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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 4/24/2025 has been acknowledged by the office.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 11 if the subject matter of Claim 7 is combined with Claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommer (US 20220265494 A1) in view of Rigsby (US 9173796 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Sommer discloses an expansion control assembly (“deck extension assembly”; [abstract]) comprising: a bottom bracket connected to the stabilizer, the bottom bracket comprising a first retaining element and a second retaining element (See Fig. 7, member 5 having retaining holes 9); and a latch pivotally connected to the adjustable side deck (See Fig. 3, rocker arm 6 having a latch 7), the latch comprising a first tab (S-member 10) and an engaging element (latch 7) configured to engage the first retaining element and the second retaining element (“number of retaining holes for the latch 7, in which the extension assembly is locked), whereby rotation of the first tab away from the deck frame releases the latch from the bottom bracket and allows for movement of the adjustable side deck between a retracted position and an expanded position (See Fig. 5, rotation of S-member 10 away from upper frame 4 releases latch 7 from holes 9 and allows member 5 to adjust).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
406
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
398
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sommer fails to explicitly disclose a stabilizer connected to a deck frame, the stabilizer having a lateral receiver and a sliding member extending through the lateral receiver, the sliding member connected to an adjustable side deck.
However, Rigsby teaches a stabilizer connected to a deck frame (See Fig. 3, motor mounting bracket 120 bolted to rail 68), the stabilizer having a lateral receiver and a sliding member extending through the lateral receiver (See Fig. 14 and 16, shaft 124 extends through coupling collar 130), the sliding member connected to an adjustable side deck (See Fig. 14, shaft 124 connects to lead screws 126L and 126R which connect to connectors 82).
PNG
media_image4.png
390
758
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
348
464
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
490
658
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Sommer by adding the stabilizer taught by Rigsby. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “having manually operable width extension wings”; (Rigsby, [Col. 2, Lines 11-12]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Sommer, as modified, teaches the expansion control assembly of claim 1 further comprising a compression element connected between the adjustable side deck and the latch (See Fig. 6, flexible member 13), wherein the compression element urges the engaging element towards the bottom bracket (“flexible member 13 of the rocker arm 6 creates adherence pressure of the rocker arm 6 to the latch 7”; [0035]).
Regarding Claim 3, Sommer, as modified, teaches the expansion control assembly of claim 2, wherein the compression element is a spring (“flexible member 13 comprises a spring”; [0035]).
Regarding Claim 4, Sommer, as modified, teaches the expansion control assembly of claim 1, wherein the adjustable side deck is placed in the retracted position when the engaging element engages the first retaining element (See Fig. 7, retracted position is shown where latch engages first hole 9).
Regarding Claim 5, Sommer, as modified, teaches the expansion control assembly of claim 1, wherein the adjustable side deck is placed in the expanded position when the engaging element engages the second retaining element (See Fig. 7, leftmost 3 retaining holes 9 represent positions of latch 7 while in the expanded position).
Regarding Claim 6, Sommer, as modified, teaches the expansion control assembly of claim 1, wherein the sliding member comprises at least one cylindrical body (“connecting member that comprises of a profile guide (a tube)”; [0012]).
Regarding Claim 19, Sommer discloses a method of moving an adjustable side deck comprising the steps of: providing an expansion control assembly (“deck extension assembly”; [abstract]); a bottom bracket connected to the stabilizer; the bottom bracket comprising a first retaining element and a second retaining element (See Fig. 7, member 5 having retaining holes 9); and a latch pivotally connected to the adjustable side deck (See Fig. 3, rocker arm 6 having a latch 7), the latch comprising a first tab (S-member 10) and an engaging element (latch 7) configured to engage the first retaining element and the second retaining element (“number of retaining holes for the latch 7, in which the extension assembly is locked); pulling the first tab away from the deck frame; rotating the latch away from the bottom bracket; sliding the latch away from the deck frame; releasing the first tab; and engaging the engaging element with the second retaining element; thereby moving the adjustable side deck from a retracted position associated with the first retaining element to an expanded position associated with the second retaining element (See Fig. 5, rotation of S-member 10 away from upper frame 4 releases latch 7 from holes 9 and allows member 5 to adjust to an extended position).
Sommer fails to explicitly disclose the expansion control assembly connected between a deck frame and an adjustable side deck, the expansion control assembly comprising: a stabilizer connected to the deck frame; the stabilizer having a lateral receiver and a sliding member extending through the lateral receiver, the sliding member connected to the adjustable side deck.
However, Rigsby teaches the expansion control assembly connected between a deck frame and an adjustable side deck (See Fig. 3, motor assembly 110 between wings 50 and center section 52), the expansion control assembly comprising: a stabilizer connected to the deck frame (See Fig. 3, motor mounting bracket 120 bolted to rail 68; the stabilizer having a lateral receiver and a sliding member extending through the lateral receiver (See Fig. 14 and 16, shaft 124 extends through coupling collar 130), the sliding member connected to the adjustable side deck (See Fig. 14, shaft 124 connects to lead screws 126L and 126R which connect to connectors 82).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Sommer by adding the stabilizer taught by Rigsby. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “having manually operable width extension wings”; (Rigsby, [Col. 2, Lines 11-12]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 20, Sommer, as modified, teaches the method of moving an adjustable side deck of claim 19, further comprising the steps of: pulling the first tab away from the deck frame; rotating the latch away from the bottom bracket; sliding the latch towards the deck frame; releasing the first tab; and engaging the engaging element with the first retaining element; thereby moving the adjustable side deck from an expanded position associated with the second retaining element to a retracted position associated with the first retaining element (See Fig. 5, rotation of S-member 10 away from upper frame 4 releases latch 7 from holes 9 and allows member 5 to adjust to an retracted position).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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. Claims 11-18 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims are allowable over the prior art of record because the teachings of references taken as a whole do not teach nor render obvious the combination set for in Claim 7 and Independent Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art of Sommer (US 20220265494 A1) in view of Rigsby (US 9173796 B2) and other references of record fails to explicitly teach the specific side rail locking mechanism comprising: a side rail bracket with a bottom surface, a first aperture, wherein an extension tab extends away from the first aperture and has a second aperture; a second tab pivotally connected to the adjustable side deck and a locking member working in conjunction with the tabs and apertures to lock the side rail bracket.
Regarding Independent Claim 11, the prior art of Sommer (US 20220265494 A1) in view of Rigsby (US 9173796 B2) and other references of record fails to explicitly teach the specific side rail locking mechanism of claim 7 (also detailed in claim 11), further working together with the stabilizer, bottom bracket retaining elements, pivotable latch and first tab of claim 11. Due to the complex nature of the mechanical interface of the expansion control assembly of claim 11, the claims are deemed allowable.
Therefore, with the prior art failing to disclose the instant invention and an additional search, it is the Examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at and/or claimed this specific combination of features in the designed configuration based on the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673