a step plate (2) and a slide-out unit (11, 12) operatively connected to the step plate, wherein the slide-out unit is embodied to be variable in length in the slide-out direction of the step plate.
As for claim 2, Theis discloses a front first linear element (11 or 12) in the slide-out direction and of a rear second linear element (see vehicle frame, Fig. 2) in the slide-out direction, wherein the two linear elements are connected to one another via a linear element connection (6, 7) and are arranged essentially next to one another.
As for claim 9, Theis discloses a slide out unit (11 and 12) on both sides of the step plate (Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 3 – 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theis (DE 20 2020 105 492 U1) in view of Hirtenlehner (US 7,793,596).
Theis meets all the limitations of the claimed invention but does not disclose the rollers as claimed.
As for claim 3, Theis disclose an elongated hole (6) extending in a slide out direction, but discloses a sliding pin (7) rather than a guide roller. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute a roller for the pin to facilitate sliding. Note that Hirtenlehner discloses the use of guide rollers (8, 9).
As for claims 4 – 7, Hirtenlehner discloses a first roller (8) arranged in a stationary manner on a base frame (Fig. 1) and a second roller (9) on a free rear end which rolls on a guideway (10). 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 boarding device of Theis to include the rollers of Hirtenlehner to support the stop plate when sliding from the vehicle.
As for claim 8, it would have been obvious to merely duplicate the linear element connections of Theis to enable additional extension of the step plate.
As for claim 10, It has been held that, where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art device is a recitation of the dimensions of the claimed device, and the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It would have been obvious to configure the maximum relative movement distance to bridge the desired gap.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katy M Ebner whose telephone number is (571)272-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10 a.m. - 3 p.m.
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, J. Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/Katy M Ebner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613