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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-11, 14, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evans (US 2007/0196199).
Regarding claim 1, Evans teaches a lift assembly, 10, for mounting to vehicle including a standard trailer hitch receiver, 25, said lift assembly comprising:
a coupler, 22, portion configured to securely couple said lift assembly to the vehicle;
a control portion, 14 and 15, extending from said coupler portion; and
a support portion, 13, rotatably coupled to said coupler portion and comprising at least a first platform and a second platform extending from the first platform, each of said first and second platforms is configured to support a load, wherein said second platform extends substantially perpendicularly from said first platform, said support portion selectively moveable between a fully lowered position and a fully elevated position, wherein when in the fully lowered position, said first platform may contact the ground and wherein when in the fully elevated position, said first platform is substantially perpendicular to said coupler portion, see figures 1, 4, and 5.
The claim language does not require that the first and second platform are separate entities and under the broadest reasonable interpretation Evans teaches a first platform and a second platform that extends perpendicularly. Depending on the orientation of the lift, one of the platforms will be supporting the load at any given time, for example in figure 4, the platform touching the ground will be supporting the load, and then in figure 5, the platform touching the vehicle will be supporting the load. These two surfaces read on a first and second platform, under BRI, and as such, claim 1 remains rejected under Evans. Furthermore, Evans does teach that the frame, 26, may be formed from a plurality of tubing pieces, which would teach the separate platforms frames, as claimed, see paragraph 0039.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Evans teaches a winch assembly, 42, coupled to said support portion for selectively rotating said support portion between said fully lowered and fully elevated positions.
Regarding claim 5, Evans teaches the support portion is rotated to a fully elevated position, the second platform is substantially coplanar with a cargo bed of the vehicle, see figure 4.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Evans teaches when the support portion is rotated to a fully elevated position, the second platform does not contact an open tailgate extending from the vehicle, see figure 4.
Regarding claim 7, Evans teaches at least one of the first platform and the second platform is formed from a rigid screen, see figure 0039.
Regarding claim 8, Evans teaches the support portion is selectively movable to any relative position between the fully lowered and fully elevated positions, via the support portions 14 and 15, see paragraph 0040, and through the lifting an lowering via the winch.
Regarding claim 9, Evans teaches a portable lift assembly comprising:
a coupler,22, sized to be received in a vehicle trailer hitch receiver, 25;
a support portion, 13, rotatably coupled to said coupler and configured to be selectively moveable from a first position to a second position, said support portion comprising a first platform sized to receive a load thereon and a second platform extending substantially perpendicularly from said first platform and sized to receive a load thereon, at least one of said first and second platforms comprises a frame and a screen securely coupled to said frame, see figure 1 and paragraph 0039; and
a drive mechanism, 12, coupled to said support portion and to said coupler for selectively moving said support portion between said first and second positions.
The claim language does not require that the first and second platform are separate entities and under the broadest reasonable interpretation Evans teaches a first platform and a second platform that extends perpendicularly. Depending on the orientation of the lift, one of the platforms will be supporting the load at any given time, for example in figure 4, the platofrm touching the ground will be supporting the load, and then in figure 5, the platform touching the vehicle will be supporting the load. These two surfaces read on a first and second platform, under BRI, and as such, claim 1 remains rejected under Evans. Furthermore, Evans does teach that the frame, 26, may be formed from a plurality of tubing pieces, which would teach the separate platforms frames, as claimed, see paragraph 0039.
Regarding claim 10, Evans teaches said coupler is removably coupled within the vehicle trailer hitch receiver, see figure 6 and paragraph 0044.
Regarding claim 11, Evans teaches said drive mechanism is a winch assembly, 42.
Regarding claim 14, Evans teaches said second platform is generally parallel to said coupler when said support portion is in the second position, and wherein said second platform is generally perpendicular to said coupler when said support portion is in the first position, see figures 1, 4, and 5.
Regarding claim 15, Evans teaches each of said first and second platforms comprises a frame and a screen securely coupled to said frame, see paragraph 0039.
Regarding claim 18, Evans teaches a stop configured to prevent rotation of said support portion, see figure 6 and paragraph 0045.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 2007/0196199) in view of Hintz (US 2019/0009730).
Regarding claim 3, Evans does not specifically teach that the winch is electric. Hintz teaches an electric winch, see paragraph 0022. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an electric winch, as taught by Hintz, as the winch in the assembly taught by Evans in order to achieve the predictable result of easily and reliably powering the winch to operate.
