DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the relief slots with respect to the beam and brace walls is not adequately illustrated. The examiner requires a perspective drawing which clearly illustrates the arrangement. Note that corresponding brief and detailed descriptions would need to be added. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osberg et al. (U.S. Patent 9,863,103).
Osberg discloses a device including a beam having top (12) and bottom (22, for example) plates, side walls (34, 62, 72, for example) and a series of alternately angled brace walls (26) configured as claimed (Figure 3, for example). Note that because Osberg meets all recitations in the body of the claim, the term “ramp” in the preamble is also met.
Figure 12 broadly meets the recitations of claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, the brace walls form arches.
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 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osberg, as applied above.
Claims 2 and 3 are deemed to be met. Further, the examiner takes Official notice that tongue and groove connections are well known in load bearing surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Osberg as claimed in order to suitably interconnect the ramps, as is common in the art.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any angle deemed best suited to handling loads applied to the upper surface.
Regarding claim 8, the examine takes Official notice that it is known to use curbs on decks in order to increase safety. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Osberg as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, given the inclusion of a curb, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrally formed the projection in order to simplify production. Note that even if the curb was added after production, the final product would still meet the recitation of “integral.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach braced plates.
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