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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner’s Response re: 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-8, filed 23 Dec 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of MacPherson, and Haigler.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacPherson et al., US 20210155264 A1 (herein, MacPherson) in view of Smith et al., US 20140219756 A1 (herein, Smith), and in further view Haigler US 20220176861 A1 (herein, Haigler).
Regarding Claims 1, MacPherson discloses, a wheelchair access device (FIG. 1A, #s 10 and 14 – ramp panels) for facilitating ingress and egress of a wheelchair passenger into and out (¶[0031] – “…one or more ramp panels 10, 14 as described herein—i.e., to cause the bus to ‘kneel’ in order to facilitate passenger ingress and egress..”) of a wheelchair accessible vehicle (FIG. 1A, #100 – passenger bus), the wheelchair access device comprising:
a platform (FIG. 1A, #200 – ramp) for receiving the wheelchair passenger;
at least one controller for moving the platform between a stow position and at least one deploy position (¶[0081] “Controller(s) 300, 302, etc., can initiate a ramp stow process, reversing deployment of the ramp by any desired sequence of operations. Warning/notification devices can generate warning signals as desired. [0082] 3) At a desired stage of the stow process, e.g., when one or more ramp panels 10, 14 have reached the vertical, controller(s) 300, 302, 183, 184 associated with any contracted or extended suspension units 18 can cause the suspension units to be returned to, or otherwise placed in, an operational (driving) height, for resumed operation of the bus 100…”); and,
a sensor (FIG. 2D, #208 – angle-or-position-sensitive devices) outputting a signal indicative of at least one angle of the platform (FIGS. 1 and 7, ¶[0040] – “…in a second mode of operation, sensor(s) 208 can be used to drive slopes of each of a plurality of ramp panels 10, 14, 26, etc., with respect to the ground, each other, and/or the bus chassis to a constant rise/run ratio,..”).
MacPherson discloses a controller, signal, platform, unloaded, stow and deploy position but does not disclose, wherein the at least one controller is configured to receive the signal, set at least one baseline angle based on the at least one angle of the platform when the platform is unloaded, monitor a difference between the at least one baseline angle and the at least one angle of the platform when the platform is loaded, and take a corrective action if the difference exceeds a threshold angle difference.
However, Haigler teaches, wherein the at least one controller is configured to receive the signal, set at least one baseline angle based on the at least one angle of the platform when the platform is unloaded, monitor a difference between the at least one baseline angle and the at least one angle of the platform when the platform is loaded, and take a corrective action if the difference exceeds a threshold angle difference (¶[0057] – “…excessive angle of the vehicle 101 relative to the horizontal position, for example, front to back and/or side to side, can induce additional stress into the lifting device 100 as well as decrease the stability of the load being elevated. Significant angle of the loading surface 111 (e.g., loading platform) will induce loading 90 degrees to the vertical lifting vector that could exceed design criteria of the lifting device 100 or possibly cause some loads to shift while being lifted possibly causing shock loads to be absorbed into the structure of the lifting device 100 as well as the vehicle 101 having the lifting device 100. In an embodiment, one or more tilt sensors such as accelerometers and/or gyroscopic sensors can be mounted to the lifting device 100, for example integrated within the logic controller 110A, to constantly monitor the tilt of the lifting device 100 along two main axes (e.g., side to side and front to back) and limit/stop use of the lifting device 100 should the tilt angle of the lifting device 100 exceed predetermined limits. A signal from the one or more tilt sensors can be provided to the logic controller 110A which can monitor the angular position of the lifting device 100 and make a determination whether the lifting device 100 operates within predetermined angular limits and thus automatically stop use of the lifting device 100 when the operation of the lifting device 100 is outside the predetermined angular limits and judged not to be safe. The logic controller 110A can also provide a feedback on the safety of operation of the lifting device or other operating parameters of the lifting device 100 to the user via indicators such as flashing lights or the like and/or feedback on overall status of the logic controller 110A which can be controlled and stopped wirelessly…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheelchair access device as disclosed by MacPherson to include the deploying the moving platform from the stow position and monitor the angle of the platform, when loaded, and take correction action as disclosed by Haigler. Doing so, provides control of the platform so as to ensure the safety of the user of the platform and thus increase the overall safety of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 2, modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein controller is further configured to take the corrective action if for ensuring the at least one angle violates a threshold angle (FIGS. 4A-B, ¶[0034] – “…, ensure that a desired or otherwise designated ramp angle (slope) 711 is not exceeded, while minimizing the kneeling depth of the bus suspension,..”).
