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 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.
Claims 23-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the at least one sidewall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See additional grounds for indefiniteness in the 35 USC 112d section below, related to improper dependency, which raises ambiguity about the scope of the claims. Claim 24 is rejected for being dependent from rejected claim 23.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The subject matter of claims 23 and 24 is now in amended claim 21 and therefore fail to further limit. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 6, 10, 11, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Williamson (US 2019/0193497).
In re claim 1, Williamson discloses a trailer coupler lock assembly, comprising:
a rigid protective case (10, 28) defining a compartment configured to receive a trailer coupler (60); and
an interlock adapter (12) separate from the rigid protective case, the interlock adapter received in the compartment (as shown in Figure 1), the interlock adapter including an engagement member (13) configured to mate with a socket (62) of the trailer coupler in the compartment of the rigid protective case (as shown in Figure 3); the compartment configured to receive links and hooks (46, 54) of a safety chain assembly (50, 56). The Examiner notes that the links, the hooks, or the chain itself are not actually claimed as part of the scope of the claim, rather that the compartment simply has space capable of receiving links and hooks and Figure 2 has such a space in the compartment as shown in annotated Figure 2 below. Therefore Williamson’s compartment is configured to have the recited functionality in relationship to an unclaimed chain/hooks/links to which the claim scope does not extend.
PNG
media_image1.png
535
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner-annotated Figure 2
In re claim 11, Williamson discloses a trailer coupler lock assembly locked onto a trailer coupler (60):
the trailer coupler comprising a tow bar (portion of coupler 60 to the right of the safety chain as shown in Figure 3), a socket (62) attached to the tow bar, a safety chain assembly (50, 56) attached to the tow bar, the safety chain assembly including two chain segments (50, 56), each chain segment including a free end and a hook (46, 54) attached to the free end (as shown in Figure 2); and
the trailer coupler lock assembly comprising:
a rigid protective case (10, 28) defining a compartment configured to receive the socket of the trailer coupler and each hook and portions of each chain segment (as shown in annotated Figure 2 above), the rigid protective case including a safety chain retainer (42, 44); and
an interlock adapter (12) received in the compartment, the interlock adapter including an engagement member (13) configured to mate with the socket of the trailer coupler in the compartment of the rigid protective case (as shown in Figure 3).
In re claim 6, Williamson further discloses the rigid protective case including a plurality of openings (42, 44) that function as retention points configured to retain received links and hooks of the safety chain assembly (as shown in Figure 2). As discussed above, the chain, links, or hooks are not part of the scope of the claim, and Williamson’s case/compartment are configured to perform the recited functionality in relationship to an unclaimed chain/hooks/links to which the claim scope does not extend.
In re claims 10 and 20, Williamson further discloses the rigid protective case including a bottom panel (4), the bottom panel including a drainage aperture (42, 44).
In re claims 16, Williamson further discloses the safety chain retainer comprising a plurality of openings (42, 44) in the rigid protective case, the plurality of openings being configured as retention points and retaining portions of the safety chain assembly (as shown in Figure 2).
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Pratt (US 10,766,321).
In re claims 2 and 12, Williamson further discloses wherein the interlock adapter is preferably welded, but does not disclose it being removable from the compartment of the rigid protective case. Pratt, however, does disclose a rigid protective case (100) wherein the interlock adapter (139) removable from the compartment of the rigid protective case (via nut 118). 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 interlock adapter of Williamson such that it comprised the removable interlock adapter of Pratt to advantageously be able to interchange different size ball hitches or types of hitches to increase versatility, and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral (welded) structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Strickland (US 2021/0039458).
In re claims 5 and 15, Williamson discloses the trailer coupler lock assembly of claims 1 and 11, but does not disclose wherein the trailer coupler further includes an adjustment mechanism and wherein the rigid protective case including a sidewall extending over an adjustment mechanism of an adjustable trailer coupler.
Strickland, however, does disclose a trailer coupler having an adjustment mechanism (20) and lock including a sidewall (105, 110) extending over an adjustment mechanism (20) of an adjustable trailer coupler (as shown in Figure 2).
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 trailer coupler of Williamson such that it comprised the adjustment mechanism of Strickland to advantageously provide coupling adjustability, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
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 trailer lock of Williamson such that it comprised the adjustment mechanism sidewall lock of Strickland to prevent theft by preventing the detachment of the coupler to an adjustable trailer coupler, thus preventing someone from being able to attach their own coupler to steal the trailer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 14 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 “the rigid protective case including an aperture and a case hasp piece above the aperture, the case hasp piece comprising a first tab with a first hole, the interlock adapter including an interlock hasp piece comprising a second tab with a second hole, the interlock hasp piece extending through the aperture, the first tab being aligned with the second tab, and the first hole being aligned with the second hole” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the closest prior art does not disclose a trailer coupler lock assembly having an interlock adapter with an interlock hasp that extends through a case hasp piece to align holes in each.
