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 .
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) 1 – 5 and 7 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 7,118,120 B2) in view of Smith et al. (US 11,208,044 B2).
As for claim 1, Lee et al. disclose a footstep assembly for a vehicle, comprising: a main frame (24) configured to be coupled on a chassis of the vehicle; a fastening device (34) adapted to fasten the main frame to the chassis of the vehicle; at least one step (18) hingedly connected to the main frame through an articulated mechanism (20), the articulated mechanism having a folded state, in which the at least one step is in a storage position, in which it is aligned in a first horizontal plane (at least insofar as the storage position disclosed by applicant is horizontal), and an unfolded state, in which the at least one step is in an operative position, in which it is aligned in second horizontal plane that is below the first horizontal plane and vertically offset therefrom (see Fig. 5); an actuator (22) configured to switch the articulated mechanism between its folded state and its unfolded state. Lee et al. do not explicitly disclose a controller adapted to control the actuator. Smith et al. disclose a controller (210) for controlling an actuator for switching an articulated step mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Lee et al. to include the controller of Smith et al. to provide a user with greater control over the movement of the step.
As for claim 2, Leet et al. further disclose a tread, on which one can place a foot, (see Figs. 4 and 5) and an extension bracket (30) extending rearward therefrom and the articulated mechanism comprises a parallelogram arrangement comprising two pairs of support links, respectively a first pair of front support links (28) and a second pair of rear support links (26), the front and rear support links being pivotally fixed at their upper ends to the main frame and at their lower ends to the extension bracket (Fig. 56) .
As for claim 3, Lee et al. disclose rear support links fixedly connected to a connecting rod (58) pivotally fixed to the main frame, the connecting rod being rotatably movable about a rotation axis through a motor (36).
As for claim 4, Lee et al. is silent with respect to the type of motor. Smith et al. disclose an electric motor (see column 14, line 54 – 57). Electric motors are very well-known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to use an electric motor as the motor disclosed by Lee et al.
As for claim 5, Smith et al. disclose at least one sensor adapted to sense the current position of the at least one step and transmit a corresponding signal to the controller so that the controller stops the actuator when the at least one step is in its storage and/or operative position(s) (column 21, lines 1 – 41).
As for claim 7, Lee et al. disclose a screw (34) received in a corresponding hole (32) of the main frame and adapted to be screwed into a corresponding threaded hole of the chassis of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to merely duplicate the screw and hole to provide a plurality of screws and holes for further security.
As for claims 8 – 9, Smith et al. disclose the controller electrically connected to an electronic control unit of the vehicle so as to receive control signals therefrom (Fig. 2A). The controller is adapted to switch the articulated mechanism from its folded state to its unfolded state when it receives a specific control signal from the electronic control unit of the vehicle (Fig. 6).
As for claim 10, Smith et al. disclose a vehicle comprising: an electronic control unit; a cab including at least one cab door and at least one existing sidestep below the at least one cab door (see the inner door sill in Fig.1B); a door sensor (312) adapted to sense an opening state of the at least one cab door and transmit a corresponding signal to the electronic control unit; a footstep assembly mounted on the at least one existing sidestep; wherein the electronic control unit is adapted to transmit a specific control signal to the controller of the footstep assembly when it receives a signal from the door sensor when the at least one cab door opens, thus moving the at least one step of the footstep assembly from its storage position to its operative position (Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 7,118,120 B2) in view of Smith et al. (US 11,208,044 B2), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 11,505,129 B2).
Lee et al. and Smith et al. meet all the limitations of the claimed invention, but do not disclose a magnet adapted to interact with a metallic portion. Kim et al. disclose a magnet adapted to interact with a metallic portion of a step mechanism when the at least one step is in its storage position to keep the step mechanism is kept in its folded state (column 6, lines 56 – 67). 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 assembly of Lee et al. to include the magnet of Kim et al. to further secure the step in the storage position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee fails to disclose a footstep disposed directly below an existing sidestep of the vehicle. As for claims 1 – 9, the claims are directed to a footstep alone and no vehicle is positively recited. Therefore, the prior art need only be capable of being mounted in the claimed location. Nevertheless, as noted in the rejection of claim 10 in the last Office action, Smith et al. disclose an existing sidestep (the inner door sill in Fig. 1B). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a person would use the inner door sill as a step when entering the vehicle; therefore, Smith et al. meet the claim limitation “existing sidestep”. That Smith et al. do not define the sill as a step or that it may be “relatively far from the ground” does not preclude Smith et al. from meeting the limitation as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Katy M Ebner whose telephone number is (571)272-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 a.m. - 3 p.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, J. Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/Katy M Ebner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights