DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is unclear how claims 4 and 12 further limit parent claims 1 and 9, respectively, since the “configured to be removed” is facilitated by the structure of claim 1.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGuire (U.S. Patent 3,456,274).
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.
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.
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuire (U.S. Patent 3,456,274), as applied above.
Regarding the method claims, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to remove and replace damaged parts. Given the structure discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method in order to fix a damaged toe guard.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallis et al. (U.S. Patent 7,996,943).
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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used fasteners that remain intact (the nuts and bolts of Wallis, for example) to connect these portions, since this is a very common form of connecting adjacent parts. The examiner would be remiss in granting a patent based upon using removable fasteners that remain intact for connections.
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.
Regarding the method claims, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to remove and replace damaged parts. Given the structure discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method in order to fix a damaged toe guard.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach dock levelers with toe guards.
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