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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III (Figs. 6, 7, 8(A-D), and 9) in the reply filed on June 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellement (US-20130193667-A1) in view of Hedley (US-20130008743-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ellement teaches:
A cab step system for a vehicle, the system comprising (Fig. 7a, steps 33, cabin 34):
a platform proximate to an operator cab of the vehicle (Fig. 7a, sill 35);
a staircase, the staircase selectively moveable between a retracted state and an extended state, the staircase comprising (Figs. 9a-9d):
a plurality of steps including a retractable step (Specification, page 12, line 3, "The first and second links are also connected at their respective distal ends to a first retractable tread 80."),
at least one support segment coupling together the steps of the plurality of steps (Fig. 1d, items 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, 16a),
a first inclination angle and a first step angle in the retracted state, a second inclination angle and a second step angle in the extended state, wherein (Specification, page 10, line 30, "Thus the access device opens out from a retracted position (with the treads nested) and angled upwards/downwards to a deployed, opened out position, with the treads generally horizontal"):
the first step angle is larger than the second step angle (Specification, page 10, line 30, "Thus the access device opens out from a retracted position (with the treads nested) and angled upwards/downwards to a deployed, opened out position, with the treads generally horizontal");
a linkage system, the linkage system comprising (Fig. 10a, link rocker 64, adapter link 66, linkage arm 52, linkage arm pivot 54):
an actuator configured to selectively move the staircase from the retracted state to the extended state (Specification, page 12, line 12, "The ram retracts and the stair rotates forward and extends to deploy.");
Ellement fails to teach the first inclination angle is steeper than the second inclination angle, or the moveable extension bracket coupling the staircase to the platform.
Hedley teaches the first inclination angle is steeper than the second inclination angle (Hedley, Background of the Invention, line 9, "in the access position, extend generally outwardly and downwardly from the elevated surface. In the storage position, the ladder members are retracted in a substantially vertically disposed manner atop a mounting."). Hedley also teaches a moveable extension bracket coupling the staircase to the platform (Hedley, Figs. 1-3, mounting 4, guide arms 8, guide arm members 14 and 15, pivot points 16-18; Detailed Description of Preferred Embodiments, line 23, "The mounting 4 is for securement of the access device 1 on an elevated surface 3 (not shown). The elevated surface may be the platform of a vehicle such as, a mining, earthmoving, railway, or other vehicle."). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Ellement with a staircase having a retracted-state inclination angle steeper than an extended-state inclination angle, and a moveable extension bracket coupling the staircase to the platform, as suggested by Hedley; the motivation being: providing a more compact profile of the staircase in the retracted state to minimize the risk of the staircase colliding with objects while the vehicle is moving, and providing a structure to guide and support the staircase as it moves between the retracted and extended states, respectively.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellement (US-20130193667-A1) and Hedley (US-20130008743-A1), as applied above, in further view of Edelen (US-20160101739-A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination fails to teach any of the limitations beyond the cab step system of claim 1.
Edelen teaches:
at least one sensor configured to detect a state of the staircase (Edelen, Specification ¶ [0045], line 5, "a retract limit switch 60 is positioned at a position wherein a portion of the movable platform 16 and/or ladder section 14 engages the limit switch 60 at a fully retracted position.") and a condition of the vehicle (Edelen, Specification ¶ [0055], line 1, "combine 10 is equipped with a drive setting sensor 78 that senses whether combine 10 is in a stationary setting ... or a drive setting ...");
a controller, the controller comprising one or more processors including one or more memory devices coupled to the one or more processors (Edelen, Specification ¶ [0047], line 1, "actuator 36 and/or self-contained bi-directional DC motor driven pump 42 includes a microprocessor 62 which receives and processes control signals and information from the control system 45"),
the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Edelen, Specification ¶ [0051], line 11, "the control system 45 is programmed to activate the actuator 36 to move the ladder section 14 to an extended position"):
receive the state of the staircase and the condition of the vehicle, and in response to the condition of the vehicle, selectively move the staircase to at least one of the retracted state or the extended state (Edelen, Specification ¶ [0055], line 14, "when the drive setting sensor 78 detects that a drive settings has been engaged, and the control system 45 knows that the ladder section 14 is in an extended position (in one arrangement by detection of limit switches 60) the control system 45 is programmed to activate the actuator 36 to move the ladder section 14 to a retracted position").
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the combination with a sensor to detect a state of the staircase and a condition of the vehicle, a controller with processor(s) and memory device(s), and executable instructions for receiving the state of the staircase and condition of the vehicle, and in response, automatically moving the staircase between the retracted and extended states, as suggested by Edelen; the motivation being: enabling the automatic determination of the state of the staircase and condition of the vehicle, and responsively controlling deployment or retraction of the staircase in order to facilitate appropriate automatic positioning of the staircase during vehicle operation. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Edelen employs its sensors and programmed controller to perform the same automatic control of a moveable staircase, and the incorporation of that known control scheme into the moveable staircase of Ellement and Hedley would predictably perform the same function.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. US-12709225-B2 to Sietsema in view of Ellement (US-20130193667-A1) and Hedley (US-20130008743-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sietsema claim 1 teaches:
A cab step system for a vehicle, the system comprising (claim 1, "A cab step system for a vehicle, the system comprising:"):
a platform (claim 1, "a platform")
a staircase, the staircase selectively moveable between a retracted state and an extended state, the staircase comprising (claim 1, "a staircase selectively moveable between a retracted state and an extended state, the staircase comprising:”):
a plurality of steps including a retractable step (claim 1, "a plurality of steps including a retractable step"),
at least one support segment coupling together the steps of the plurality of steps ("at least one support segment coupling together the steps of the plurality of steps"),
a linkage system, the linkage system comprising (claim 1, "a linkage system, the linkage system comprising:"):
an actuator configured to selectively move the staircase from the retracted state to the extended state (claim 1, "an actuator configured to selectively move the staircase from the retracted state to the extended state");
and a moveable extension bracket coupling the staircase to the platform (claim 1, "a moveable extension bracket coupling the staircase to the platform").
Sietsema claim 1 does not expressly teach that the platform is proximate to an operator cab, nor does Sietsema claim 1 expressly teach the claimed first and second inclination and step-angle relationships. Ellement teaches the platform proximate to an operator cab of the vehicle (Ellement, Fig. 7a, sill 35, cabin 34), and a first inclination angle and a first step angle in the retracted state, and a second inclination angle and a second step angle in the extended state (Ellement, page 10, line 30, "Thus the access device opens out from a retracted position (with the treads nested) and angled upwards/downwards to a deployed, opened out position, with the treads generally horizontal"). Ellement also teaches the first step angle is larger than the second step angle (Ellement, page 10, line 30, "Thus the access device opens out from a retracted position (with the treads nested) and angled upwards/downwards to a deployed, opened out position, with the treads generally horizontal").
Hedley teaches the first inclination angle is steeper than the second inclination angle (Hedley, Background of the Invention, line 9, "in the access position, extend generally outwardly and downwardly from the elevated surface. In the storage position, the ladder members are retracted in a substantially vertically disposed manner atop a mounting.").
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Sietsema with the platform proximate to the operator cab, and the disclosed retracted and deployed staircase geometry, as suggested by Ellement; the motivation being: providing convenient operator access to the vehicle cab after ascending the staircase, while permitting the staircase to assume a compact configuration when not in use and a usable access configuration when deployed.
It would have been further obvious to configure the staircase according to Hedley’s moveable staircase arrangement such that the staircase has a steeper inclination in the retracted state than in the extended state, providing a compact stored configuration while permitting a less-steep access configuration when deployed, with a reasonable expectation of success because Hedley employs the same geometric relationship in an analogous moveable vehicle staircase.
Regarding claim 2, Sietsema claim 1 further teaches:
at least one sensor configured to detect a state of the staircase and a condition of the vehicle (claim 1, "at least one sensor configured to detect a state of the staircase and a condition of the vehicle");
a controller, the controller comprising one or more processors including one or more memory devices coupled to the one or more processors (claim 1, "a controller, the controller comprising one or more processors including one or more memory devices coupled to the one or more processors"),
the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (claim 1, "the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:"):
receive the state of the staircase and the condition of the vehicle (claim 1, "receive a first indication that the staircase is in at least one of the retracted state or the extended state," "receive a second indication of an articulation angle of the vehicle," and "receive a third indication of a vehicle operation event"),
and in response to the condition of the vehicle, selectively move the staircase to at least one of the retracted state or the extended state (claim 1, "in response to the articulation angle exceeding the articulation angle threshold, cause the staircase to move to or stay in the retracted state").
Regarding claim 3, Sietsema further teaches:
the at least one sensor comprises: a proximity sensor and a limit switch, each configured to send a signal to the controller indicating that the staircase is in at least one of the retracted state or the extended state (claim 2, "a proximity sensor configured to receive a fifth indication of a distance between the staircase and the platform, a limit switch configured to receive a sixth indication that the staircase is in the retracted state or the extended state," and "the first indication that the staircase is in at least one of the retracted state or the extended state is based on the fifth indication of the proximity sensor and the sixth indication of the limit switch.");
an articulation sensor configured to: detect an articulation angle of the vehicle above an articulation threshold (claim 2, "an articulation sensor configured to receive the second indication of the articulation angle").
and send a signal to the controller in response to the articulation angle exceeding the articulation threshold (claim 1, "a controller ... receive a second indication of an articulation angle of the vehicle, compare the articulation angle to an articulation angle threshold, in response to the articulation angle exceeding the articulation angle threshold, cause the staircase to move to or stay in the retracted state").
Claims 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. US-12709225-B2 to Sietsema in view of Ellement (US-20130193667-A1) and Hedley (US-20130008743-A1), and in further view of Smith (US-20210300250-A1).
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent upon claim 2, the limitations of claim 2 are addressed above with respect to Sietsema claim 1 in view of Ellement and Hedley. Sietsema claim 4 further teaches:
an override subassembly configured to move the staircase to at least one of the retracted state or the extended state irrespective of the controller (claim 4, "in response to detecting the fault event, activate an override subassembly to move the staircase to one of the retracted state or the extended state").
Sietsema claim 4 does not expressly teach that the override subassembly is configured to move the staircase irrespective of the controller. Smith teaches "Toggling the switch 251 in a first direction away from the center position to a second position initiates a manual retract mode which overrides the normal automated step movement scheme. If the step is deployed at the time the switch 251 is moved to the second position, the step moves to the retracted position, e.g., regardless of the state of the door or of other control inputs" (Smith, Specification ¶ [0092], line 9). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the override subassembly of the combination to permit a manual override of the normal automated staircase control, as suggested by Smith; the motivation being: providing the operator with independent control of the staircase position when automatic operation is unavailable, or otherwise does not command the desired staircase position.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-9 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. US-12709225-B2 to Sietsema in view of Ellement (US-20130193667-A1) and Hedley (US-20130008743-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Sietsema teaches:
A vehicle comprising (claim 8, “A vehicle comprising”):
a frame (claim 8, "a frame");
a front tractive assembly coupled to the frame, the front tractive assembly including a front axle (claim 8, "a front tractive assembly coupled to the frame, the front tractive assembly including a front axle");
a rear tractive assembly coupled to the frame, the rear tractive assembly including a rear axle (claim 8, "a rear tractive assembly coupled to the frame, the rear tractive assembly including a rear axle");
a prime mover coupled to the frame and configured to drive the front tractive assembly and the rear tractive assembly to propel the vehicle (claim 8, "a prime mover coupled to the frame and configured to drive the front tractive assembly and the rear tractive assembly to propel the vehicle");
an articulation sensor configured to collect data indicating an articulation angle of at least one of the front tractive assembly or the rear tractive assembly (claim 8, "an articulation sensor configured to collect data indicating an articulation angle of at least one of the front tractive assembly or the rear tractive assembly");
a platform coupled to the frame of the vehicle (claim 8, "a platform coupled to the frame of the vehicle");
a staircase, the staircase selectively moveable between a retracted state and an extended state, the staircase comprising (claim 8, "a staircase selectively moveable between a retracted state and an extended state, the staircase comprising"):
a plurality of steps including a retractable step (claim 8, "a plurality of steps including a retractable step"),
at least one support segment coupling together the steps of the plurality of steps (claim 8, "at least one support segment coupling together the steps of the plurality of steps"),
an actuator configured to selectively move the staircase from the retracted state to the extended state (claim 8, "an actuator configured to selectively move the staircase from the retracted state to the extended state");
a moveable extension bracket coupling the staircase to the platform (claim 8, "a moveable extension bracket coupling the staircase to the platform");
a proximity sensor and a limit switch, each configured to collect data indicating that the staircase is in at least one of the retracted state or the extended state (claim 9, "indication that the staircase is in at least one of the retracted state or the extended state is based on the fifth indication of the proximity sensor and the sixth indication of the limit switch");
a controller communicatively coupled to the articulation sensor (claim 8, "receive a second indication of the articulation angle of the vehicle," "receive a third indication of a vehicle operation event"), the proximity sensor, the limit switch (claim 9, "the first indication that the staircase is in at least one of the retracted state or the extended state is based on the fifth indication of the proximity sensor and the sixth indication of the limit switch"), and the prime mover (claim 13, "the vehicle operation event comprises at least one of: moving the vehicle via the prime mover"), the controller configured to:
receive a signal including the data from the articulation sensor and the data from the proximity sensor and the limit switch, and based on the signal, selectively move the staircase to at least one of the retracted state or the extended state (claim 8, "receive a first indication that the staircase is in at least one of the retracted state or the extended state, receive a second indication of the articulation angle of the vehicle, compare the articulation angle to an articulation angle threshold, in response to the articulation angle exceeding the articulation angle threshold, cause the staircase to move to or stay in the retracted state").
Sietsema does not expressly teach the claimed first and second inclination and step-angle relationships. Ellement teaches a first inclination angle and a first step angle in the retracted state, and a second inclination angle and a second step angle in the extended state (Ellement, page 10, line 30, "Thus the access device opens out from a retracted position (with the treads nested) and angled upwards/downwards to a deployed, opened out position, with the treads generally horizontal"). Ellement also teaches the first step angle is larger than the second step angle (Ellement, page 10, line 30, "Thus the access device opens out from a retracted position (with the treads nested) and angled upwards/downwards to a deployed, opened out position, with the treads generally horizontal").
Hedley teaches the first inclination angle is steeper than the second inclination angle (Hedley, Background of the Invention, line 9, "in the access position, extend generally outwardly and downwardly from the elevated surface. In the storage position, the ladder members are retracted in a substantially vertically disposed manner atop a mounting.").
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Sietsema with the disclosed retracted and deployed staircase geometry, as suggested by Ellement; the motivation being: permitting the staircase to assume a compact configuration when not in use and a usable access configuration when deployed.
It would have been further obvious to configure the staircase according to Hedley’s moveable staircase arrangement such that the staircase has a steeper inclination in the retracted state than in the extended state, providing a compact stored configuration while permitting a less-steep access configuration when deployed, with a reasonable expectation of success because Hedley employs the same geometric relationship in an analogous moveable vehicle staircase.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. US-12709225-B2 to Sietsema in view of Ellement (US-20130193667-A1) and Hedley (US-20130008743-A1), and in further view of Smith (US-20210300250-A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sietsema claim 12 teaches:
an override subassembly configured to move the staircase to at least one of the retracted state or the extended state (claim 12, "in response to detecting the fault event, activate an override subassembly to move the staircase to one of the retracted state or the extended state").
