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 Objections
In light of the amendments to the claims filed March 13, 2026, the objections to claims 46 and 47 set forth in the final rejection mailed April 18, 2025 are withdrawn.
Double Patenting
Examiner notes that applicant expressed intent to file a terminal disclaimer in the remarks filed March 13, 2026. However, until the submission of the terminal disclaimer, the double patenting rejections set forth in the non-final office action mailed June 17, 2024 are maintained and restated below.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-23, 25, and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,878,558 in view of Derr (US 3679231). Claim 9 teaches every element recited in claim 21 except wherein the moment bar imposes a forward moment on the trailer attachment member. However, Derr teaches a weight distribution hitch system wherein a moment bar (31) imposes a forward moment onto a trailer attachment member (22) and vehicle (8) (Column 5 lines 62-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to impose a forward moment on a vehicle (as claimed in US Patent 11,878,558) through a trailer attachment member as in Derr, using a moment bar as in both Derr and US Patent 11,878,558).
Claim 45 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,878,558 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 9 of Patent 11,878,558 anticipates every element recited in claim 45 of the instant application.
Claim 46 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,878,558 in view of Derr (US 3679231). Claim 9 teaches every element claimed in claim 45 from which claim 46 depends (see above). Claim 9 does not teach wherein the moment bar forward end is connected to a moment bar coupler, the moment bar coupler removably connectable to a lower portion of the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment member such that the moment bar is pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment. However, Derr teaches wherein the moment bar forward end is connected to a moment bar coupler (30), the moment bar coupler removably connectable to a lower portion of the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment member (22) such that the moment bar (31) is pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment (Column 3 lines 68-70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the moment bar of Patent 11,878,558 be pivotable about a vertical axis and removably connected via a moment bar coupler as in Derr so to allow them to pivot and be removed for storage when they are not in use thereby allowing the hitch system to be more user friendly and versatile.
Claims 47 and 48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,878,558 in view of Derr. Claim 9 teaches every element recited in claim 47 except the moment bar assembly having first and second moment bars, each pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward end of the vehicle attachment. However, Derr teaches a weight distribution hitch system with first and second moment bars (31) that are pivotable about a vertical axis (Column 3 lines 68-70) through the rearward end of the vehicle attachment (22, See Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have first and second moment bars that can pivot about a vertical axis as in Derr with the combination of Claim 9 of U.S. Patent 11,878,558 so to allow them to pivot and be removed for storage when they are not in use thereby allowing the hitch system to be more user friendly and versatile.
Claims 21-23, 25, and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,116 B2 in view of Derr (US 3679231). Claims 1 and 20 teach every element recited in claim 21 except wherein the moment bar imposes a forward moment on the trailer attachment member. However, Derr teaches a weight distribution hitch system wherein a moment bar (31) imposes a forward moment onto a trailer attachment member (22) and vehicle (8) (Column 5 lines 62-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to impose a forward moment on a vehicle (as claimed in US Patent 11,884,116) through a trailer attachment member as in Derr, using a moment bar as in both Derr and US Patent 11,884,116).
Claims 32-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,116 B2 in view of Derr (US 3679231) as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,116 B2).
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,116 B2 in view of Derr (US 3679231) as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,116 B2).
Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,116 B2 in view of Derr (US 3679231) as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,116 B2).
Claim 45 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,116 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1 and 20 of Patent 11,884,116 anticipate every element recited in claim 45 of the instant application.
Claim 46 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,116 in view of Derr (US 3679231). Claims 1 and 20 teach every element claimed in claim 45 from which claim 46 depends (see above). Claims 1 and 20 do not teach wherein the moment bar forward end is connected to a moment bar coupler, the moment bar coupler removably connectable to a lower portion of the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment member such that the moment bar is pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment. However, Derr teaches wherein the moment bar forward end is connected to a moment bar coupler (30), the moment bar coupler removably connectable to a lower portion of the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment member (22) such that the moment bar (31) is pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment (Column 3 lines 68-70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the moment bar of Patent 11,884,116 be pivotable about a vertical axis and removably connected via a moment bar coupler as in Derr so to allow them to pivot and be removed for storage when they are not in use thereby allowing the hitch system to be more user friendly and versatile.