Regarding Claim 3, modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein the corrective action comprises at least one indicator generating an alert (¶[0086] – “… an indication is provided that passenger ingress or egress is authorized…a desired ramp angle has been exceeded, the same or other warning device(s) 357 can so indicate.”).
Regarding Claim 4,modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein the alert comprises at least one of a visual alert, an auditory alert, and a tactile alert (¶[0052] – “…the invention can further provide passenger and/or operator notification device(s) 357 such as lights, buzzers, audio announcements, and other sensory audio and/or visual alerts,…”).
Regarding Claims 5, modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein the wheelchair access device is a wheelchair lift (¶[0029] – “…and special buses adapted for transportation of wheel-chair bound or other passengers faced with mobility challenges”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein the corrective action comprises interrupting movement of the platform (Claim 24 – “…based at least partly on receipt of the signal indicating that the deployable passenger access ramp has encountered an obstruction, the generated signals comprise at least one signal configured to suspend deployment of the deployable access ramp.”).
Regarding Claim 7, modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein the corrective action comprises preventing movement of the platform (¶[0035] – “…whether initiation of kneeling processes for the bus, prior to ramp operation, is or is not required, in order to avoid exceeding a desired or otherwise deviating from a designated ramp angle (slope)—instead, the driver can simply initiate the ramp deployment process,…”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein the at least one controller is configured to interrupt movement of the platform by at least one of stopping movement and reversing a direction of movement (¶[0080] – “…due to detection of reverse rotational motion by an angle sensor and/or ammeter 208.”).
Regarding Claims 9, modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein the wheelchair access device is a wheelchair lift (FIG. 2C-D illustrates the wheelchair lift) and the threshold angle relative to horizontal but does not explicitly disclose , wherein the threshold angle is approximately 3° relative to horizontal.
Modified MacPherson discloses the claimed invention except for approximately 3 degrees relative to horizontal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an approximate threshold angle of 3 degrees or 14 degrees relative to horizontal, since it has been held that there are general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an approximate degree involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claims 10 and 14, modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein the corrective action further comprises at least one indicator generating an alert (¶[0086] – “…of a desired ramp angle has been exceeded, the same or other warning device(s) 357 can so indicate.”).
Regarding Claim 11, modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein the at least one deploy position comprises a ground level position and a vehicle floor level position (FIG. 7 illustrates ground level of vehicle and ground), wherein the at least one controller is configured to set the at least one baseline angle based on the at least one angle of the platform when the platform is unloaded (¶[0079] – “…other specified angle (e.g., 9.5 degrees), controller(s) 300, 302 can suspend deployment of the ramp and relax the drive motor 217 or other actuator 206…”) and at one of the floor level position and the ground level position (FIGS. 1A-B illustrate floor and ground level positions).
Regarding Claims 12, MacPherson further discloses, wherein the wheelchair access device is a wheelchair ramp (FIG. 1A illustrates a wheelchair ramp).
Regarding Claim 13, modified MacPherson discloses the threshold angle relative to horizontal but does not explicitly disclose , wherein the threshold angle difference is approximately 14°.
MacPherson discloses the claimed invention except for approximately 14 degrees. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an approximate threshold angle of 14 degrees, since it has been held that there are general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an approximate degree involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 15, modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein the at least one controller is configured to set the at least one baseline angle based on the at least one angle of the platform (FIG. 1A illustrates the range of angles of the platform) when the platform is in the stowed position (FIG. 2A, #300 – controller, ¶[0067] – “…in which undeployed passenger ramps 200 are stowed in an interior of the bus...”).
Regarding Claim 16, modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein the sensor is disposed on the platform (FIG. 2C illustrates sensor on the platform).
Regarding Claim 17, modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein the perception sensor comprises an absolute position sensor (¶[0119] – “…the absolute or relative height of a platform; the absolute or relative location and/or orientation with respect…”).
Regarding Claim 18, modified MacPherson further discloses, wherein the sensor comprises one or more of a camera sensor, a LiDAR sensor (FIG. 2C - #223 LIDAR), a ToF sensor, RADAR sensor, a EmDAR sensor, a SONAR sensor, a SODAR sensor, a GNSS sensor, an accelerometer sensor, a gyroscope sensor, an IMU sensor, an infrared sensor, a laser rangefinder sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an infrasonic sensor, and a microphone.
