DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 1-2 & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. US 20030127827 A1 in view of McConkey et al. US 20080157493 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Hulsey et al. discloses [a trailer 10, comprising: a body frame 12 having a front end, a rear end, a first side and a second side;] (Fig. 6) [a tongue frame having a trailer coupler 54 at a first end] (Fig. 6; As shown in Fig. 6, Hulsey et al. illustrates the trailer coupler being disposed at the first end of the tongue frame.) and [a second end being movably attached to the body frame,] (Fig. 6; As shown in Fig. 6, Hulsey et al. illustrates a second end of the tongue frame being movably attached to the body 12.) [the tongue frame being movable between an operational position and a stored position,] (Fig. 6; Paragraph 0019) [the tongue frame being below and vertically offset from the body frame such that a top of the tongue frame is lower than a bottom of the body frame,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0030; Hulsey et al. discloses the tongue frame, is mounted longitudinal under the body 12, thus making the tongue frame below and vertically offset from the body.) [in the stored position at least the majority of the tongue frame is positioned below the body frame,] (Fig. 1; As shown in Fig. 1, Hulsey et al. illustrates a majority of the tongue frame being under the body 12 when in the retracted (stored) position.) [in the operational position the tongue frame extends forward from the body frame and the second end of the tongue frame remains below the body frame,] (Fig. 6; As shown in Fig. 6, Hulsey et al. illustrates the first end of the tongue frame extending forwardly from the body 12 and the second end of the tongue frame remaining below the body frame when in an extended (operational) position.) [the tongue frame being parallel to the body frame in both the operational and the stored position;] (Fig. 6; As shown in Fig. 6, Hulsey et al. illustrates wherein a portion of the tongue frame is parallel to the sides of the body in both the operational and stored positions.) [a locking mechanism for holding the tongue frame in the operational position.] (Fig. 6; Paragraph 0030; Hulsey et al. discloses lock apertures 88, 90 and locking pins 90, 92 that are located in extensions of the tongue frame.)
Hulsey et al. does not disclose at least one axle, each axle having a first wheel and a second wheel, the at least one axle being perpendicular to a direction of travel of the trailer.
McConkey et al. teaches [at least one axle, each axle 50 having a first wheel 60a and a second wheel 60b, the at least one axle being perpendicular to a direction of travel of the trailer.] (Fig. 2; Col. 4, lines 22-27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the axle and wheel arrangement of McConkey et al. with the of track system of Hulsey et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for standard load-bearing, steering, and transportation capabilities necessary for trailer functionality, thus providing the trailer with a reliable and conventional means of ground support and mobility.
Regarding claim 2, Hulsey et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the second end of the tongue frame fits between the first side and the second side of the body frame.] (Fig. 6 of Hulsey et al.; As shown in Fig. 6, Hulsey et al. illustrates the second end of the tongue frame being between the first and second sides of the body.)
Regarding claim 6, Hulsey et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the tongue frame has a lock pin aperture 88, 90 that corresponds to a body lock pin aperture positioned on at least one of the first side and the second side of the body frame,] (Fig. 6 of Hulsey et al.; Paragraph 0030; Hulsey et al. discloses lock pin apertures 88, 90 disposed on the second ends of the tongue frame. The apertures correspond to body lock pin apertures to receive lock pins 90, 92.) [a lock pin 90, 92 being insertable through the lock pin aperture and the body lock pin aperture to act as the locking mechanism.] (Fig. 6; Paragraph 0030)
Regarding claim 7, Hulsey et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the body lock pin aperture is positioned adjacent the front end of the body frame for locking the tongue frame in the operational position.] (Fig. 6 of Hulsey et al.; As shown in Fig. 6, Hulsey et al. illustrates the body lock pin aperture being positioned adjacent to the front end of the body frame for locking the tongue frame in the extended/operational position.)
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. US 20030127827 A1 in view of McConkey et al. US 20080157493 A1 and further in view of Logan et al. US 6116631 A.
Regarding claim 3, Hulsey et al., as modified, discloses [the tongue frame being able to be moved between the operational position and the stored position.] (Fig. 6 of Hulsey et al.; Paragraph 0030 of Hulsey et al.)
Hulsey et al., as modified does not disclose wherein a first roller movably engages the first side of the body frame and a second roller movably engages the second side of the body frame.
Logan et al. wherein [a first roller 36a, 38a movably engages the first side of the body frame and a second roller 36b, 36b movably engages the second side of the body frame.] (Fig. 1A; Col. 3, lines 14-18)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the roller configuration of Logan et al. with the trailer system of Hulsey et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for guided movement of the tongue frame between operational and stored positions, thus reducing friction and improving structural alignment.
Regarding claim 4, Hulsey et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the first roller and the second roller support the second end of the tongue frame. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the rearrangement of know elements does not confer patentability when such a modification does not alter the function or operation of the system. In this case, configuring the first and second rollers of Logan et al. to support the second end of the tongue frame of Hulsey et al., as modified, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art is it merely reconfigures the known system without yielding an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 5, Hulsey et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the trailer has a first roller structure and a second roller structure, each of the first roller structure and the second roller structure comprising an upper roller and a lower roller, the upper roller contacting a top of a lip on one of the first side and the second side of the body frame and the lower roller contacting a bottom of the lip on the first side or the second side, the first roller structure contacting the first side of the body frame and the second roller structure contacting the second side of the body frame.
Logan teaches [wherein the trailer has a first roller structure 21 and a second roller structure 23, each of the first roller structure and the second roller structure comprising an upper roller 36a, 36b and a lower roller 38a, 38b, the upper roller contacting a top of a lip 20, 22 on one of the first side and the second side of the body frame and the lower roller contacting a bottom of the lip on the first side or the second side,] (Fig. 1A & 2; As shown in Fig. 1A & 2, Logan et al. illustrates each of the first and second roller structures having an upper and lower roller. The upper and lower rollers contact both a top and bottom surface of a lip 20, 22 disposed on both sides of the hitch frame 16.) [the first roller structure contacting the first side of the body frame and the second roller structure contacting the second side of the body frame.] (Fig. 1A; As shown in Fig. 1A, Logan et al. illustrates the first roller structure 21 corresponding to the lips 20 on the first side of the hitch frame 16 and the second roller 23 structure corresponding to the lips 22 on the second side of the hitch frame 16.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the upper and lower roller structures of Logan et al. with the trailer system of Hulsey et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for stable lateral and vertical constraint of the tongue frame during movement, thus improving alignment, reducing vibration, and ensuring secure guidance of the tongue frame along both sides of the body frame during transition between stored and operational positions.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. US 20030127827 A1 in view of McConkey et al. US 20080157493 A1 and further in view of Brackett et al. US 20050194762 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Hulsey et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein a guide ram is provided to maintain alignment of the tongue frame relative to the body frame during movement between the operational position and the stored position.
Brackett at el. teaches [wherein a guide ram 14 is provided to maintain alignment of the tongue frame relative to the body frame during movement between the operational position and the stored position.] (Fig. 1-4; Paragraph 0026-0028)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the guide ram of Brackett et al. with the trailer system of Hulsey et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for controlled and accurate alignment of the tongue during movement between operational and stored positions, thus reducing the risk of misalignment, wear, or jamming, and improving overall structural reliability and ease of deployment.
Regarding claim 9, Hulsey et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a first portion of the guide ram 14 telescopes into a second portion of the guide ram 2 when the tongue frame is moved from the operational position to the stored position.] (Fig. 1 & 2 of Brackett et al.; As shown in Fig. 1 & 2, Brackett et al. illustrates a first portion of the guide ram 14 being arranged into an opening 30 of the second portion of the guide ram 2.)
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. US 20030127827 A1 in view of McConkey et al. US 20080157493 A1 and further in view of Alexander US 20110221168 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Hulsey et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein at least one foot is attached to the front end of the body frame, the at least one foot being movable between a storage positioned and a ground engagement position.
Alexander teaches [wherein at least one foot 406 is attached to the body frame,] (Fig. 12; As shown in Fig. 12, Alexander illustrates the foot 406 being attached to the frame of the trailer.) [the at least one foot being movable between a storage positioned and a ground engagement position.] (Fig. 11 & 12; As shown in Fig. 11 & 12, Alexander illustrates the foot 406 being moveable between a storage position (Fig. 11) and a ground engagement position (Fig. 12).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the movable foot structure of Alexander with the trailer system of Hulsey et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for stabilization of the trailer when stationary, particularly during loading or unloading, thus enhancing safety and operational convenience without altering the fundamental operation of the trailer system.
Regarding claim 11, Hulsey et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the tongue frame is movable between the operational position and the stored position using hydraulics.
Alexander teaches [wherein the tongue frame is movable between the operational position and the stored position using hydraulics.] (Fig. 13a; Paragraph 0058)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the hydraulic actuation system of Alexander with the trailer system of Hulsey et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for smoother, powered transition between positions, thus reducing manual effort and improving operational efficiency and user convenience during deployment and retraction of the tongue frame.
Regarding claim 12, Hulsey et al., as modified, discloses [wherein the tongue frame has a triangular shape such that the trailer coupler is positioned at an apex of the tongue frame.] (Fig. 6 of Hulsey et al.; As shown in Fig. 6, Hulsey et al. illustrates the tongue frame having a triangular shape with the trailer coupler being positioned at the apex of the triangle.)
Hulsey et al., as modified does not disclose wherein a base of the triangular shape is the second end being supported by the body frame.
Alexander teaches [wherein a base of the triangular shape is the second end being supported by the body frame.] (Fig. 1; As shown in Fig. 1, Alexander illustrates the base of the triangle having extensions which are attached to the body frame, thus having the second end of the triangular shape supported by the body frame.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the triangular base configuration of Alexander with the trailer system of Hulsey et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a structurally stable connection between the tongue frame and the body frame, thus enhancing load distribution and maintain alignment during the transition between operational and storage positions.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. US 20030127827 A1 in view of McConkey et al. US 20080157493 A1 and further in view of John US 2896969 A.
Regarding claim 13, Hulsey et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein a stop prevents the tongue frame from being disconnected from the body frame.
John teaches [a stop 23 prevents the tongue frame from being disconnected from the body frame.] (Fig. 2; Col 2, lines 47-57)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the stop mechanism of John with the trailer system of Hulsey et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a secure coupling between the tongue frame and the body frame, thus preventing unintentional disconnection and improving trailer safety during operation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. US 20030127827 A1 in view of McConkey et al. US 20080157493 A1 and further in view of a Second Embodiment of Hulsey et al. US 20030127827 A1.
Regarding claim 14, the first embodiment Hulsey et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the trailer coupler is hingedly attached to the tongue trailer such that the trailer coupler is movable between a horizontal orientation and a vertical orientation.
A second embodiment of Hulsey et al. teaches [wherein the trailer coupler is hingedly attached to the tongue trailer such that the trailer coupler is movable between a horizontal orientation and a vertical orientation.] (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0028; As shown in Fig. 4, the second embodiment of Hulsey et al. illustrates the trailer being pivotally attached to the tongue of the trailer such that the coupler is movable between a horizontal and vertical orientation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the hinged coupler configuration of the second embodiment of Hulsey et al. with the trailer system of the first embodiment of Hulsey et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for convenient storage of the trailer coupler, thus improving maneuverability and compatibility with various towing configurations.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. US 20030127827 A1 in view of McConkey et al. US 20080157493 A1, the Second Embodiment of Hulsey et al. US 20030127827 A1, and further in view of Frank US 2828142 A.
Regarding claim 15, Hulsey et al., as modified, discloses [wherein the trailer coupler is movable between the horizontal orientation and the vertical orientation.] (Fig. 4 of Second embodiment of Hulsey et al.; Paragraph 0028 of Second embodiment of Hulsey et al.; As shown in Fig. 4, the second embodiment of Hulsey et al. illustrates the trailer being pivotally attached to the tongue of the trailer such that the coupler is movable between a horizontal and vertical orientation.)
Hulsey et al., as modified, does not disclose a hydraulic ram attached to an underside of the trailer coupler.
Frank teaches [a hydraulic ram 15 attached to an underside of the trailer coupler.] (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 49-56; As shown in Fig. 1, Frank illustrates a hydraulic ram 15 disposed underneath the tow-bar 12 of the trailer coupler.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the hydraulic ram of Frank with the trailer system of Hulsey et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for powered and controlled movement of the trailer coupler between horizontal and vertical orientations, thus improving ease of use and reducing the need for manual adjustment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 08/05//2025 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 7, and 14 have been amended. In light of amendments, all objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05//2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-2, 6-7, and 14, applicant argues that neither Hulsey et al. nor McConkey et al. discloses a tongue frame that is below and vertically offset from the body frame of the trailer, and that both references teach tongue and body frames in coaxial alignment. As shown in Pages 1-2 of the Remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Fig. 1 of Hulsey et al., the tongue frame 18, 19 is positioned below the body 12 of the trailer, thus being below and vertically offset from the body frame of the trailer 10. As shown in Fig. 6, Hulsey et al. explicitly illustrates wherein the tongue extends forward from beneath the trailer body.
Regarding claims 3-5, applicant argues that Logan et al. discloses rollers for limited up-and-down movement of a trailer hitch and not for moving a tongue frame relative to a body frame. As shown in Pages 2-3 of the Remarks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Logan et al. teaches upper and lower rollers engaging both sides of a frame lip to support relative movement between structural members of a towing assembly. The use of rollers to permit controlled linear or telescopic motion between connected frame members would be applicable to the tongue-body configuration of Hulsey et al. as a means for motion guiding. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Logan’s roller arrangement to Hulsey’s telescoping system would provide a stable and low-friction guiding mechanism for smooth movement of the tongue frame relative to the body.
Regarding claims 8-9, applicant argues that Brackett et al. fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Hulsey and McConkey, asserting that Brackett is directed towards a trailer tongue extension and is silent on trailer body specifications. As shown in Page 3 of the Remarks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Brackett discloses a guide ram configured to maintain alignment between the tongue and body portions during movement. Incorporating Brackett’s alignment mechanism into Hulsey’s tongue frame configuration would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as it would ensure precise and stable motion between the tongue frame and the body (particularly where the tongue is extended and retracted.)
Regarding claim 10-12, applicant argues that Alexander does not teach or suggest the claimed configuration of the tongue and body, particularly that the tongue frame is positioned below and vertically offset from the body. As shown in Pages 3-4 of the Remarks. The examiner acknowledges that Alexander is not relied upon for this feature. As noted in the rejection, the configuration of the tongue frame being positioned below and connected to the body frame is explicitly disclosed in Hulsey (see Fig. 1 of Hulsey.) which illustrates the tongue frame extending beneath the trailer body and being connected thereto.
Regarding claim 13, applicant argues that John fails to describe a vertically offset tongue and shows a tongue coaxial with the body frame. As shown in Pages 4 of the Remarks. The examiner acknowledges that John is not relied upon for this feature. As noted in the rejection, the configuration of the tongue frame being positioned below and connected to the body frame is explicitly disclosed in Hulsey (see Fig. 1 of Hulsey.) which illustrates the tongue frame extending beneath the trailer body and being connected thereto.
Regarding claim 15, applicant argues that Frank fails to describe a vertically offset tongue wherein the tongue frame is positioned below the body. As shown in Pages 5 of the Remarks. The examiner acknowledges that Frank is not relied upon for this feature. As noted in the rejection, the configuration of the tongue frame being positioned below and connected to the body frame is explicitly disclosed in Hulsey (see Fig. 1 of Hulsey.) which illustrates the tongue frame extending beneath the trailer body and being connected thereto.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zimmerman US 20070145715 A1 – comprises a trailer hitch comprising: a frame having a front, a telescoping member slidably supported by the frame for telescoping from the frame front and wherein the telescoping member is movable laterally relative to the frame.
Waddell US 7823901 B2 – comprises a trailer for use in hauling loads behind a motor vehicle, where the trailer is of the fold-up type and includes a slidable bed that can extend and retract, at least one winch with cable attached to the slidably bed for operation between a use position and a stored position, a suspension system with wheels and tires for rolling support of the trailer when being towed, a hitch for connecting the trailer to the motor vehicle, and a hinge for cooperation in allowing the rotatable transitioning of the slidable bed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611