Claims 47 and 48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,116 in view of Derr. Claims 1 and 20 teach every element recited in claim 47 except the moment bar assembly having first and second moment bars, each pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward end of the vehicle attachment. However, Derr teaches a weight distribution hitch system with first and second moment bars (31) that are pivotable about a vertical axis (Column 3 lines 68-70) through the rearward end of the vehicle attachment (22, See Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have first and second moment bars that can pivot about a vertical axis as in Derr with the combination of Claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent 11,884,116 so to allow them to pivot and be removed for storage when they are not in use thereby allowing the hitch system to be more user friendly and versatile.
Claims 21-23, 25, and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,180 in view of Derr (US 3679231). Claim 6 teaches every element recited in claim 21 except wherein the moment bar imposes a forward moment on the trailer attachment member. However, Derr teaches a weight distribution hitch system wherein a moment bar (31) imposes a forward moment onto a trailer attachment member (22) and vehicle (8) (Column 5 lines 62-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to impose a forward moment on a vehicle (as claimed in US Patent 11,820,180) through a trailer attachment member as in Derr, using a moment bar as in both Derr and US Patent 11,820,180).
Claim 45 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,180 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of Patent 11,820,180 anticipates every element recited in claim 45 of the instant application.
Claim 46 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,180 in view of Derr (US 3679231). Claim 6 teaches every element claimed in claim 45 from which claim 46 depends (see above). Claim 6 does not teach wherein the moment bar forward end is connected to a moment bar coupler, the moment bar coupler removably connectable to a lower portion of the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment member such that the moment bar is pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment. However, Derr teaches wherein the moment bar forward end is connected to a moment bar coupler (30), the moment bar coupler removably connectable to a lower portion of the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment member (22) such that the moment bar (31) is pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment (Column 3 lines 68-70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the moment bar of Patent 11,820,180 be pivotable about a vertical axis and removably connected via a moment bar coupler as in Derr so to allow them to pivot and be removed for storage when they are not in use thereby allowing the hitch system to be more user friendly and versatile.
Claims 47 and 48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,180 in view of Derr. Claim 6 teaches every element recited in claim 47 except the moment bar assembly having first and second moment bars, each pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward end of the vehicle attachment. However, Derr teaches a weight distribution hitch system with first and second moment bars (31) that are pivotable about a vertical axis (Column 3 lines 68-70) through the rearward end of the vehicle attachment (22, See Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have first and second moment bars that can pivot about a vertical axis as in Derr with the combination of claim 6 of U.S. Patent 11,820,180 so to allow them to pivot and be removed for storage when they are not in use thereby allowing the hitch system to be more user friendly and versatile.
Claims 21-23, 25, and 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 17/412,196 in view of Derr. Claim 7 teaches every element recited in claim 21 except wherein the moment bar imposes a forward moment on the trailer attachment member. However, Derr teaches a weight distribution hitch system wherein a moment bar (31) imposes a forward moment onto a trailer attachment member (22) and vehicle (8) (Column 5 lines 62-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to impose a forward moment on a vehicle (as claimed in claim 7 of application 17/412,196) through a trailer attachment member as in Derr, using a moment bar as in both Derr and application 17/412,196).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 45 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 17/412,196 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 anticipates every element recited in claim 45 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 46 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 17/412,196 in view of Derr. Claim 7 teaches every element claimed in claim 45 from which claim 46 depends (see above). Claim 7 does not teach wherein the moment bar forward end is connected to a moment bar coupler, the moment bar coupler removably connectable to a lower portion of the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment member such that the moment bar is pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment. However, Derr teaches wherein the moment bar forward end is connected to a moment bar coupler (30), the moment bar coupler removably connectable to a lower portion of the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment member (22) such that the moment bar (31) is pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment (Column 3 lines 68-70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the moment bar of application 17/412,196 be pivotable about a vertical axis and removably connected via a moment bar coupler as in Derr so to allow them to pivot and be removed for storage when they are not in use thereby allowing the hitch system to be more user friendly and versatile.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 47 and 48 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 17/412,196 in view of Derr. Claim 7 teaches every element recited in claim 47 except the moment bar assembly having first and second moment bars, each pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward end of the vehicle attachment. However, Derr teaches a weight distribution hitch system with first and second moment bars (31) that are pivotable about a vertical axis (Column 3 lines 68-70) through the rearward end of the vehicle attachment (22, See Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have first and second moment bars that can pivot about a vertical axis as in Derr with the combination of claim 7 of application 17/412,196 so to allow them to pivot and be removed for storage when they are not in use thereby allowing the hitch system to be more user friendly and versatile.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 21-23, 25, and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2 in view of Derr and Huchette (US 3968958 A). Claim 1 teaches every element recited in claim 21 except wherein the moment bar imposes a forward moment on the trailer attachment member and wherein the moment bar is formed from a fiber reinforced polymer. However, Derr teaches a weight distribution hitch system wherein a moment bar (31) imposes a forward moment onto a trailer attachment member (22) and vehicle (8) (Column 5 lines 62-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to impose a forward moment on a vehicle (as claimed in US Patent 11,820,180) through a trailer attachment member as in Derr, using a moment bar as in both Derr and US Patent 11,820,180). Derr fails to teach a fiber reinforced polymer. However, Huchette teaches a fiber reinforced elongated spring (Abstract lines 1 and 2) made of a polymer (Claim 16) for vehicles (Column 1 line 34) to allow for better shock absorption and stress resistance, reduce weight, and protect from corrosion (Column 1 lines 28-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the moment bar of claim 1 of patent 11,760,142 from a fiber reinforced polymer as in Huchette so as to reduce the weight of the hitch assembly while allowing for optimal shock absorption and stress resistance as well as resistance to corrosion thereby creating a more durable and effective moment bar.
Claims 32-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2 in view of Derr and Huchette as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2).
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2 in view of Derr and Huchette as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2).
Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2 in view of Derr and Huchette as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2).
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2 in view of Derr and Huchette as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2).
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2 in view of Derr and Huchette as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2).
Claim 40 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2 in view of Derr and Huchette as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2).
Claim 41 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2 in view of Derr and Huchette as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2).
Claim 42 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2 in view of Derr and Huchette as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2).
Claim 43 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2 in view of Derr and Huchette as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2).
Claim 44 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2 in view of Derr and Huchette as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2).
Claim 45 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 B2 in view of Huchette (US 3968958 A). Claim 1 teaches every element recited in claim 21 except wherein the moment bar is formed from a fiber reinforced polymer. However, Huchette teaches a fiber reinforced elongated spring (Abstract lines 1 and 2) made of a polymer (Claim 16) for vehicles (Column 1 line 34) to allow for better shock absorption and stress resistance, reduce weight, and protect from corrosion (Column 1 lines 28-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the moment bar of claim 1 of patent 11,760,142 from a fiber reinforced polymer as in Huchette so as to reduce the weight of the hitch assembly while allowing for optimal shock absorption and stress resistance as well as resistance to corrosion thereby creating a more durable and effective moment bar.
Claim 46 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 in view Huchette as applied to claim 45 and further in view of Derr. Claim 1 in view of Huchette teaches the elements claimed in claim 45 from which claim 46 depends (see above). Claim 1 in view of Huchette does not teach wherein the moment bar forward end is connected to a moment bar coupler, the moment bar coupler removably connectable to a lower portion of the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment member such that the moment bar is pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment. However, Derr teaches wherein the moment bar forward end is connected to a moment bar coupler (30), the moment bar coupler removably connectable to a lower portion of the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment member (22) such that the moment bar (31) is pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment (Column 3 lines 68-70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the moment bar of Patent 11,820,180 be pivotable about a vertical axis and removably connected via a moment bar coupler as in Derr so to allow them to pivot and be removed for storage when they are not in use thereby allowing the hitch system to be more user friendly and versatile.
Claims 47 and 48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,142 in view of Derr and Huchette. Claim 1 teaches every element recited in claim 47 except the moment bar assembly having first and second moment bars, each pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward end of the vehicle attachment and wherein the moment bar is formed from a fiber reinforced polymer. However, Derr teaches a weight distribution hitch system with first and second moment bars (31) that are pivotable about a vertical axis (Column 3 lines 68-70) through the rearward end of the vehicle attachment (22, See Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have first and second moment bars that can pivot about a vertical axis as in Derr with the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,760,142 so to allow them to pivot and be removed for storage when they are not in use thereby allowing the hitch system to be more user friendly and versatile. Derr fails to teach a fiber reinforced polymer. However, Huchette teaches a fiber reinforced elongated spring (Abstract lines 1 and 2) made of a polymer (Claim 16) for vehicles (Column 1 line 34) to allow for better shock absorption and stress resistance, reduce weight, and protect from corrosion (Column 1 lines 28-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the moment bar of claim 1 of patent 11,760,142 from a fiber reinforced polymer as in Huchette so as to reduce the weight of the hitch assembly while allowing for optimal shock absorption and stress resistance as well as resistance to corrosion thereby creating a more durable and effective moment bar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-23, 25-29, and 32-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derr in view of Huchette.
In regards to claim 21: Derr teaches a weight distribution hitch system (Shown generally in Figure 1), comprising:
a vehicle attachment member (14) comprising:
a forward portion (64) configured to attach to a vehicle (8), and
a rearward portion (22 and 28) extending rearwardly therefrom and toward a trailer (16),
the rearward portion including a trailer attachment member (26) to which a coupler (38) of the trailer is attachable;
a moment bar (31) comprising:
a moment bar forward end attached to the vehicle attachment member (See end of 31 attached at 30 in Figure 2), and a moment bar rearward end (32); and
a tension member (34) comprising:
a top end configured to be supported from the trailer (at 36, See Figures 2 and 5), and
a bottom end configured to support the moment bar rearward of the moment bar forward end (See bottom of 34 supporting rearward end 32 of moment bar 31, Examiner notes that the rearward end of the moment bar is rearward of the forward end),
wherein, when the tension member is in tension, the tension member imposes an upward force on the moment bar rearward of the moment bar forward end, which, in turn, imposes a forward moment on the trailer attachment member (Column 5 lines 62-65: “In use, chain 34 is tensioned to apply an upwardly acting force to free spring bar end 32 and generate the moment transmitted to head 22 and automobile 8”).
Derr fails to teach wherein the moment bar is formed from a fiber reinforced polymer. However, Huchette teaches a fiber reinforced elongated spring (Abstract lines 1 and 2) made of a polymer (Claim 16) for vehicles (Column 1 line 34) to allow for better shock absorption and stress resistance, reduce weight, and protect from corrosion (Column 1 lines 28-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the moment bar of Derr from a fiber reinforced polymer as in Huchette so as to reduce the weight of the hitch assembly while allowing for optimal shock absorption and stress resistance as well as resistance to corrosion thereby creating a more durable and effective moment bar.
In regards to claim 22: The weight distribution hitch system as in claim 21 is taught by Derr in view of Huchette. The combination further teaches wherein the moment bar forward end is connected to a moment bar coupler (30), the moment bar coupler removably connectable to a lower portion of the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment member such that the moment bar is pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward portion of the vehicle attachment member (See Figure 2, Column 3 lines 68-70 of Derr: “The spring bars and spring bar connectors 30 can now be pivoted into laterally outwardly extending positions for their removal as a unit from hitch head 22 for storage during non-use.”).
In regards to claim 23: The weight distribution hitch of claim 21 is taught by Derr in view of Huchette. The combination further teaches wherein the moment bar comprises two similar, laterally spaced apart moment bars (Right and left 31 of Derr, See Figure 1).
In regards to claim 25: The weight distribution hitch of claim 21 is taught by Derr in view of Huchette. The combination further teaches wherein the tension member is adjustable (Column 6 lines 71-75 of Derr, and Column 7 lines 18-20 of Derr).
In regards to claims 26-28: The weight distribution hitch system as in claim 25 is taught by Derr in view of Huchette. The combination is silent as to the exact adjustment range of the moment bar. However, the specification fails to provide evidence of criticality of the claimed ranges of less than one inch (Claim 26), greater than two inches (Claim 27), or greater than three inches (Claim 28). Paragraph 066 of the specification discussed that the adjustment range of one inch or less is found in traditional steel moment bar tension arrangements such as the chains or adjustable brackets. Paragraph 066 then goes on to describe embodiments with an increment greater than two inches, greater than three inches, and no adjustment increment at all. Furthermore:
Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.") See MPEP 2144.05 Paragraph II.A.
In the case of the instant application, the prior art teaches moment bars that are adjustable but is silent as to the exact adjustment range. The specification fails to provide evidence of criticality for the ranges claimed in claims 26, 27, and 28. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the adjustment range of the moment bars of Derr in view of Huchette to provide ideal weight distribution between the vehicle and trailer thereby creating a safer and more effective weight distribution hitch system.
In regards to claim 29: The weight distribution hitch system as in claim 21 is taught by Derr in view of Huchette. The combination further teaches wherein the tension mechanism is a lifting mechanism configured to lift the rearward end of the moment bar (Column 6 lines 71-75 of Derr).
In regards to claims 32-36: The weight distribution hitch system as in claim 21 is taught by Derr in view of Huchette. The combination is silent as to a modulus of elasticity of the moment bar. However, the specification fails to provide evidence of criticality of the claimed modulus of elasticity ranges. Paragraphs 072 and 073 of the specification discusses various possible embodiments with the claimed ranges of the modulus of elasticity, but fail to provide evidence of criticality for any of the claimed ranges over other embodiments described in paragraphs 072 and 073. The specification only states that a lower modulus of elasticity is preferable and describes acceptable embodiments where the modulus of elasticity is less than 15,000 ksi, 14,000 ksi, and 13,000 ksi. Furthermore:
Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.") See MPEP 2144.05 Paragraph II.A.
In the case of the instant application, the prior art teaches moment bars that have a modulus of elasticity (as every material has) but is silent as to the exact modulus of elasticity ksi. The specification fails to provide evidence of criticality for the modulus of elasticity claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the modulus of elasticity of the moment bars of Derr in view of Huchette to provide ideal weight distribution between the vehicle and trailer thereby creating a safer and more effective weight distribution hitch system.
In regards to claims 37-41: The weight distribution hitch system as in claim 21 is taught by Derr in view of Huchette. The combination is silent as to an exact length of the moment bar. Derr teaches optimizing the length to adjust for trailers of varying weights (Column 2 lines 6-7). However, the specification fails to provide evidence of criticality of the claimed lengths of the moment bars. Paragraph 083 of the specification discusses various possible embodiments with the claimed moment bar lengths, but fail to provide evidence of criticality for the preferred embodiments. The specification only states that a shorter length of the moment arm is preferable and describes acceptable embodiments where the lengths are less than 28 inches, less than 24 inches, between 6 and 20 inches, between 8 and 15 inches, and between 9 and 12 inches. Furthermore:
Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.") See MPEP 2144.05 Paragraph II.A.
In the case of the instant application, the prior art teaches optimizing the length of the moment bars but is silent as to any exact lengths or ranges of lengths of the moment bars. The specification fails to provide evidence of criticality for the claimed lengths. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the length of the moment bars of Derr in view of Huchette to provide ideal weight distribution between the vehicle and trailer and account for different weights of trailers to be towed thereby creating a safer and more effective weight distribution hitch system.
In regards to claims 42-44: The weight distribution hitch system as in claim 21 is taught by Derr in view of Huchette. The combination is silent as to a spring constant of the moment bar. However, the specification fails to provide evidence of criticality of the claimed spring constants. Paragraph 074 of the specification discusses various possible embodiments with the claimed ranges of spring constants, but fails to provide evidence of criticality for any one of the claimed ranges over other embodiments described. The specification only describes acceptable embodiments where the spring constant is less than 1,000 lbs/in, 900 lbs/in, and 800 lbs/in. Furthermore:
Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.") See MPEP 2144.05 Paragraph II.A.
In the case of the instant application, the prior art teaches moment bars that have a spring constant (as every material has) but is silent as to the exact spring constant. The specification fails to provide evidence of criticality for the spring constant claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the spring constant of the moment bars of Derr in view of Huchette to provide ideal weight distribution between the vehicle and trailer thereby creating a safer and more effective weight distribution hitch system.
In regards to claim 45: Derr teaches a weight distribution hitch system (Shown generally in Figure 1), comprising:
a vehicle attachment member (14) comprising:
a forward end (64) configured to rigidly attach to a vehicle (8), and
a rearward end (22 and 28) extending rearwardly toward a trailer (16), the rearward end comprising:
an upper portion (28) comprising a trailer attachment member (26) configured to pivotally attach to a coupler (38) of the trailer, and
a lower portion (22) configured to receive a moment bar (31, See Figure 2);
the moment bar (31) comprising:
a moment bar forward end attached to the lower portion of the rearward end of the vehicle attachment member (See end of 31 attached to 22 at 30 in Figure 2), and
a moment bar rearward end (32); and
a tension member (34) comprising:
a top end configured to be supported by a frame member of the trailer (at 36, See Figures 2 and 5), and
a bottom end configured to support the rearward end of the moment bar (See bottom of 34 supporting rearward end 32 of moment bar 31),
wherein, when the tension member is in tension, the tension member imposes an upward force on the moment bar rearward end, which, in turn, imposes a forward moment on the vehicle (Column 5 lines 62-65: “In use, chain 34 is tensioned to apply an upwardly acting force to free spring bar end 32 and generate the moment transmitted to head 22 and automobile 8”).
Derr fails to teach wherein the moment bar is formed from a fiber reinforced polymer. However, Huchette teaches a fiber reinforced elongated spring (Abstract lines 1 and 2) made of a polymer (Claim 16) for vehicles (Column 1 line 34) to allow for better shock absorption and stress resistance, reduce weight, and protect from corrosion (Column 1 lines 28-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the moment bar of Derr from a fiber reinforced polymer as in Huchette so as to reduce the weight of the hitch assembly while allowing for optimal shock absorption and stress resistance as well as resistance to corrosion thereby creating a more durable and effective moment bar.
In regards to claim 46: The weight distribution hitch system as in claim 45 is taught by Derr in view of Huchette. The combination further teaches wherein the moment bar forward end is connected to a moment bar coupler (30), the moment bar coupler removably connectable to the lower portion of the rearward end of the vehicle attachment member such that the moment bar is pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward end of the vehicle attachment member (See Figure 2, Column 3 lines 68-70 of Derr: “The spring bars and spring bar connectors 30 can now be pivoted into laterally outwardly extending positions for their removal as a unit from hitch head 22 for storage during non-use.”).
In regards to claim 47: Derr teaches a weight distribution hitch system (Shown generally in Figure 1), comprising:
a vehicle attachment member (14) comprising:
a forward end (64) configured to rigidly attach to a vehicle (8), and
a rearward end (22 and 28) extending rearwardly toward a trailer (16), the rearward end comprising:
an upper portion (28) comprising a trailer attachment member (26) configured to pivotally attach to a coupler (38) of the trailer, and
a lower portion (22) configured to receive a moment bar assembly (31, See Figure 2);
the moment bar assembly (31) comprising first and second moment bars (See right and left moment bars 31 in Figure 1), each of the first and second moment bars having a forward end (See ends of 31 attached to 22 at 30 in Figure 2) and a rearward end (32),
the forward end of each of the first and second moment bars coupled to the lower portion of the rearward end of the vehicle attachment member (See end of 31 attached to 22 at 30 in Figure 2), and pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward end of the vehicle attachment member (See Figure 2, Column 3 lines 68-70 of Derr: “The spring bars and spring bar connectors 30 can now be pivoted into laterally outwardly extending positions for their removal as a unit from hitch head 22 for storage during non-use.”)
a tension member (34) comprising:
a top end configured to be supported by a frame member of the trailer (at 36, See Figures 2 and 5), and
a bottom end configured to support the rearward end of each of the first and second moment bars (See bottom of 34 supporting rearward end 32 of moment bars 31),
wherein, when the tension member is in tension, the tension member imposes an upward force on the rearward end of each of the first and second moment bars, which, in turn, imposes a forward moment on the vehicle (Column 5 lines 62-65: “In use, chain 34 is tensioned to apply an upwardly acting force to free spring bar end 32 and generate the moment transmitted to head 22 and automobile 8”).
Derr fails to teach wherein the moment bar is formed from a fiber reinforced polymer. However, Huchette teaches a fiber reinforced elongated spring (Abstract lines 1 and 2) made of a polymer (Claim 16) for vehicles (Column 1 line 34) to allow for better shock absorption and stress resistance, reduce weight, and protect from corrosion (Column 1 lines 28-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the moment bars of Derr from a fiber reinforced polymer as in Huchette so as to reduce the weight of the hitch assembly while allowing for optimal shock absorption and stress resistance as well as resistance to corrosion thereby creating more durable and effective moment bars.
In regards to claim 48: The weight distribution hitch system as in claim 47 is taught by Derr in view of Huchette. The combination further teaches wherein the forward end of each of the first and second moment bars is connected to a moment bar coupler (30), the moment bar coupler is removably connectable to the lower portion of the rearward end of the vehicle attachment member such that the moment bar coupler and the first and second moment bars coupled thereto are pivotable about a vertical axis through the rearward end of the vehicle attachment member (See Figure 2, Column 3 lines 68-70 of Derr: “The spring bars and spring bar connectors 30 can now be pivoted into laterally outwardly extending positions for their removal as a unit from hitch head 22 for storage during non-use.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 applicant argues:
“For one thing, the Examiner's reliance on Example C of MPEP §2141 is misplaced
because the cited references, although both involving spring members, address substantially different mechanical applications and operating conditions. Huchette describes a laminated, fiber-reinforced composite leaf spring designed to replace a conventional steel leaf spring in a vehicle suspension system, where the spring primarily functions to absorb road shocks and provide ride compliance as the suspension moves vertically. By contrast, Derr patent discloses a weight distribution trailer hitch employing elongated spring bars that operate as cantilever bending members. In Derr, one end of each spring bar is anchored in the hitch head while the opposite end is connected to the trailer frame, causing the bar to elastically deflect along its length as the hitch is tensioned to redistribute trailer tongue weight between the towing vehicle and the trailer axles. Although both structures involve bending, the mechanical role of the Derr spring bars is fundamentally different: they function as primary load-transfer members that must sustain substantial bending moments and repeated cyclic loading while maintaining predictable elastic response.
In addition, the two references address markedly different engineering design
constraints. Huchette focuses on improving vehicle suspension springs, emphasizing advantages such as reduced weight, corrosion resistance, and improved damping characteristics to enhance ride comfort and reduce unsprung mass. Derr's spring bars, in contrast, serve as critical structural components in a towing system whose purpose is to redistribute and stabilize trailer tongue weight. Accordingly, designers of weight-distribution hitch spring bars prioritize predictable elastic behavior, high fatigue resistance, and structural reliability under significant bending loads transmitted between the trailer and tow vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore know that the design priorities governing suspension leaf springs differ substantially from those governing the spring bars of a weight distribution hitch. As such, that person would not reasonably assume that a laminated composite suspension spring material could simply replace the monolithic spring steel bars used in Derr.
Moreover, Derr specifically discloses elongated monolithic spring bars made of spring steel, a structural feature that provides uniform material properties and reliable fatigue performance under the substantial bending loads experienced in a towing system. In contrast, the spring disclosed in Huchette is a laminated fiber-reinforced composite structure, which inherently includes multiple plies and fiber-matrix interfaces and therefore exhibits anisotropic mechanical properties and different potential failure modes such as interlaminar shear or delamination. Substituting such a laminated composite structure for Derr's monolithic spring steel bar would be expected to fundamentally change the structural architecture and mechanical behavior of the component rather than merely replacing one known material with another.
Finally, under the heading of "long-felt need," it is noted that Huchette issued in 1976 and Derr issued in 1972, and despite the passage of decades since these disclosures, weight- distribution hitch spring bars have continued to be manufactured from spring steel rather than fiber-reinforced composites. This persistent industry practice-for at least a half a century- suggests that the claimed approach addresses a long-felt but unresolved need, further supporting the non-obviousness of the claimed invention.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner acknowledges the differences pointed out above between the bars of Derr and Huchette. However, Examiner points to the previous arguments below restated for convenience and underlined for emphasis. Additional clarity added in italics in parentheses. Examiner points to MPEP 2141 Section C.III: “Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations. However, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976).” Examiner specifically points to examples C and G given in the same section of the MPEP. Example C states: “Use of a known technique (in this case the known technique is the fiber reinforced polymer used in a leaf spring) to improve similar devices (A spring bar or leaf spring both used in vehicle applications where similar problems may apply such as the environment of use causing corrosion) (methods or products) in the same way” (In this case the “same way” being at least, but not limited to, using a fiber reinforced polymer to increase shock absorption, stress resistance, weight reduction, and protection from corrosion which are all properties that would benefit the spring bars of Derr which are used in similar outdoor road conditions as the leaf springs on the vehicle of Huchette. Additionally, while not always subjected to the exact same stresses as the leaf springs of Huchette, the spring bars of Derr would necessarily benefit from the above stated properties of the fiber reinforced polymer of Huchette: shock absorption, stress resistance, weight reduction, and protection from corrosion). In the case of the instant application: Use of a known technique (using a fiber reinforced polymer as in Huchette) to improve similar devices (both devices of Huchette and Derr are spring type bars requiring an amount of flexibility and rebound) in the same way (replacement of the spring material with a fiber reinforced polymer). Example G states: “Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.”. In the case of the instant application: Huchette provides teaching, suggestion, and motivation to replace an elongated spring with a fiber reinforced polymer in Column 1 lines 28-34 to allow for better shock absorption and stress resistance, reduce weight, and protect from corrosion. Examiner notes that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation is not required to come from the base reference of Derr, and one of ordinary skill could look at the teachings, suggestions, and motivations provided by Huchette and see the benefits of using a fiber reinforced polymer in a spring type moment bar, especially any moment bar being used in a way where it is exposed to the elements (such as in or on any vehicle or trailer) to prevent corrosion.
In response to applicant's argument based upon the age of the references, contentions that the reference patents are old are not impressive absent a showing that the art tried and failed to solve the same problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the references. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977). (Emphasis added).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ABIGAIL R HYMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0389. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 7:30-4:30.
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 at (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 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.
/A.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611