DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuire (U.S. Patent 3,456,274) in view of Neff et al. (U.S. Patent 4,110,860).
McGuire discloses a dock leveler (Figure 1, for example) for use with a loading dock (10) and having a deck structure (15) movable between stowed and elevated positions (column 1, lines 41-44, for example). There is a toe guard (title, for example) is coupled to a lateral side of the deck structure (Figure 3, for example). There is a fastener (column 1, lines 50-53) configured as claimed. McGuire does not teach the fastener arrangement as claimed. Looking to Figure 6, Neff teaches using fasteners having a laterally outwardly exposed operable end (not labeled, at lead line 41c, for example) to connect toe guard parts (40, 41, 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used fasteners as claimed, since Neff teaches this and fasteners are so well known to connect parts. Using fasteners to connect adjacent parts is not patentable subject matter.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, McGuire teaches bolts.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, McGuire teaches brackets (20, 24).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, see Figure 1.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 14-16, see abstract, for example.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallis et al. (U.S. Patent 7,996,943) in view of Neff et al. (U.S. Patent 4,110,860).
Wallis discloses a dock leveler (3) for use with a loading dock (1) and having a deck structure (5) movable between stowed and elevated positions (column 1, lines 33-34, for example). There is a toe guard (not labeled, Figure 24) is coupled to a lateral side of the deck structure (Figure 24). Wallis is silent regarding the manner in which the toe guard is coupled, as the invention is directed elsewhere; however, Wallis is replete with discussions regarding bolt (34) and nut (36) fastening systems (32). Looking to Figure 24, there appears to be a bracket in the center top of the uppermost toe guard. This bracket includes two dots that appear to be a fastened connection. Looking to Figure 6, Neff teaches using fasteners having a laterally outwardly exposed operable end (not labeled, at lead line 41c, for example) to connect toe guard parts (40, 41, 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used fasteners as claimed, since Neff teaches this and fasteners are so well known to connect parts. Using fasteners to connect adjacent parts is not patentable subject matter.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, given the use of the bolt discussed above, claim recitations would be met.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the bracket discussed above meets claim recitations. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a bracket since this is a well-known attachment means.
Wallis is configured in the manner of claims 5, 6, 13 and 14 (Figure 24).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 15 and 16, looking again to Figure 24, it can be seen that there are additional toe guards, each having slots (not labeled) which would permit movement as claimed. The deck is shown in an elevated position with the additional guards extended. It appears that they would retract when in a lowered position. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Wallis in this manner since this appears to be the configuration and in order to ensure toe protection throughout the range of motion, as is the purpose of toe guards.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either McGuire (U.S. Patent 3,456,274) or Wallis et al. (U.S. Patent 7,996,943) in view of Neff et al. (U.S. Patent 4,110,860), as applied above, and further in view of Bedford (U.S. Patent 4,376,319).
Bedford exemplifies that it is very well known to replace damaged dock leveler parts (column 1, lines 42-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method claims in order to maintain an operational dock leveler.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
As requested, a reference which demonstrates examiner’s Official notice regarding replacing a damaged part has been added. The examiner would be remiss in granting a patent for this.
In view of applicant’s arguments, the 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571 272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights