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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 8-9, 11, and 18-19 have been amended. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 12/19/2025.
Claim Objections
The Claim Objection detailed in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 9/22/2025 has been withdrawn in light of the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 12/19/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca (US 20160136018 A1) in view of Valentino (US 4222136 A) in view of Weiler (US 3833240 A).
Regarding Claim 1, DeLuca discloses a patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20), comprising: a frame assembly including: a base frame (base 22) including rollers (wheels 24) for engaging an underlying surface; and an upper frame (frame 28) operably coupled to the base frame, wherein the upper frame is adjustable relative to the base frame (See Fig. 16, frame 28 sits on elevation adjustment mechanisms 26 allowing frame 28 to raise and lower with respect to base 22); and a step assembly (riding platform 128) operably coupled to the base frame, wherein the step assembly includes: at least one support step operable between a deployed position and a stowed position (See Fig. 31, “extendable and retractable riding platform 128”; [0127]), and wherein the at least one support step is disposed between the base frame and the underlying surface when in the stowed position (“riding platform 128… space defined between the bottom of base 22 and the floor on which support apparatus 20w is positioned”; [0129]).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
432
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DeLuca fails to explicitly disclose at least one support step operable between multiple heights relative to the frame assembly when in the deployed position.
However, Valentino teaches at least one support step operable between multiple heights relative to the frame assembly when in the deployed position (“foot stool which is adjustable in height”; [Col. 1, Lines 20-21]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca by adding the height adjustability as taught by Valentino. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “it may be raised”; (Valentino, [Col. 1, Line 22]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
DeLuca in view of Valentino fails to explicitly teach a first latching feature, wherein the at least one support step is configured to be adjusted toward the frame assembly until the support step engages the first latching feature to be retained in the stowed position; and a second latching feature, wherein the at least one support step is configured to be adjusted away from the frame assembly until the support step engages the second latching feature to be retained in the deployed position.
However, DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler teaches a first latching feature, wherein the at least one support step is configured to be adjusted toward the frame assembly until the support step engages the first latching feature to be retained in the stowed position (See Fig. 4, bar 46 is latched by notch 62 in the stowed position); and a second latching feature, wherein the at least one support step is configured to be adjusted away from the frame assembly until the support step engages the second latching feature to be retained in the deployed position (See Fig. 6, bar 46 is latched by notch 60 in the deployed position).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca in view of Valentino by adding the latching features as taught by Weiler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “maintain the step in locked position, either retracted or extended”; (Weiler, [Col. 3, Line 47-48]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, DeLuca, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 1, wherein the at least one support step translates along a horizontal plane between the stowed position and the deployed position (See Fig. 31, “extendable and retractable riding platform 128”; [0127]).
Regarding Claim 9, DeLuca, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 1, wherein the at least one support step includes a caster removably coupled to a bottom surface of the at least one support step (“riding platform 128…includes one or more wheels positioned underneath that it rides on the floor”; [0129]).
Claim 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca (US 20160136018 A1) in view of Valentino (US 4222136 A) in view of Weiler (US 3833240 A), further in view of Smith (US 20070056102 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, DeLuca, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 1.
DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler fails to explicitly teach wherein the step assembly includes rails, and wherein the at least one support step slides along the rails between the stowed position and the deployed position.
However, Smith teaches wherein the step assembly includes rails (rails 30a and 30b), and wherein the at least one support step slides along the rails between the stowed position and the deployed position (See Fig. 1 and 2, step 12 slides in and out of examination table 10 by way of the rails 30a and 30b).
PNG
media_image3.png
486
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
474
768
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler by adding the rails taught by Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “facilitate movement of the step between the stowed and extended positions”; (Smith, [Abstract]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 7, DeLuca, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 1.
DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler fails to explicitly teach wherein the frame assembly includes a storage feature coupled to a bottom surface of the base frame, and wherein the at least one support step is disposed within the storage feature when in the stowed position
However, Smith teaches wherein the frame assembly includes a storage feature (bay 20) coupled to a bottom surface of the base frame (“bay 20 is provided in the base 14”; [0018]), and wherein the at least one support step is disposed within the storage feature when in the stowed position (See Fig. 1, “bay 20 is provided in the base 14 for slidingly receiving the step 13 so that in can be stowed within the base 14”; [0018]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler by adding the storage feature taught by Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “unobstructed access to the table 10 is ensured”; (Smith, [0018]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 4-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca (US 20160136018 A1) in view of Valentino (US 4222136 A) in view of Weiler (US 3833240 A), further in view of Caetano (US 10987259 B2).
Regarding Claim 4, DeLuca, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 1.
DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one support step is configured to rotate 90 degrees from the stowed position to the deployed position.
However, Caetano teaches wherein the at least one support step (deployable step 130) is configured to rotate 90 degrees from the stowed position to the deployed position (See Fig. 3 and 4, step 130 is rotated 90 degrees from the stowed configuration shown in Fig. 4 to the deployed configuration shown in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
554
524
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
554
464
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler by adding rotation configuration taught by Caetano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “deploy as needed to provide a sturdy platform”; (Caetano, [Col. 3, Line 19]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 5, DeLuca, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 4.
DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler fails to explicitly teach wherein the step assembly includes a pivot arm extending outward from the base frame, and wherein the at least one support step is rotatably coupled to the pivot arm.
However, Caetano teaches wherein the step assembly includes a pivot arm extending outward from the base frame (See Fig. 3, “step assembly 120 is connected to an interior support frame 220 via an arm 240”; [Col. 3, Lines 63-64]), and wherein the at least one support step is rotatably coupled to the pivot arm (See Fig. 2-4, second section of arm 270 is rotated about the frame 220).
PNG
media_image7.png
614
532
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler by adding the pivot arm to the rotation configuration taught by Caetano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “deploy as needed to provide a sturdy platform”; (Caetano, [Col. 3, Line 19]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 8, DeLuca, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 1.
DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one support step includes a first support step coupled to the frame assembly at a first side location and a second support step coupled to the frame assembly at a second side location, the first and second side locations configured to be on opposing sides of a chest area of a patient
However, Caetano teaches wherein the at least one support step includes a first support step coupled to the frame assembly at a first side location and a second support step coupled to the frame assembly at a second side location, the first and second side locations configured to be on opposing sides of a chest area of a patient (See Fig. 2, step assembly 120 comprising two deployable steps 130 each coupled to frame 220 at first and second side locations, respectively).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler by adding a second support step as taught by Caetano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide access to the patient from the right-side and a left-side by two medical professionals”; (Caetano, [Col. 2, Lines 10-12]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca (US 20160136018 A1) in view of Caetano (US 10987259 B2) in view of Smith (US 20070056102 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, DeLuca discloses a patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20), comprising: a frame assembly including: a base frame (base 22) including rollers (wheels 24) for engaging an underlying surface; and an upper frame (frame 28) operably coupled to the base frame, wherein the upper frame is adjustable relative to the base frame (See Fig. 16, frame 28 sits on elevation adjustment mechanisms 26 allowing frame 28 to raise and lower with respect to base 22); and a step assembly (riding platform 128) operably coupled to the frame assembly, wherein the at least one support step is operable between a deployed position and a stowed position (See Fig. 31, “extendable and retractable riding platform 128”; [0127]).
DeLuca fails to explicitly disclose wherein the step assembly includes: a coupling feature fixed to the frame assembly, wherein the coupling feature is fixed to at least one of a bottom surface of the base frame, a side surface of the base frame, and a lower surface of the upper frame; and at least one support step coupled to the frame assembly via the coupling feature.
However, Caetano teaches wherein the step assembly includes: a coupling feature (arm 240) fixed to the frame assembly (See Fig. 3, arm 240 affixed to frame 220), wherein the coupling feature is fixed to at least one of a bottom surface of the base frame, a side surface of the base frame (See Fig. 3, arm 240 is affixed to the side of interior support frame 220), and a lower surface of the upper frame; and at least one support step coupled to the frame assembly via the coupling feature (See Fig. 3, step 130 coupled to frame 220 by way of arm 240).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca by adding coupling feature taught by Caetano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “deploy as needed to provide a sturdy platform”; (Caetano, [Col. 3, Line 19]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
DeLuca in view of Caetano fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the coupling feature and the at least one support step is configured to retract to decrease in size and expand to increase in size.
However, Smith teaches wherein at least one of the coupling feature and the at least one support step is configured to retract to decrease in size and expand to increase in size (See Fig. 1, step 12 moves between the stowed and extended positions by slide members 30 while changing size accordingly).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca in view of Caetano by adding the sliding coupling feature taught by Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “guiding the step between the stowed and extended positions”; (Smith, [0023]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 14, DeLuca, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 11, wherein the deployed position is a horizontal position proximate to the base frame (See Fig. 31, “extendable and retractable riding platform 128”; [0127]).
Regarding Claim 15, DeLuca, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 11, wherein the at least one support step is coupled to the base frame proximate to an edge between the bottom surface and the side surface of the base frame (“riding platform 128 is both extendable out of, and retractable into, a portion of base 22”; [0129]).
Regarding Claim 16, DeLuca, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 15.
DeLuca fails to explicitly teach wherein the stowed position is a vertical position adjacent to the side surface of the base frame, and wherein the deployed position is a horizontal position extending from the side surface.
However, Caetano teaches wherein the stowed position is a vertical position adjacent to the side surface of the base frame (See Fig. 4, step 130 is in a stowed vertical position adjacent to frame 220), and wherein the deployed position is a horizontal position extending from the side surface (See Fig. 3, step 130 is in a deployed horizontal position extending from the side of frame 220).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca by using the stowed and deployed configuration as taught by Caetano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “deploy as needed to provide a sturdy platform”; (Caetano, [Col. 3, Line 19]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 17, DeLuca, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 11.
DeLuca fails to explicitly teach the at least one support step includes a first support step coupled to the frame assembly at a first location and a second support step coupled to the frame assembly at a second location.
