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
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein the elongated portion of the adapter is adapted to be accepted by the hollow interior of the adapter through the open end thereof” contains the limitation “the hollow interior of the adapter” which has not been introduced and is incongruent with similar limitations in other claims. Based on the examiner’s understanding of the instant specification and the similar limitations in claims 6 and 10, the phrase will be interpreted as: “wherein the elongated portion of the adapter is adapted to be accepted by the hollow interior of the elongated sleeve member through the open end thereof”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the horizontal disposition of the {coupler} relative to the ball mount can be altered” is understood to be missing the word “coupler”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Particularly, the following terms are being interpreted under 112f:
“Means… for defining an elongated guideway" introduced in claims 1 and 9.
Using the term: “means”
The functional language: “defining”
Not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function
interpreted as an “elongated sleeve member” or its equivalents in view of page 14, lines 16- 20 of the written specification.
“Means… for releasably securing the first portion of the adapter" introduced in claims 1 and 9.
Using the term: “means”
The functional language: “releasably securing”
Not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function
interpreted as a “pin or bolt having an elongated shank” or its equivalents in view of page 10, lines 11- 16 of the written specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the elongated portion of the adapter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The adapter is first described as elongated in claim 6 but claim 8 does not depend on claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first portion of the adapter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “first portion of the adapter” is introduced in claim 1 but claim 18 instead depends on claim 9 where a similar feature is claimed but is referred to as “an elongated portion of the adapter”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the hollow interior of the sleeve member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “hollow interior of the sleeve member” is introduced in claims 6, 10, and 16 but claim 19 does not depend on any of these claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected parent claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by GARCIA (US-20230139691-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, GARCIA teaches a hitch system for hitching a trailer to a pulling vehicle (Abstract) wherein the trailer (Trailer 4, Fig. 2) includes a wheeled frame (inherent to a trailer, but also a portion of a frame and a wheel being illustrated in Fig. 2) having a forward end (right, Fig. 2), a rearward end (left, Fig. 2) and a pair of opposite sides (frame members being illustrated in the fore and background of Fig. 2) which extend between the forward (left) and rearward (right) ends of the trailer frame (the illustrated frame members of Fig. 2 extending from left to right in Fig. 2), and the pulling vehicle (Towing Vehicle 2, Fig. 2) includes a ball mount (Hitch Ball Assembly 12, Fig. 2) and the trailer (4) includes a ball-accepting coupler (Coupler 20, Fig. 2) which is securable to the ball mount (12) for hitching the trailer (4) to the pulling vehicle (2), the hitch system comprising:
means disposed adjacent the forward end (right) of the trailer (4) for defining an elongated guideway (Vertical Channel 18, Fig. 2) which is supported by the trailer (4) in an angular relationship with respect to the horizontal (Vertical Channel 18 having an angular relationship with a horizontal axis- left to right in Fig. 2, particularly that it extends at an angle that is sustainably perpendicular to the horizontal);
an adapter (Riser 40, Fig. 2) having a first portion (Channel Portion 42a, Fig. 2) which cooperates with the guideway (18) of the guideway-defining means for movement along the length thereof (Para. [0026] and Fig. 2 teach Channel Portion 42a of Riser 40 being mounted to Vertical Channel 18) and a second portion (Channel Portion 42b, Fig. 2) which is adapted to support a ball-accepting coupler (20) secured thereto so that by securing a ball-accepting coupler to the second portion (42b) of the adapter (40) and moving the first portion (42a) of the adapter (40) along the length of the guideway (18), the ball-accepting coupler (20) can be positioned at any of a number of alternative horizontal levels relative to the ball mount (12) of the pulling vehicle (2) (Para. [0026] and Fig. 2 teach Riser 40 being mountable to Vertical Channel 18 at selectable heights); and
means (Bolts 32, Fig. 2,) for releasably securing the first portion (42a) of the adapter (40) at a fixed location (Fig. 2 illustrating one position of Riser 40) along the length of the guideway (18) to thereby fixedly secure the ball-accepting coupler (20) at a desired horizontal level relative to the ball mount (12) of the pulling vehicle (2) to facilitate the coupling of the ball-accepting coupler (2) to the ball mount (12) of the pulling vehicle (2) (Para. [0028] teaches the use of pins or Bolts 32 to removably secure Coupler 20 and Riser 40 to Vertical Channel 18 and Para. [0026] teaches mounting the Coupler 20 at a selected height to accommodate different heights of Tow Vehicle 2).
Regarding Claim 2, GARCIA further teaches that trailer (4) includes a vertical mid-plane which extends between the forward (right, Fig. 2) and rearward (left, Fig. 2) ends of the trailer frame, and
the elongated guideway (18) is substantially arranged in the vertical mid-plane of the trailer frame (Vertical Channel 18 being disposed substantially about a vertical central plane of the Trailer 4 as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, GARCIA further teaches that the elongated guideway (18) is in the form of an elongated sleeve member (Vertical Channel 18 being considered an elongated sleeve in that it extends lengthwise along a vertical axis and is made to fit another part inside of it, particularly Riser 40, as illustrated in Fig. 2) having an open end (an open end on the forward/ right side, Fig. 2) disposed adjacent the forward end of the trailer frame and a hollow interior which extends along the sleeve member from the open end thereof (the channel shape of Vertical Channel 18 being hollow between the two flanges and the open end), and wherein the elongated sleeve member (18) is fixedly secured to the trailer (4) so that the open end of the sleeve member opens substantially forwardly of the trailer (Vertical Channel 18 being fixed to Trailer 4 and opening in a forward direction, as illustrated in Fig. 2) and downwardly relative to the horizontal at about a forty-five degree angle (Vertical Channel 18 being open in a forward direction and a downward direction, it is considered to be open in a forward and downward direction substantially forty-five degrees from horizontal), and
wherein the first portion (42a) of the adapter (40) is elongated in form (as illustrated in Fig. 2) and is adapted to be accepted by the hollow interior of the elongated sleeve member (18) through the open end thereof for sliding movement along the length of the sleeve member (Riser 40 fitting into the hollow interior of Vertical Channel 18 and being capable of sliding along its length as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, GARCIA further teaches that the elongated sleeve member (18) has a forward end (right, Fig. 2) which is disposed adjacent the forward end (right) of the trailer frame and an opposite rearward end (left, Fig. 2), and the sleeve member (18) is substantially linear as a path is traced between the forward and rearward ends of the sleeve member (Vertical Channel 18 extending straight from forward/ right to rearward/ left as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, GARCIA further teaches that the means (32) for releasably securing {an} elongated portion (Channel Portion 42a forming an elongated portion, Fig. 2) of the adapter (40) at a fixed location along the length of the guideway (18) includes a pin (Bolt 32, taught as a pin in Para. [0028]) for securing the elongated portion (42a) of the adapter (40) to the guideway-defining means (Bolt/ Pin 32 securing Channel Portion 42a of Riser 40 to Vertical Channel 18 as illustrated in Fig. 2).
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 3-5 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARCIA in view of Hull (US-5727920-A).
Regarding Claim 9, GARCIA teaches a hitch system for hitching a trailer to a pulling vehicle substantially similar to the hitch system of claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above) and further teaches:
a mounting assembly (Trailer Coupler Assembly, Fig. 2) including means defining an elongated guideway (Vertical Channel 18, Fig. 2) having two opposite ends (a rearward/ left and forward/ right end as illustrated in Fig. 2) and which is fixedly secured to the trailer (4) so that the guideway (18) of the guideway-defining means is oriented at [an angle] relative to the horizontal (Vertical Channel 18 being fixed to Trailer 4 and oriented at an angle with a horizontal axis- left to right in Fig. 2, particularly that it extends at an angle that is sustainably perpendicular to the horizontal);
and further differs from the hitch system of claim 1 in that the adapter comprises a first portion in claim 1 and an elongated portion in claim 9 (Channel Portion 42a forming an elongated portion as illustrated in Fig. 2).
GARCIA does not teach that the guideway is oriented at a forty-five degree angle.
Hull teaches, in another hitch system (Vehicle Attachment Tongue 14, Fig. 1), a guideway (First Upright Member 18, Fig. 1) for adjusting the horizontal height of the hitch system (Col. 2, Lines 14- 29) that is oriented at about a forty-five degree angle relative to the horizontal (as illustrated in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of GARCIA and Hull in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify GARCIA’s hitch system such that the guideway is oriented at a forty-five degree angle as suggested by Hull. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of arranging the guideway such that making an adjustment to the coupler height would also change the tongue length of the trailer that would beneficially allow a user to easily change the stability characteristics of the trailer.
Regarding Claims 10 and 12, 17, GARCIA, as modified by Hull, teaches all limitations (see the 102 rejections of claims 6 and 2, 5, respectively, above for the teachings of GARCIA).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, (having different dependencies but similar limitations, differing only in one added limitation to claim 13, identified below), GARCIA further teaches that the elongated guideway (18) includes a forward end [which is arranged adjacent the forward end of the trailer frame, claim 13 only] (right, Fig. 2, being adjacent the forward/ right end of Trailer 4) and an opposite rearward end (left, Fig. 2) which extends rearwardly (left) of the forward end (right) of the guideway (18).
GARCIA does not teach that the forward end of the guideway is lower than the rearward end.
Hull teaches a guideway (18) having a forward end (left, Fig. 1) that is higher than a rearward end (right, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of GARCIA and Hull in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify GARCIA’s hitch system such that the forward end of the guideway is at a different height than the rearward end as suggested by Hull, and to further rearrange the hitch system such that the forward end was lower than the rearward end, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of arranging the guideway such that the tongue length of the trailer is extended when the coupler is adjusted to a lower height that would beneficially match the trailer length and towing vehicle size to improve the stability characteristics of the trailer.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), GARCIA, as modified above such that the forward end of the guideway is lower than the rearward end, does not teach that the guideway is oriented at a forty-five degree angle but Hull does (see the 103 rejection of claim 9 above for the teachings of Hull and motivation to combine them with the hitch system of GARCIA).
Regarding Claim 5, GARCIA further teaches that the guideway (18) is substantially linear as a path is traced between the forward (right) and rearward (left) ends of the guideway (Vertical Channel 18 extending straight from forward/ right to rearward/ left as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, GARCIA further teaches that the means (32) for releasably securing the elongated portion (42a) of the adapter (40) at a fixed location between the two opposite ends of the guideway (18) includes a pin (Bolt 32, taught as a pin in Para. [0028]) for fixedly securing the elongated portion (42a) of the adapter (40) to the guideway-defining means (18) and at a desired horizontal level for purposes of coupling the trailer coupler (20) to the ball mount (Bolt/ Pin 32 securing Channel Portion 42a of Riser 40 to Vertical Channel 18 as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, GARCIA further teaches that the means (32) for releasably securing the elongated portion (Channel Portion 42a forming an elongated portion, Fig. 2) of the adapter (40) at a fixed position between the two opposite ends (rearward/ left and forward/ right) of the guideway (18) includes a pin (Bolt 32, taught as a pin in Para. [0028]) for fixedly securing the elongated portion (42a) of the adapter (40) to the guideway-defining means (Bolt/ Pin 32 securing Channel Portion 42a of Riser 40 to Vertical Channel 18 as illustrated in Fig. 2) and at a desired horizontal level for purposes of coupling the trailer coupler (20) to the ball mount (12) of the pulling vehicle (2) (multiple horizontal levels of mounting points being illustrated in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16, GARCIA, as modified by Hull, teaches limitations substantially similar to those of claim 6 (see the 102 rejections of claim 6 above for the teachings of GARCIA) and further teaches that the sliding movement between the adapter (40) and the {elongated sleeve member} is in somewhat of a telescoping fashion (Riser 40 sliding withing Vertical Channel 18 in a telescoping fashion as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, GARCIA further teaches that the elongated portion (42a) of the adapter (40) is a first elongated portion (42a), and the adapter includes a second elongated portion (Channel Portion 42b, Fig. 2) which is joined to the first elongated portion (Channel Portion 42b being joined to Channel Portion 42a as illustrated in Figs. 2 & 3); and
wherein the first elongated portion (42a) of said adapter (40) is accepted by {a} hollow interior of the elongated sleeve member (18) for sliding movement therealong (Channel Portion 42a of Riser 40 fitting into a hollow interior of Vertical Channel 18 and being capable of sliding along its length as illustrated in Fig. 2) and wherein the second elongated portion (42b) of the adapter (40) is adapted to support a ball-accepting coupler (Coupler 20, Fig. 2) secured thereto so that by securing a ball-accepting coupler (20) to the second elongated portion (42b) of said adapter (40) and inserting the first elongated portion (42a) of the adapter (40) endwise into the hollow interior of the sleeve member (18) through the open end thereof (an end of Channel Portion 42a being inserted into Vertical Channel 18 as illustrated in Fig. 2), the horizontal disposition of the {coupler} (20) relative to the ball mount (12) can be altered (Para. [0026] and Fig. 2 teach mounting the Coupler 20 at a selected height to accommodate different heights of Hitch Ball Assembly 12 of Tow Vehicle 2).
GARCIA does not teach that the adapter is a V-shape.
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 adapter of GARCIA’s hitch system a V-shape, since it has been held that changes in shape of an invention involve only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claims 18 and 20, (having different dependencies but similar limitations, differing in that claim 18 refers to an {elongated} portion of the adapter and claim 20 refers to a first elongated portion of the adapter) GARCIA further teaches that one of the guideway-defining means (18) and the [first, claim 20 only] {elongated} portion (42a) of the adapter (40) defines a series of through-openings (Transverse Holes 31 in Vertical Channel 18, Figs. 1 & 2) and the other of the guideway-defining means (18) and the [first] {elongated} portion (42a) of the adapter (40) defines one through-opening (an instance of Transverse Hole 45a in Channel Portion 42a, Figs. 2 & 3), and the [first] {elongated} portion (42a) of the adapter (40) is positionable along the length of the guideway (18) so that the one through-opening (45a) is aligned with one of the series of through-openings (an instance of Transverse Hole 45a being aligned with an instance of Transverse Holes 31 as illustrated in Fig. 2), and the means for releasably securing (32) includes a pin having a shank (Bolt 32 taught as a pin Para. [0028], a shank being inherent to a pin) which is positionable through the aligned one through-opening (45a) and the one of the series of through-openings (31) for pinning the adapter (40) to the guideway-defining means (an instance of Bolt 32 being positioned through an instance of Transverse Hole 45a and an instance of Transverse Hole 31 as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ravencroft (US-20140265248-A1) teaches claimed and unclaimed elements of the described invention drawn to a trailer tongue hitch mechanism with a guideway and adapter with closed tubular cross sections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611