Sietsema does not expressly teach that the override subassembly is configured to move the staircase irrespective of the controller. Smith teaches "Toggling the switch 251 in a first direction away from the center position to a second position initiates a manual retract mode which overrides the normal automated step movement scheme. If the step is deployed at the time the switch 251 is moved to the second position, the step moves to the retracted position, e.g., regardless of the state of the door or of other control inputs" (Smith, Specification ¶ [0092], line 9). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the override subassembly of the combination to permit a manual override of the normal automated staircase control, as suggested by Smith; the motivation being: providing the operator with independent control of the staircase position when automatic operation is unavailable, or otherwise does not command the desired staircase position.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. US-12709225-B2 to Sietsema in view of Ellement (US-20130193667-A1) and Hedley (US-20130008743-A1).
Regarding claim 15, Sietsema teaches:
A cab step system for a vehicle comprising (claim 1, "A cab step system for a vehicle, the system comprising:"):
a staircase, the staircase selectively moveable between a retracted state and an extended state, the staircase comprising (claim 1, "a staircase selectively moveable between a retracted state and an extended state, the staircase comprising:"):
a plurality of steps including a retractable step (claim 1, "a plurality of steps including a retractable step"),
at least one support segment coupling together the steps of the plurality of steps (claim 1, "at least one support segment coupling together the steps of the plurality of steps"),
an actuator configured to selectively move the staircase from the retracted state to the extended state (claim 1, "an actuator configured to selectively move the staircase from the retracted state to the extended state");
a moveable extension bracket coupling the staircase to a platform of the vehicle (claim 1, "a moveable extension bracket coupling the staircase to the platform");
an articulation sensor configured to collect data indicating an articulation angle of the vehicle (claim 2, "an articulation sensor configured to receive the second indication of the articulation angle");
a proximity sensor and a limit switch (claim 2, "a proximity sensor configured to receive a fifth indication of a distance between the staircase and the platform, a limit switch configured to receive a sixth indication that the staircase is in the retracted state or the extended state"),
each configured to collect data indicating that the staircase is in at least one of the retracted state or the extended state (claim 2, "the first indication that the staircase is in at least one of the retracted state or the extended state is based on the fifth indication of the proximity sensor and the sixth indication of the limit switch.");
a controller communicatively coupled to the articulation sensor (claim 1, "receive a second indication of an articulation angle of the vehicle"; claim 2, "an articulation sensor configured to receive the second indication of the articulation angle."),
the proximity sensor, the limit switch, the controller configured to: receive a signal including the data from the articulation sensor and the data from the proximity sensor and the limit switch (claim 1, "receive a first indication that the staircase is in at least one of the retracted state or the extended state," "receive a second indication of an articulation angle of the vehicle"; claim 2 "the first indication that the staircase is in at least one of the retracted state or the extended state is based on the fifth indication of the proximity sensor and the sixth indication of the limit switch."),
and based on the signal, selectively move the staircase to at least one of the retracted state or the extended state (claim 1, "in response to the articulation angle exceeding the articulation angle threshold, cause the staircase to move to or stay in the retracted state").
Sietsema does not expressly teach the claimed first and second inclination and step-angle relationships, nor does Sietsema teach that the moveable extension bracket is attached to an upper end of the staircase. Ellement teaches a first inclination angle and a first step angle in the retracted state, and a second inclination angle and a second step angle in the extended state (Ellement, page 10, line 30, "Thus the access device opens out from a retracted position (with the treads nested) and angled upwards/downwards to a deployed, opened out position, with the treads generally horizontal"). Ellement also teaches the first step angle is larger than the second step angle (Ellement, page 10, line 30, "Thus the access device opens out from a retracted position (with the treads nested) and angled upwards/downwards to a deployed, opened out position, with the treads generally horizontal").
Hedley teaches the first inclination angle is steeper than the second inclination angle (Hedley, Background of the Invention, line 9, "in the access position, extend generally outwardly and downwardly from the elevated surface. In the storage position, the ladder members are retracted in a substantially vertically disposed manner atop a mounting."). Hedley also teaches that the moveable extension bracket coupling the staircase to the platform is attached to an upper end of the staircase (Hedley, Figs. 1-3, mounting 4, guide arms 8, guide arm members 14 and 15, pivot points 16-18).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Sietsema with the disclosed retracted and deployed staircase geometry, as suggested by Ellement; the motivation being: permitting the staircase to assume a compact configuration when not in use and a usable access configuration when deployed.