However, Caetano teaches the at least one support step includes a first support step coupled to the frame assembly at a first location and a second support step coupled to the frame assembly at a second location (See Fig. 2, step assembly 120 comprising two deployable steps 130 each coupled to frame 220 at first and second locations, respectively).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca by adding a second support step as taught by Caetano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide access to the patient from the right-side and a left-side by two medical professionals”; (Caetano, [Col. 2, Lines 10-12]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca (US 20160136018 A1) in view of Valentino (US 4222136 A) in view of Weiler (US 3833240 A) in view of Li (CN 115569013 A).
Regarding Claim 6, DeLuca discloses the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 1.
DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one support step includes a first foot pedal and a second foot pedal.
However, Li teaches wherein the at least one support step includes a first foot pedal and a second foot pedal (See Fig. 4, first and second pedals 306).
PNG
media_image8.png
614
542
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler by adding two pedals to the step as taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “the foot pedal 306 is convenient for patient to place double feet”; (Li). For this use case, examiner argues that the convenience can also apply to the caregiver using the support apparatus of DeLuca. All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca (US 20160136018 A1) in view of Valentino (US 4222136 A), further in view of Li (CN 216777388 U), further in view of Maccabee (US 5505476 A).
Regarding Claim 10, DeLuca discloses the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 1, wherein the support panel is configured to engage the underlying surface in the deployed position (“riding platform 128…includes one or more wheels positioned underneath it that ride on the floor”; [0129]).
DeLuca fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one support step includes: a bracket operably coupled to the base frame; a first support panel rotatably coupled to the bracket via a first hinge assembly; and a second support panel rotatably coupled to the first support panel.
However, Valentino teaches wherein the at least one support step includes: a bracket (hooks 23) operably coupled to the base frame (See Fig. 1, hooks 18 coupled to rail 23).
PNG
media_image9.png
400
424
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca by utilizing the hooks to secure the step as taught by Valentino. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the foot stool can be stored out-of-the-way by turning it around”; (Valentino, [Col. 2, Lines 31-32]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler fails to explicitly teach a first support panel rotatably coupled to the bracket via a first hinge assembly; and a second support panel rotatably coupled to the first support panel.
However, Li teaches a first support panel rotatably coupled to the bracket via a first hinge assembly (See Fig. 1-2, hinged seat 114 connecting platform 2).
PNG
media_image10.png
598
342
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler by adding the hinge as taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “turning function”; (Li). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler in view of Li fails to explicitly teach a second support panel rotatably coupled to the first support panel.
However, Maccabee teaches a second support panel rotatably coupled to the first support panel (See Fig. 5-6, bottom step 48 rotatably connected to center step 38).
PNG
media_image11.png
460
454
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca in view of Valentino in view of Weiler in view of Li by adding a second step rotatably connected as taught by Maccabee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “extends downwardly from or ascend to”; (Maccabee, [Col. 4, Lines 17-18]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca (US 20160136018 A1) in view of Caetano (US 10987259 B2), in view of Smith (US 20070056102 A1), further in view of Xu (CN 211409768).
Regarding Claim 12, DeLuca, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 11.
DeLuca in view of Caetano in view of Smith fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one support step is coupled to the upper frame via a first support arm and a second support arm.
However, Xu teaches wherein the at least one support step is coupled to the upper frame via a first support arm and a second support arm (See Fig. 1, pedal 2 is coupled to underside of vehicle body 1 by two pull rods 9).
PNG
media_image12.png
376
430
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca in view of Caetano in view of Smith by modifying the coupling location as taught by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the free end of the pedal 2 swings downward under the action of its own gravity”; (Xu). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 13, DeLuca, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20) of claim 12.
DeLuca in view of Caetano in view of Smith fails to explicitly teach wherein the stowed position is a vertical position adjacent to the lower surface of the upper frame.
However, Xu teaches wherein the stowed position is a vertical position adjacent to the lower surface of the upper frame (“initial state of the device is that the free end of the pedal 2 is inserted into the containing groove 10, the left and right two ends of the pedal 2 are respectively pressed on the corresponding side of the limiting block 11”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of DeLuca in view of Caetano in view of Smith by modifying the stowed position to be vertical as taught by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the free end of the pedal 2 swings downward under the action of its own gravity”; (Xu). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims are allowable over the prior art of record because the teachings of references taken as a whole do not teach nor render obvious the combination set forth in Independent Claim 18.
Regarding Independent Claim 18, the prior art of DeLuca (US 20160136018 A1) discloses a patient support apparatus, comprising a frame assembly including rollers; and a step assembly including a first support step coupled to a frame assembly operable between a deployed and a stowed position. Further, the prior art of Caetano (US 10987259 B2) teaches a second support step coupled to the frame assembly operable between a deployed and a stowed position. However, DeLuca in view of Caetano and other references of record fail to explicitly teach a base support having a top surface and side surface that together define a recess wherein the base support incudes an upper recessed surface in the recess and a protruding lip forming the first support step.
Therefore, with the prior art failing to disclose the instant invention and an additional search, it is the Examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at and/or claimed this specific combination of features in the designed configuration based on the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673