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 Interpretation
The Examiner interprets “the length” of the body as being the only length of the body and notes that saying “a length” could imply that there is another length.
Similarly, “the top, “the bottom”, and “the inside” of the aperture are interpreted as the only top, bottom, and inside of the aperture. Claiming “a top, “a bottom”, and “an inside” of the aperture could imply multiple tops, bottoms, or insides of the aperture.
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 1, 2, 13, 14, 16-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najarro (US D757,518) in view of Russell (US 2019/0126698).
In re claims 1, 16-18, 20, and 21, Najarro discloses an automotive tow hitch device/system and tow method including a body (as shown in annotated Figure 4 below) configured for coupling to a first vehicle, and defining a receiver (as shown in annotated Figure 4 below) configured for receiving a shackle arrangement for coupling to a second vehicle, wherein the receiver includes a receiver aperture (as shown in annotated Figure 4 below); the receiver aperture extends horizontally through the body with an aperture opening located on either side of the body, wherein each aperture opening having includes three sloped portions (as shown in annotated Figure 4 below) to reduce wear on the shackle arrangement when in use; a first portion (as shown in annotated Figure 4 below) of each aperture slopes to reduce wear on the shackle arrangement pulling in a horizontal direction when in use; second and third portions (as shown in annotated Figure 4 below) of the aperture slope upwardly and downwardly respectively to reduce wear on the shackle arrangement pulling in a vertical direction; but does not disclose the shackle arrangement itself (just configured for receiving a hypothetical shackle) or wherein the receiver aperture is not more than 23 mm, in at least one of a horizontal direction along the length of the body and a vertical direction from the top to the bottom of the inside of the aperture.
Russell, however, does disclose wherein the shackle arrangement includes a soft shackle (15) formed from at least one of a resilient material and rope and including a shackle head (21) configured for coupling to a tail to form an endless loop passing through the receiver aperture to provide a lighter weight shackle that does not rattle/clank and is easier to store (see [0002]) (claims 16-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Najarro such that it comprised the soft shackle of Russell (connected through the aperture of Najarro) to provide a lighter weight shackle that does not rattle/clank and is easier to store.
It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the receiver aperture of Najarro such that it was not more than 23 mm, in at least one of a horizontal direction along the length of the body and a vertical direction from the top to the bottom of the inside of the aperture, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The Examiner further notes that the receiver aperture only need to be the thickness of the rope in order to function.
PNG
media_image1.png
680
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner-annotated Figure 4
In re claim 2, Najarro further discloses wherein either the first vehicle or the second vehicle can be used to tow and extract the other vehicle when stuck using the shackle arrangement (as shown in Figure 1).
In re claim 13, Najarro further discloses wherein the receiver aperture has rounded edges (as shown in Figure 2) configured to impede damage to the shackle arrangement under tension.
In re claim 14, Najarro further discloses wherein the device is integrally formed but is silent on the material used and therefore does not disclose wherein the device is a billet metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Najarro out of a billet metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najarro and Russell in view of Ford (US 6,923,463).
In re claim 15, Najarro and Russell disclose the device as claimed in claim 1, but do not disclose the device being anodized. Ford, however, does disclose a trailer hitch having all components made from anodized aluminum to resist oxidation in salty environments (see claim 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the metal device of Najarro and Russell out of anodized aluminum to resist oxidation in salty environments as taught by Ford.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 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 specific limitations of “wherein the body defines a tail configured for being received within the first vehicle and a head configured for protruding from the first vehicle” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner' s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a body defining a tail received within the first vehicle and a head protruding from the first vehicle in combination with the body comprising the three sloped portions as previously claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 20, and 21 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
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 R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights