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) 2 – 7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitner et al. (US 6,942,233) alone.
As for claim 2, Leitner et al. disclose an extendable step configured for horizontal motion (refer to the embodiment of Figs. 7 and 8), the extendable step comprising: a frame (234) for attachment to a vehicle such that the frame will be in a fixed orientation with respect to a horizontal plane defined by the vehicle; a proximal arm (230b) defining a first axis at a first end and a second axis at a second end, wherein a line extending between and perpendicular to the first axis and the second axis defines a length and orientation of the proximal arm, wherein the proximal arm is rotatably coupled to the frame at the first axis; a distal arm (230a) defining a third axis at a first end and a fourth axis at a second end, wherein a line extending between and perpendicular to the third axis and the fourth axis defines a length and orientation of the distal arm, wherein the distal arm is rotatably coupled to the frame at the third axis; a support component (226) rotatably coupled to the proximal arm at the second axis and to the distal arm at the fourth axis, such that the proximal arm and the distal arm can move the support component with respect to the frame between a stowed position and a deployed position; and a stepping platform (224) comprising a stepping surface that defines a stepping surface plane, wherein the stepping platform is integrally formed with the support component or the stepping platform is connected in a fixed orientation with respect to the support component, and wherein the fourth axis is closer to the stepping surface than the second axis, wherein the proximal arm and the distal arm are arranged such that: in the deployed position, the stepping surface plane is within 10 degrees of the horizontal plane, and the orientation of the proximal arm is closer to horizontal than the orientation of the distal arm (Fig. 7); in the stowed position, the stepping surface plane is within 10 degrees of the horizontal plane, and the orientation of the proximal arm is closer to horizontal than the orientation of the distal arm (Fig. 8); and throughout all positions of the support component between the stowed position and the deployed position, the stepping surface plane is within 20 degrees of the horizontal plane. While Leitner et al. is silent with respect to the precise angle of the stepping surface to horizontal, the claimed angle is at least suggested by the figures, which show a substantially horizontal stepping surface. It has been held that, where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art device is a recitation of the dimensions of the claimed device, and the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As for claim 3, Leitner et al. further disclose a vehicle, wherein the frame is attached to the vehicle (see Abstract).
As for claims 4 – 5, Leitner et al. further disclose the stepping surface plane is within 5 degrees of the horizontal plane in both the stowed and deployed positions. As above, Leitner et al. are silent with respect to the precise angle, however the figures show a substantially horizontal stepping surface. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would presume the angle to be less than 5 degrees.
As for claim 6, Leitner et al. further disclose length of the proximal arm is shorter than the length of the distal arm (see Fig. 8).
As for claim 7, Leitner et al. further disclose, in the deployed position, an angle between the stepping surface plane and the proximal arm is at least 110 degrees. See Fig. 7 and column 22, lines 38 – 50.
As for claims 10 and 11, Leitner et al. disclose the proximal arm and the distal arm are arranged such that, in the deployed position, a downward force exerted on the stepping platform will cause the proximal arm to apply a force to the distal arm, through a stop (231b), at a location between the third axis and the fourth axis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 – 21 are allowed.
Claims 8 and 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or suggest the proximal arm and the distal arm arranged such that, throughout all positions of the support component between the stowed position and the deployed position, a distal edge of the stepping platform remains within 2 inches in a vertical direction, in combination with the other claim elements. Given the recited dimensions of the assembly of Leitner et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the stepping platform to travel significantly more than 2 inches in the vertical direction during deployment. Constraining said vertical travel would require a substantial reconfiguration of the assembly of Leitner et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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