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 .
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.
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 1-2, 8, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walbridge et al. (US 7,900,575).
Regarding the claims, the prior art discloses the following:
1. A displaceable step assembly for swim platform (intended use), comprising: a mounting fixture (110, 120) including an elongated guide track (126, 128); a step assembly (including 140) depending from the mounting fixture, the step assembly including (a) a platform (140), (b) a support arm (130) for the platform, and (c) a slide (174, 172, 173, 176) carried on the support arm and adapted to be displaced along the guide track between a first position (fig. 1), wherein the step assembly is held in a stowed position at least partially recessed within the mounting fixture, and a second position (either of fig. 2 or fig. 3) wherein the step assembly is held in a deployed position at least partially projecting from the mounting fixture.
2. The displaceable step assembly of claim 1, wherein the mounting fixture (110, 120) includes a mounting plate (110), a first side plate (122) depending from a first end (fig. 4) of the mounting plate (110) and a second side plate (124) depending from a second end (fig. 4) of the mounting plate (110).
8. The displaceable step assembly of claim 1, further including a rotation cam (180) carried on (figs. 2-3) the support arm (130), the rotation cam including a first stop seat opening in a first direction and a second stop seat opening in a second direction (fig. 4).
11. The displaceable step assembly of claim 1, wherein the step (140) is pivotally connected (figs. 2-3) to a distal end of the support arm (130) by a pivot pin (146) whereby the step (140) may be pivoted between a storage position along a length of the support arm and an extended position projecting from the support arm (figs. 1-3).
12. The displaceable step assembly of claim 11, further including a water plate (150) extending from the distal end of the support arm (130), the water plate being adapted to raise the step assembly from the deployed position when a boat to which the displaceable swim step is attached is advanced through a body of water by force of the water engaging the water plate (i.e., 150 functionally raises 140 by the width of 150).
13. The displaceable step assembly of claim 12 wherein the step (140) is carried on a step support frame (144) that is connected by the pivot pin (146) to the support arm (130).
The limitations of claims 14-18 are similar in scope to the above-explained limitations, and therefore the pertinence of the prior art is considered to flow naturally from the explanations above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walbridge et al. (US 7,900,575).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses that the respective elements are welded, and therefore cannot be said to explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 3. However, welded connections and bolted connections are both old and well-known fastener-types in the mechanical arts and are further considered to be art-recognized equivalents, where both types of mechanical fasteners serve the same purpose of rigidly connecting mechanical elements together. Therefore, the combination of the prior art would have been obvious to an ordinary practitioner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.1 Further, the replacement of welded fastening with bolted-fasteners would have been obvious to an ordinary practitioner, in that bolted-fasteners allow the mechanical components to be readily disassembled for simpler repair, replacement, upgrade, or shipping/transport.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the displaceable step assembly of claim 1, wherein (a) the elongated guide track includes a first end having a first width Wi and a second end having a second width W2 (fig. 4), and (b) the slide has a dimension D1 in a first direction and a dimension D2 in a second direction whereby (1) a longitudinal axis of the slide is held coincident with a longitudinal axis of the guide track when the step assembly is in the stowed position with the slide adjacent the first end of the guide track (fig. 1) and (2) the longitudinal axis of the slide rotates downward under the influence of gravity when the step assembly is displaced into the deployed position with the slide adjacent the second end of the guide track (figs. 2-3); but does not appear to explicitly disclose where D1<W1<D2<W2. However, it has been held to be well-within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to resize a device according to design specifications. The claimed dimensions do not appear to change the function of the claimed device, and applying the dimensions, as claimed, to the device of the prior art would not change the function in any way. Therefore, since the only difference between the structure of the prior art and that of the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions, and since the claimed device having the relative dimensions would not function differently than the device of the prior art, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device of the prior art. 2
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the displaceable step assembly of claim 4, wherein the slide includes bolts (174); but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of bolts. However, it has been held that the mere duplication of known parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.3 In the instant case, the claimed multiplicity of similar parts do not appear to change the function of the claimed device, and the device of the prior art having the number of similar parts, as claimed, would not change the function in any way. Therefore, since the only difference between the structure of the prior art and that of the claimed device is a recitation of duplicate parts, and since the claimed device having the number of parts would not function differently than the device of the prior art, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device of the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not disclose a latch, and therefore cannot be said to read on the limitations of claim 6. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that rotatable (e.g., gravity-displaceable) latches were old, well-known, and common in the mechanical arts, particularly within the art of deployable slides and/or ramps (i.e., pivoting latches which hold stowable ramps from deploying in commonly-known commercially-available moving and/or shipping trucks). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use a pivoting latch, such as was well-known in the art, in combination with the structure of the prior art, for the expected benefit of increasing safety of the mechanism by preventing unwanted deployment.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walbridge et al. (US 7,900,575), in view of Farmer (US 4,735,392), as evidenced by Yang et al. (US 7,712,755).
Walbridge does not disclose the limitations of claims 9-10.
Farmer teaches the use of a rotation cam (either of 40 and/or 41) which includes a first stop seat opening (70) in a first direction and a second stop seat opening (66 and/or 68) in a second direction; and further includes a first stop (58 and/or 59) and a second stop (50), wherein when the step assembly is fully deployed, the first stop is received in the first stop seat and the second stop is received in the second stop seat (fig. 5); further including a shield (76 and/or 78) carried on the support arm (any of 42, 44, and/or 50) and overlying the rotation cam (e.g., as shown in figs. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the rotation cam assembly of Farmer in place of the corresponding rotating assembly of Walbridge, for the expected advantage of allowing a locking connection which is more rigid and/or stable. The combination suggests the limitations as claimed insomuch as the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, as evidenced by the explanations of the prior art above, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, regardless of relative location in the structure (e.g., whether the rotational cam was anchored to the leg or the mounting plate), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable,4 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of rearranging known components to meet desired design constraints, 5 especially since the claimed device having the relative structure would not function differently than the suggestions of the prior art, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device of the prior art6 as evidenced by the analogous arrangement of the device of Yang (see, e.g., rotational cam 8 carried by step 9 and pivotally connected to bracket 1 via arms 4-5, as shown in fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
7.The displaceable step assembly of claim 6, further including a plurality of tangs carried on the mounting fixture and adapted to engage and control extent of rotation of the latch about the pin between an opened position and the latched position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
2 MPEP 2144.04(IV): In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
3 MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B): In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
4 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
5 In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice) [emphasis added]
6 In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) [emphasis added]
Prosecution Insights