DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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 1-6, 8 and 10-15 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. Claim 1 requires each of “the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments” to have “an inner surface of the first end” and “an inner surface of the second end”. Subsequently, claim 1 recites wherein the ramp and wall segments include “a plurality of inner surfaces”. This creates an indefinite scope because a person ordinary skill in the art cannot properly ascertain the metes and bounds pertaining to the variously recited “inner surface”. Specifically, it is unclear if these are separate or the same surface. Applicant should provide clarity and consider using distinguishing language if they are distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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 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.
3. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pegot-Ogier et al. (US Pat. No. 8,869,331).
With respect to claims 1, 5-6, Pegot-Ogier teaches a ramp unit for vehicular exhibition, the ramp unit comprising: a plurality of ramp segments 2 and wall segments coupled end-to-end with each other to form a perimeter (Fig’s 1-2c), each of the plurality of ramp segments 2 and wall segments 3 having (i) a first end coupled to a first neighboring ramp segment or first neighboring wall segment via at least one first coupler 16/17 at an inner surface of the first end and (ii) a second end coupled to a second neighboring ramp segment or second neighboring wall segment via at least one second coupler 16/17 at an inner surface of the second end, so as to form the perimeter, each of the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments being provided as a modular segment so as to provide a plurality of modular segments configured to be assembled with each other (“modular platform” – Title; See also MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber); and a deck 48 extending between the plurality of ramp segments 2 and wall segments; wherein the plurality of ramp segments 2 and wall segments include a plurality of inner surfaces disposed along the perimeter (Fig.’s 1, 3), the plurality of inner surfaces and an underside of the deck 48 defining an inner volume configured to receive and fully enclose bulk material such that the deck provides a barrier from an exterior of the ramp unit to the inner volume, wherein the bulk material comprises a particulate material or sand, each of the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments comprising an inner surface configured to limit transfer of the bulk material into an inner volume of each of the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments (examiner further notes “Entrance means represented by doors with two opening elements 60 allow access to the level of the ground-level zone situated under the platform” – column 6).
With respect to claim 6, Pegot-Ogier teaches wherein the ramp unit rests upon a ground surface without anchors or connectors extending into the ground surface (examiner notes “compression strips 67” are merely “placed” between the vertical uprights and bearing surface 8, thus not constituting “anchors or connectors”).
With respect to claim 8, Pegot-Ogier teaches wherein the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments comprise a first two-surface ramp 2 and a second two-surface ramp 2, each of the first two-surface ramp and the second two-surface ramp comprising: a frame comprising a plurality of structural members 4; a ramp defining a surface that is angled relative to a ground surface 8 (Fig. 3 showing angled ramp surface relative to ground 8); and a platform defining a surface that is parallel with the ground surface (Fig.’s 1, 3 showing a surface immediately adjacent to the inclined surface, which is being construed as part of the ramp, and not the deck required in claim 1).
With respect to claim 10, Pegot-Ogier teaches wherein the plurality of ramp segments 2 and wall segments comprise a wedge ramp, the wedge ramp comprising: a frame comprising a plurality of structural members 4; and a ramp defining a surface that is angled relative to a ground surface 8 (Fig. 3 showing angled ramp surface relative to ground 8).
With respect to claim 11, Pegot-Ogier teaches wherein the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments comprise a first wall (See Fig. 3 panel 3), the first wall comprising: a frame comprising a plurality of structural members (vertical supports); and a ramp 2 defining a surface that is angled relative to the ground surface (Fig. 3); wherein the first wall has a width that is less than a width of the wedge ramp (examiner notes the first wall is being construed as a single panel 3 shown in Fig. 3, which clearly shows a width – i.e. measured horizontally, parallel to the ground, that is less than a width of the wedge ramp made up of panels 4).
With respect to claim 13, Pegot-Ogier teaches wherein the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments comprise a discrete surfaces ramp (Fig.’s 1, 3 showing connecting surfaces 4 on both the top surface, and side support surfaces), the discrete surfaces ramp comprising: a frame comprising a plurality of structural members (i.e. supporting members); and a plurality of elongated members 4 disposed on the frame (Fig. 1) along a path that extends in an upwards direction from a position proximate a ground surface 8 to an elevated position (Fig’s 1, 3).
With respect to claim 14, Pegot-Ogier teaches wherein the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments comprise an elongated wall, the elongated wall comprising: a frame comprising a plurality of structural members 12; a first vertical surface 4 extending from a ground surface 8 (Fig. 3); a second vertical surface 4; and an angled surface extending from a top of the first vertical surface to a bottom of the second vertical surface (Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utman (US Pub. No. 2018/0318625) in view of Marko et al. (US Pat. No. 6,993,801).
With respect to claims 1 and 5, Utman teaches a ramp unit for vehicular exhibition, the ramp unit comprising: a plurality of ramp segments 4 and wall segments 5 coupled end-to-end with each other to form a perimeter, each of the plurality of ramp segments 4 and wall segments 5 having (i) a first end coupled to a first neighboring ramp segment 4 or first neighboring wall segment 5 at an inner surface of the first end and (ii) a second end coupled to a second neighboring ramp segment 4 or second neighboring wall segment 5 at an inner surface of the second end, so as to form the perimeter (Fig.’s 1-4); and a deck 1 extending between the plurality of ramp segments 4 and wall segments 5; wherein the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments include a plurality of inner surfaces disposed along the perimeter, the plurality of inner surfaces and an underside of the deck 1 defining an inner volume (Fig. 3).
Examiner notes, per MPEP 2114 - a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the structure of Utman is capable of meeting the functional limitations. Specifically, the structure shown in Fig. 3 is configured to receive and fully enclose bulk material such that the deck 1 provides a barrier from an exterior of the ramp unit to the inner volume (Fig. 3), wherein the bulk material comprises a particulate material or sand, each of the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments comprising an inner surface (Fig. 3) configured to limit transfer of the bulk material into an inner volume of each of the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments.
Admittedly, Utman fails to expressly disclose a first and second coupler as claimed, and also fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of ramp segments 4 and wall segments 5 being provided as a modular segment so as to provide a plurality of modular segments configured to be assembled with each other. However, analogous art reference Marko et al. teaches that it is known to for ramp units to be modular in nature, and further comprise couplers at inner segments of walls and ramps that removably couples the walls and ramps (Fig.’s 2-3). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the ramp segments and wall segments of Utman removably connected using inside surface couples as taught by Marko et al. The rationale to combine is to improve the portability and stow-ability of the device.
With respect to claim 6, Utman teaches wherein the ramp unit rests upon a ground surface without anchors or connectors extending into the ground surface (Fig.’s 1-4; no recitations of anchors or ground connectors; See also paragraphs [0016]-[0018]; MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber).
6. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegot-Ogier et al. (US Pat. No. 8,869,331).
With respect to claims 2-4, Pegot-Ogier teaches wherein the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments comprise eight segments in an irregular shape, wherein two of the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments are disposed along a same side, but fails to expressly disclose wherein the shape is heptagonal. However, per In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the Federal Courts have held where the configuration of the claimed shape was a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04. Here, applicant’s specification does not provide criticality to the shape, expressly indicating that other shapes may be used (paragraph [0085]). Moreover, Pegot-Ogier is capable of functioning as intended in a heptagonal shape. As such, the difference in claimed shape is considered obvious in view of MPEP 2144.04 - In re Dailey.
7. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegot-Ogier et al. (US Pat. No. 8,869,331) and further in view of Adams (US Pat. No. 4,813,811).
With respect to claim 12, Pegot-Ogier teaches wherein the plurality of ramp segments and wall segments comprise a ramp 2, the ramp comprising: a frame comprising a plurality of structural members 4 (Fig. 3); a ramp defining a surface that is angled relative to a ground surface Id.
Admittedly, Pegot-Ogier fails to expressly teach a speed bump as claimed. However, analogous art reference Adams teaches that is known to provide a speed bump member fixedly coupled on the driving surface, the speed bump member comprising a cylindrical surface that protrudes from the surface (Fig.’s 1-2; column 2, lines 3-16). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a speed bump to the ramp portion of Pegot-Ogier. The rationale to combine is to increase the safety of the modular platform and help ensure vehicles do not drive excessively.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7, 9 and 16-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
10. 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 MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272 4463. 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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711