It would have been further obvious to configure the staircase according to Hedley’s moveable staircase arrangement such that the staircase has a steeper inclination in the retracted state than in the extended state, providing a compact stored configuration while permitting a less-steep access configuration when deployed, with a reasonable expectation of success because Hedley employs the same geometric relationship in an analogous moveable vehicle staircase. It would have been further obvious to configure the moveable extension bracket of Sietsema such that it couples the upper end of the staircase to the platform, as taught by Hedley, in order to support and guide the staircase from its platform-adjacent end during movement between the retracted and extended states while maintaining the staircase coupled to the elevated vehicle platform. Hedley demonstrates that the upper-end pivotal mounting is a known and predictable arrangement for a moveable vehicle staircase.
Claims 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. US-12709225-B2 to Sietsema in view of Ellement (US-20130193667-A1) and Hedley (US-20130008743-A1), and in further view of Smith (US-20210300250-A1).
Regarding claim 17, Sietsema claim 4 teaches:
an override subassembly configured to move the staircase to at least one of the retracted state or the extended state (claim 12, "in response to detecting the fault event, activate an override subassembly to move the staircase to one of the retracted state or the extended state").
Sietsema does not expressly teach that the override subassembly is configured to move the staircase irrespective of the controller. Smith teaches "Toggling the switch 251 in a first direction away from the center position to a second position initiates a manual retract mode which overrides the normal automated step movement scheme. If the step is deployed at the time the switch 251 is moved to the second position, the step moves to the retracted position, e.g., regardless of the state of the door or of other control inputs" (Smith, Specification ¶ [0092], line 9). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the override subassembly of the combination to permit a manual override of the normal automated staircase control, as suggested by Smith; the motivation being: providing the operator with independent control of the staircase position when automatic operation is unavailable, or otherwise does not command the desired staircase position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not teach the claimed invention comprising: (1) a space beneath the platform; (2) a frame coupled to and extending beneath the platform; and (3) at least one pivot connection coupling an upper end of the staircase to a first end of the moveable extension bracket, and a second end of the moveable extension bracket to the frame; and (4) wherein the retractable step occupies a portion of the space in the retracted state and is located outside of the space in the extended state.
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 18, the prior art of record does not teach the claimed combination of numerical ranges for the inclination and step-angles of the staircase.
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 19, the prior art of record does not teach the claimed vertical-rise/horizontal-run relationship between the retracted and extended staircase configurations.
Regarding claims 8, 14, and 20, the prior art of record does not teach the claimed guide track having a component of the staircase disposed therein and moveable along its length when the staircase transitions between retracted and extended states, or the claimed rest having a rest interface that abuts a portion of the staircase when in the retracted state.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, the prior art of record does not teach the claimed invention comprising: (1) a space beneath the platform configured to receive at least a portion of the retractable step; and (2) at least one pivot connection coupling an upper end of the staircase to a first end of the moveable extension bracket, and a second end of the moveable extension bracket to the platform; and (4) wherein the retractable step is located outside of the space in the extended state, and is the topmost step of the staircase.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Johnston (US-6264222-B1) discloses a vehicle staircase moveable between retracted and extended states by an actuator, and a control system responsive to vehicle operating conditions and staircase state.
Johnson (US-9816318-B2) discloses a powered ladder assembly for a work vehicle having a platform adjacent to a vehicle cab and an actuator configured to move the ladder between retracted and extended states.
Uemura (US-10005397-B2) discloses a work vehicle ladder having articulated ladder members, and actuators configured to move the ladder between retracted and extended states.
Hamaguchi (US-10099623-B2) discloses a vehicle ladder having a plurality of steps, wherein the ladder’s longitudinal length and the distance between the ladder’s steps change when the ladder moves between retracted and extended states.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R BRENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0299. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EDT.
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, 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.
/WILLIAM RICHARD BRENNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights