DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5,8-17,19,20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. See the STR-4200 Stabilizing Trailer Restraint System (https://www.ritehite.com/en/am/products/vehicle-restraints/stabilizing-trailer-restraints/stabilizing-trailer-restraint).
Regarding claims 1-5,8-17,19,20 the STR-4200 Stabilizing DOK-LOK Trailer Restraint System provided at the link above appears to show all of the claimed features, that are capable of being met, in the video.
Claim(s) 1- 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hahn 4,560,315.
Regarding claim 1 Hahn shows in figures 1-5:
A vehicle restraint 11 for restraining a vehicle or trailer at a dock D, the vehicle restraint comprising: a ramp assembly 12-17 disposed to slidably engage a rear impact guard (RIG) bar of the vehicle or trailer; a vertical slide frame 12 (Biased by springs—bottom of col 2- not shown) operably coupled to the ramp assembly to lower the vertical slide frame from a resting height to a height of the RIG bar against a bias toward the resting height responsive to the RIG bar slidably engaging the ramp assembly during motion of the RIG bar toward the dock in a first direction; and a hook barrier 15b operably coupled to the vertical slide frame 12 to receive the RIG bar and rotate to retain the RIG bar responsive to the motion of the RIG bar in the first direction, wherein the ramp assembly comprises a top plate 14 defining a top surface that faces the RIG bar and is disposed at an angle relative to the first direction, and wherein the ramp assembly comprises one or more instances of a contact strip 17a,17d disposed at a portion of the top plate extending away from the top surface 14 to prevent contact between the RIG bar and the top surface.
Regarding claim 2 Hahn shows one or more instances of the contact strip 17a comprise a first contact strip 17d disposed to extend along a first lateral edge of the top plate, and a second contact strip 17d disposed to extend along a second lateral edge of the top plate 14.
Regarding claim 3, as broadly claimed, Hahn shows a first side plate 17a and a second side plate 17a (see figure 1), the first and second side plates being attached to the top plate 14 at opposing lateral sides of the top plate such that a majority portion of the first and second side plates extend substantially perpendicularly away from the top plate in a direction opposite the top surface, and a minority portion of the first and second side plates extend substantially perpendicularly away from the top plate on a same side as the top surface to define an extension distance (as readily apparent from the drawings), and wherein the extension distance of the first and second side plates defines the first and second contact strips, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, as broadly claimed, Hahn shows the one or more instances of the contact strip 17a comprise a first contact strip 17d disposed to extend from a proximal end of the top plate 14 to a distal end of the top plate and a second contact strip 17d disposed to extend from the proximal end to the distal end mirroring the first contact strip about a longitudinal centerline of the top plate.
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) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn.
Regarding claim 11 Hahn lacks specifically stating anything about the dimensions of the height of the contact strips 17a,17d above the top surface 14.
However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided enough thickness and surface area at 17d so that the upper surfaces of the impact strips 17d, 17d produce an impact surface area for engaging the ICC bar necessary to provide a smooth transition for the ICC bar when transferring from pressed engagement with the ramp portion of the strips to pressed engagement with the upper end of the carriage 12. Do so would meet applicant’s claimed limitations. This would largely dependent upon the specific loading dock/vehicles and applications.
Regarding claims 12,13 in light of the explanation above these limitations are capable of being met since this are simply obvious dimensional requirements.
Regarding claim 15 it would have been obvious to have provided a metallic coating to the contact strips 17d to rust proof them and/or to protect them from the repeated frictional contact with the RIG device.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Talapureddi U.S. 2024/0124155.
Regarding claim 14 Hahn lacks specifically showing any kind of ‘visual media’ applied to the top surface 14.
Talapureddi shows a vehicle restraint system in the form of a wheel chock that includes ‘visual media’ 110 provided on the surface 124.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added some type of indicia or ‘visual media’ to the top surface 14 in Hahn, as taught by Talapureddi simply for parts identification or loading specification.
Claim(s) 16,17,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Whitley 10,988,329.
Regarding claim 16, as explained above in regard to claim 1 Hahn shows all of the claimed elements, and appears to show rails attached to elements H and W on which the carriage assembly 12 can slide but these are not labeled.
Whitely shows one of applicants prior devices that includes rails at 128a,128b fixed to the dock on which the assembly can slide.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Hahn must have some type of rail or track system so that the carriage assembly can slide up and down and function as intended, as taught by Whitley.
Regarding claim 17, as explained above in regard to claim 3, these limitations are met.
Regarding claim 20, as explained above in regard to claims 11-13, these limitations are considered to be met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6,7,18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.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, Rob Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
6/14/26
Prosecution Insights