Claim 32 allowed and Claims 7 and 17 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 “the rigid protective case including a rear opening with a retainer tab extending across a portion of the rear opening and a first gap on a first side of the retainer tab and a second gap on a second side of the retainer tab, the first gap providing a first space to receive first links of the safety chain assembly, and the second gap providing a second space to receive second links of the safety chain assembly” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the closest prior art does not disclose a trailer coupler lock assembly case having a retainer tab having a gap on each side to retain the safety chain links.
Claims 8 and 18 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 “the rigid protective case including a rear opening with first and second retainer tabs, each retainer tab extending across a portion of the rear opening and defining a retention notch, including a first retention notch and a second retention notch, and the first retention notch configured to receive a link of the safety chain assembly, and the second retention notch configured to receive another link of the safety chain assembly, and the first and second retention notches preventing removal of the safety chain assembly without unlocking the trailer coupler lock assembly” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the closest prior art does not disclose a trailer coupler lock assembly case having a pair of retainer tabs having retention notches to receive links of the safety chain to prevent removal.
Claim 33 allowed and Claims 9 and 19 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 “the first sidewall spaced apart from and parallel to the second sidewall, the first sidewall including a first slot, the second sidewall including a second slot, the interlock adapter including a first side edge configured to extend through the first slot and a second side edge configured to extend through the second slot, and a first flange extending from the first side edge, and a second flange extending from the second side flanges” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the closest prior art does not disclose a trailer coupler lock assembly case having a slot in each sidewall to receive the edges of the interlock adapter, which further includes a flange extending from each edge.
Claims 21, 22, and 25-31 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “a rigid protective case defining a compartment configured to receive an adjustable trailer coupler having an adjustment mechanism. the rigid protective case including two spaced apart sidewalls. each sidewall extending over a portion of the adjustment mechanism. the sidewalls being configured to prevent unfastening of fasteners of the adjustment mechanism by limiting access to the fasteners due to tight spacing between the sidewalls and the fasteners; and an interlock adapter, including an engagement member configured to mate with a socket of the adjustable trailer coupler, in the compartment of the rigid protective case” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the closest prior art does not disclose a rigid protective case with sidewalls preventing access to the fasteners as claimed while also containing an interlock adapter that mates with a socket of an adjustable trailer coupler.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Williamson does not disclose a compartment configured to receive links and hooks of a safety chain assembly. The Examiner notes that the links and hooks are not actually claimed as part of the scope of the claim, rather that the compartment simply has space capable of receiving links and hooks and Figure 2 has such a space in the compartment as shown in annotated Figure 2 above.
For Applicant’s convenience, please note that, should the chain links and hooks be distinctly claimed as part of the trailer coupler lock assembly and be received in and positioned within the compartment when in use, the Examiner notes that the proposed 35 USC 103 rejection below could be potentially presented to reject such a feature as obvious :
Claim 1 [as potentially amended in the future to include the safety chain] is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Bonvillain (US 6,244,614).
In re claim 1, Williamson discloses a trailer coupler lock assembly, comprising:
a rigid protective case (10, 28) defining a compartment configured to receive a trailer coupler (60); and
an interlock adapter (12) separate from the rigid protective case, the interlock adapter received in the compartment (as shown in Figure 1), the interlock adapter including an engagement member (13) configured to mate with a socket (62) of the trailer coupler in the compartment of the rigid protective case (as shown in Figure 3) and the compartment configured to receive hooks (46, 54) of a safety chain assembly (50, 56) (as shown in Figure 2).
Williamson does not disclose…(amended language here to distinctly claim the links and hooks and that the compartment receives the links of the safety chain assembly when in use).
Bonvillain discloses a trailer coupler lock assembly wherein the housing (2) extends further down the hitch tongue (1) to cover the securing lever (1b) (as shown in Figure 2).
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 housing of Williamson such that it comprised the extended length of Bonvillain to protect/block the securing lever. The Examiner notes that the extended length would inherently result in links of the chain being received in the compartment (as shown in annotated Figure 3 of Williamson below).
PNG
media_image2.png
402
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner-annotated Figure 3 of Williamson
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611