Regarding Claim 19, modified MacPherson further discloses, further comprising a communication device for outputting information based on the signal (¶[0049] – “…a communications protocol suitable for use in implementing various aspects, features, and embodiments of the invention is the J1939 vehicle communications protocol promulgated by the Society of Automotive Engineers.”).
Regarding Claims 20, MacPherson discloses, a wheelchair accessible vehicle (FIG. 1B, #s 100 vehicle) comprising:
a wheelchair access device (FIG. 1A, #s 10 and 14 – ramp panels) for facilitating ingress and egress of a wheelchair passenger into and out (¶[0031] – “…one or more ramp panels 10, 14 as described herein—i.e., to cause the bus to ‘kneel’ in order to facilitate passenger ingress and egress..”) of the wheelchair accessible vehicle, the wheelchair access device having a platform (FIG. 1, #10) for receiving the wheelchair passenger;
at least one controller for moving the platform between a stow position and at least one deploy position (¶[0081] “Controller(s) 300, 302, etc., can initiate a ramp stow process, reversing deployment of the ramp by any desired sequence of operations. Warning/notification devices can generate warning signals as desired. [0082] 3) At a desired stage of the stow process, e.g., when one or more ramp panels 10, 14 have reached the vertical, controller(s) 300, 302, 183, 184 associated with any contracted or extended suspension units 18 can cause the suspension units to be returned to, or otherwise placed in, an operational (driving) height, for resumed operation of the bus 100…”); and,
a perception sensor (FIG. 2D, #208 – angle-or-position-sensitive devices) outputting a signal indicative of at least one angle of the platform (FIGS. 1 and 7, ¶[0040] – “…in a second mode of operation, sensor(s) 208 can be used to drive slopes of each of a plurality of ramp panels 10, 14, 26, etc., with respect to the ground, each other, and/or the bus chassis to a constant rise/run ratio,..”).
MacPherson discloses a controller, signal, platform, unloaded, stow and deploy position but does not disclose, wherein the at least one controller is configured to receive the signal, set at least one baseline angle based on the at least one angle of the platform when the platform is unloaded, monitor a difference between the at least one baseline angle and the at least one angle of the platform when the platform is loaded, and take a corrective action if the difference exceeds a threshold angle difference.
However, Haigler teaches, wherein the at least one controller is configured to receive the signal, set at least one baseline angle based on the at least one angle of the platform when the platform is unloaded, monitor a difference between the at least one baseline angle and the at least one angle of the platform when the platform is loaded, and take a corrective action if the difference exceeds a threshold angle difference (¶[0057] – “…excessive angle of the vehicle 101 relative to the horizontal position, for example, front to back and/or side to side, can induce additional stress into the lifting device 100 as well as decrease the stability of the load being elevated. Significant angle of the loading surface 111 (e.g., loading platform) will induce loading 90 degrees to the vertical lifting vector that could exceed design criteria of the lifting device 100 or possibly cause some loads to shift while being lifted possibly causing shock loads to be absorbed into the structure of the lifting device 100 as well as the vehicle 101 having the lifting device 100. In an embodiment, one or more tilt sensors such as accelerometers and/or gyroscopic sensors can be mounted to the lifting device 100, for example integrated within the logic controller 110A, to constantly monitor the tilt of the lifting device 100 along two main axes (e.g., side to side and front to back) and limit/stop use of the lifting device 100 should the tilt angle of the lifting device 100 exceed predetermined limits. A signal from the one or more tilt sensors can be provided to the logic controller 110A which can monitor the angular position of the lifting device 100 and make a determination whether the lifting device 100 operates within predetermined angular limits and thus automatically stop use of the lifting device 100 when the operation of the lifting device 100 is outside the predetermined angular limits and judged not to be safe. The logic controller 110A can also provide a feedback on the safety of operation of the lifting device or other operating parameters of the lifting device 100 to the user via indicators such as flashing lights or the like and/or feedback on overall status of the logic controller 110A which can be controlled and stopped wirelessly…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheelchair access device as disclosed by MacPherson to include the deploying the moving platform from the stow position and monitor the angle of the platform, when loaded, and take correction action as disclosed by Haigler. Doing so, provides control of the platform so as to ensure the safety of the user of the platform and thus increase the overall safety of the vehicle.
Conclusion
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 LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights