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 § 102
2. 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) 1-7, 10, 11, 13 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Krolski et al. US 2022/0017315. Krolski et al. discloses a modular ramp system comprising:
A planar section including a plurality of textured (106), extruded, hollow, reinforced
(126) beams (102), each beam (102) including connecting members (114, 118),
such as tongue and groove features extending the length of the longitudinal sides
of said beams. see Figs. 1, 5-8; [0024-0034].
Opposing end members (103, 104) which could be identical in shape, or one end may
have a curved profile, while another has planar, inclined, top & bottom surfaces.
Wherein the ends (103/104) attach to connecting members (114, 118), which have complementary shapes, configured for interlocking engagement of adjacent beams to form a ramp unit, Fig.1.
Krolski further discloses the end members (103/104) can be extruded and cut to a variety of lengths to support a variety of beams (102) to form a plurality of ramp units (1) having a variety of widths, in [0043-0046]. Figs. 1, 8 illustrate exposed connecting members (114, 118) on the longitudinal sides of the beams when the ramp unit is assembled. Therefore, it would have been obvious, if not inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the plurality of different width ramp units described in [0045-46] are configured for attachment to adjacent ramp units, since both connecting members (114, 118) are exposed readily connectable to similar ramp units.
With respect to claims 2-7, 13 the limitations to the entry portion (103) and the curved opposing end (104) appear to be shown in Figs. 1, 8 of Krolski.
With respect to claim 10 Krolski discloses the planar section (102) including a plurality of textured (106), extruded, hollow, reinforced (126) beams (102), each beam (102) including connecting members (114, 118), such as tongue and groove features extending the length of the longitudinal sides of said beams. Figs. 1, 5-8; [0024-0034].
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.
4. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krolski et al. US 2022/0017315. Krolski et al. discloses a modular ramp system comprising: A planar section including a plurality of textured (106), extruded, hollow,
reinforced (126) beams (102), each beam (102) including connecting members (114, 118), such as tongue and groove. see Figs. 1, 5-8; [0024-0034]. Krolski further discloses the end members (103/104) can be extruded and cut to a variety of lengths to support a variety of beams (102) to form a plurality of ramp units (1) having a variety of widths, in [0043-0046]. Figs. 1, 8 illustrate exposed connecting members (114, 118) on the longitudinal sides of the beams when the ramp unit is assembled. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the plurality of different width ramp units described in [0045-46] are configured for attachment to adjacent ramp units, since both connecting members (114, 118) are exposed readily connectable to similar ramp units.
5. Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 11, 12, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. US 2023/0235565 in view of Baille US 7,526826.
Matsushita et al. disclose a ramp system comprising:
A 1st ramp unit (1) having a central planar section (2).
1st & 2nd wedge-shaped end sections (3, 4). The 1st wedge shapes end section (3)
having an angled bottom face, the 2nd wedge shape end section (4) having a
curved bottom surface. See Figs. 1, 3; [0041-0045, [0052].
What Matsushita et al. do not disclose is connecting a 2nd ramp unit to the 1st ramp unit.
However, Baille teaches a portable ramp (20) comprising:
1st and 2nd ramp units (120), each ramp unit including a planar section (124, 126), 1st & 2nd end sections (34, 36), a plurality of connecting members (164) such as a hinge pin and hinge sleeve configured to couple the 1st & 2nd ramp units together. See Figs. 8-12; Col. 6, ln. 43-Col. 7, ln. 6. 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 ramp system of Matsushita et al. with hinge assemblies and a 2nd ramp unit, as taught by Baille in order to accommodate wide/heavy loads.
With respect to claim 12 although Matsushita et al. do not disclose the use of a handle; Baille does. 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 ramp system of Matsushita et al. with a handle, as taught by Baille in order to facilitate handling and deployment.
With respect to claims 4-7 see Figs. 3, 5.
With respect to claims 14, 15 Matsushita et al. disclose a method of assembling a ramp system comprising the steps of:
Providing the ramp system set forth above with respect to claim 1.
What Matsushita et al. do not disclose is connecting a 2nd ramp unit to the 1st ramp unit.
However, Baille teaches a portable ramp (20) comprising:
1st and 2nd ramp units (120), each ramp unit comprising:
A planar section (124, 126),
1st & 2nd end sections (34, 36).
A plurality of connecting members (164) such as a hinge pin and hinge sleeve
configured to couple the 1st & 2nd ramp units together. See Figs. 8-12; Col. 6, ln. 43-Col. 7, ln. 6. 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 method of assembling the ramp system of Matsushita et al. with the steps of providing hinge assemblies and a 2nd ramp unit, as taught by Baille in order to accommodate wide/heavy loads.
Claim(s) 2-3, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. US 2023/0235565 in view of Baille US 7,526826 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Griffin US 7,082,637. Matsushita et al. in view of Baille disclose essentially all that is claimed, except for an entry portion top face being co-planar with the top face of said planar section.
However, Griffin teaches a ramp having at least one planar center portion (122, 123) and opposing end sections (121, 124) respectively. Wherein end section (124) has a top surface (16) configured to be co-planar and in contact with a planar edge of an adjacent center portion (123) and an angled bottom portion that is configured to rest flush on a ground surface. Figs. 1, 8; Col. 3, lns. 14-63, Col. 4, ln. 53. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to invert the end section (3) of Matsushita et al. such that the top face of section (3) is coplanar with the planar section of the ramp system of Matsushita et al. in view of Baille, thereby disposing the angled bottom face flush against a ground surface, as reasonably suggested by Griffin in order to improve safety by creating more contact area between the ramp and the ground.
With respect to claim 13 see Fig. 1 of Griffin.
With respect to claim 19 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the position of the ramp assembly with respect to an upper platform, such as the interior of a vehicle, to limit the slope of said ramp assembly to less than 10% slope, in order to accommodate loading wheelchairs and other wheeled transports, such as bicycles.
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. US 2023/0235565 in view of Jones et al. US 2019/0211514
Matsushita et al. disclose a ramp system comprising:
A 1st ramp unit (1) having a central planar section (2).
1st & 2nd wedge-shaped end sections (3, 4). The 1st wedge shapes end section (3)
having an angled bottom face, the 2nd wedge shape end section (4) having a
curved bottom surface. See Figs. 1, 3; [0041-0045, [0052].
What Matsushita et al. do not disclose is connecting a 2nd ramp unit to the 1st ramp unit.
However, Jones et al. disclose a modular flooring/ramp system (200) comprising:
A plurality of planar sections (100-100’) disposed between opposing inclined sections (100”). Wherein the planar sections (100-100’) include a plurality of sidewall slots (114, 116) and pins (128) configured to interconnect adjacent floor/ramp units. See Fig. 14;
[0059-0062]. 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 connection pins/slots taught by Jones et al. in order to facilitate assembly of multi-unit systems.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. US 2023/0235565 in view of Hullenkremer et al. US 9,850,541. Matsushita et al. disclose essentially all that is claimed, except for coupling two ramp units together. However, Hullenkremer et al. teach a floorboard connection assembly
comprising an upwardly curved groove (11) on one sidewall (A) and an upwardly curved protrusion (14) on an opposing sidewall (B). See Figs. 3-4. 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 method of assembling the ramp system of Matsushita et al. with the steps of providing hinge assemblies and a 2nd ramp unit, as taught by Hullenkremer et al. in order to accommodate wide/heavy loads on soft terrain.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 8/18/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection, Drawing Objection and Claim Objection cited in the last Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The cited rejections above have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Krolski does not disclose identical ramp units joined side by side nor a method of doing so.
However, the Examiner does not concur. Krolski clearly illustrates all the
necessary structure of ramp unit (100) including the interconnecting members (114, 118) formed in the sidewalls of the planar section (102) in Figs. 1-3, 8. It would have been obvious, if not inherent, one or ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, having two identical ramp units (100) would readily recognize the exposed interconnecting members (114, 118) could be used in sliding engagement to interconnect side by side identical ramp units to form a double width or extended width ramp assembly.
Therefore the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues against the reference to Matsushita, suggesting the same as above.
However, Matushita was not a stand alone reference but was in fact cited in view of Baille for said connecting members.
* Applicant is reminded the connecting members of claim 1 are defined in functional terms, the only structure recited being “complementary shapes” configured for interlocking engagement. The claim does not specify nor limit the scope of the “complementary shapes” nor how they are configured to perform the function.
To that affect Baille teaches a portable ramp comprising 1ast and 2nd ramp units (120) disposed side by side in an extended planar configuration for use as a ramp see Fig. 12. And a folded configuration shown in Fig. 8. In the 1st step of deploying the portable ramp, each ramp unit (120) is pivoted about complementary hinge assemblies (164), as shown in Figs. 9-10 thereby expanding the width of the ramp system. The ramp units (120) are then pivoted about transverse hinge assembly (122) to extend the length of the ramp assembly.
Therefore the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant then argues against the reference to Hullenkremer, suggesting the deficiencies of Matsushita are not cured by modification.
However, the Examiner does not concur.
Matsushita et al. disclose a ramp system comprising:
A 1st ramp unit (1) having a central planar section (2).
1st & 2nd wedge-shaped end sections (3, 4). The 1st wedge shapes end section (3)
having an angled bottom face, the 2nd wedge shape end section (4) having a
curved bottom surface. See Figs. 1, 3; [0041-0045, [0052].
What Matsushita et al. do not disclose is connecting a 2nd ramp unit to the 1st ramp unit.
Hullenkremer teaches another common connecting assembly (11, 13) configured to
permit limited pivotable placement of adjacent panels (10) on wet environments.
A) and an upwardly curved protrusion (14) on an opposing sidewall (B). See Figs. 3-4. 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 method of assembling the ramp system of Matsushita et al. with the steps of providing hinge assemblies and a 2nd ramp unit, as taught by Hullenkremer et al. as a matter of design choice.
In the last Office Action dependent claim 8 was not adequately addressed. A New Grounds of Rejection of claim 8 is set forth above. Therefore this Action is non-final.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on 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 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 10/6/2026
Prosecution Insights