Regarding claim 4, Evans does not teach the specific lifting capability of the winch. Hintz teaches a winch capable of lifting at least 350 pounds positioned within said support portion, see paragraph 0022. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a winch capable of lifting at least 350 pounds, as taught by Hintz, in the assembly of Evans in order to achieve the predictable result of enabling the assembly to lift heavy loads.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 2007/0196199) in view Hintz and further in view of Defrancq (2015/0117994).
Regarding 12, Evans does not teach the winch assembly is electrically powered, said portable lift assembly further comprises a storage box sized to receive a battery therein for powering said winch assembly.
Defrancq teaches a lift assembly for mounting to a vehicle including a winch that is electrically powered and a battery storage box, see paragraph 0047. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an electric winch, as taught by Defrancq, as the winch in the assembly taught by Evans in order to achieve the predictable result of easily and reliably powering the winch to operate.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Defrancq (US 2015/0117994) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hintz (US 2019/0009730).
Neither Evans nor Defrancq teach a hand-held controller configured to operate the winch assembly from a distance away from the lift assembly. Hintz teaches an electrically powered winch for a vehicle operated by a handlheld controller, 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the handheld controller of Hintz with the lift assembly and electric winch taught by the combination of Evans and Defrancq in order to enable an operator to easily control the lift assembly from a safe distance.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 2007/0196199) in of Allingham (US 2011/0198142).
Regarding claim 16, Evans teaches the first and second platform screen can be made from any suitable material, see paragraph 0039. Evans does not teach that the first and second platform are separate portions and therefore separate screens. Allingham teaches a lift assembly for a vehicle with first and second platforms, wherein said first platform screen is fabricated from a different material than said second platform screen, in that the platform screens are separate and distinct from each other, see figure 3, and therefore can be fabricated from any suitable different material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the support unit of Evans that comprises the fixed first and second platform with the support portion of Allingham with the separate first and second platform since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, where the platforms are fabricated from any suitable material and different materials, as taught by Evans, to enable the different platforms to support a myriad of different items. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 17, Evans does not teach said first platform is hingedly coupled to said second platform such that said first platform is selectively foldable against said second platform. Allingham teaches a lift assembly for a vehicle with a first and second platform where the first platform is hingedly couple to the second platform and is selectively foldable, see figures 4 and 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to hingedly attach the first and second platform together or Evans, as taught by Allingham in order to enable the platform to be easily stowed when not in use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims 1 and 9 do not merely require a platform capable of assuming two different orientations. Rather, the claims require a support portion that simultaneously comprises two separate load-bearing platforms that remain structurally distinct regardless of the rotational position of the support portion.
Examiner contends that the applicant is arguing limitations into claims 1 and 9 that are not expressly claimed. Claims 1 and 9 do not require structurally separate and distinct platforms, this limitation is not claimed until claims 15 and 16. Claims 1 and 9 merely require a first platform and a second platform extending substantially perpendicularly from said first platform, both capable of supporting a load. There is nothing that says the platforms cannot be integrally formed with each, as taught by Evans. As discussed above, depending on the orientation of the lift, the first platform or the second platform with support the majority of the load, see figures 4 and 5. Examiner contends that the Evans lift and the platforms extending perpendicularly extending from each other read on the claims first and second platforms of claims 1 and 9.
With respect to claim 8, applicant argues that the Evans reference does not teach that the support portion is selectively movable between an relative position between the fully lowered and fully elevated positions. Examiner cited paragraph 0040, which teaches angular adjustment to discrete positions through the support portion, but the winch of Evan also move the support portion to an relative position and the winch raises and lowers the support position through fully lowered to the fully raise position the support portion rotates through the positions from lowered to raised and the winch can be selectively stopped as any position in between to therefore selectively mode the support portion, as claimed.
With respect to claim 16, Allingham is relied on to teach the structurally separate platforms, which are claimed in claim 15, from which claim 16 depends. Allingham teaches two separate platforms, fabricated as two separate pieces. Evans teach platforms can be made from any suitable material. The combination of Evans and Allingham teach the claimed limitation of claim 16.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited on the PTO-892 are included to show additional examples of lift assemblies attached to a vehicle similar to the claimed invention. They are included to show the general state of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST).
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571)270-5565. 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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
9 September 2026
Prosecution Insights