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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Australia on September 14, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the AU 2021232685 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicant’s comments in regards to supplying DAS Code, in the reply filed July 23, 2025, are insufficient.
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 7 – 9 are 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 7 recites the limitation "the lifting arm" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the lifting arm" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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 – 3, 5 and 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by patent number US 8,678,421 B1 to Williams, Jr. et al. (hereinafter referred to as Williams).
Regarding claims 1 – 3 and 5, Williams discloses an adjustable hitch (hitch apparatus 10) for use with a wheeled equipment (towed vehicle, claim 10), comprising:
[Claim 1] a machine mounting assembly (frame 12) attached to a motorised machine (vehicle V);
a lifting assembly (actuators 50 and 60), being adjustably connected to the machine mounting assembly, including at least one gas strut (actuators 50; pneumatic actuator, Col. 7, Lns. 7 – 12) connected to at least one lifting arm (members 12m) the at least one gas strut biased to push the at least one lifting arm up (as in Fig. 10); and
an engagement assembly (20, 30 and 34), being connected to the lifting arm, wherein it has a face (guide 20) and a jaw (pintle hook 34) that are configured to securely engage with the wheeled equipment (towed vehicle, claim 10);
wherein the at least one lifting arm (members 12m) comprises a planar upper surface (the upper surface of 12m near indicial 12a, in Fig. 5) whereby a downward force may be applied to the planar upper surface to lower the at least one lifting arm to facilitate the face and the jaw to securely engage the wheeled equipment from below (when actuating the actuators, even the gravity pulls down on the lifting arms, in addition to the actuator’s pulling force; Col. 2, Lns. 7 – 8).
[Claim 2] wherein a width between the face (guide 20) and the jaw (pintle hook 34) can be adjusted which allows a connection to wheeled equipment (towed vehicle, claim 10) with different size frames or tubes (the tow bar 30, carrying the pintle hook 34, can be adjusted between a retracted position shown in Fig. 6, and an extended position shown in Fig. 7; Col. 9, Lns. 6 – 22);
[Claim 3] wherein the jaw (pintle hook 34) connects to the face (guide 20) via two bolts (locking member 104 and clevis pin 34a; Figs. 6 and 7); and
[Claim 5] wherein the hitch (hitch apparatus 10) further comprises at least two brackets (the more frame elements 12e, Fig. 11A – 11C; Col. 9, Lns. 27 – 34) connected via the at least one lifting arm (members 12m) to the face (guide 20) and the jaw (pintle hook 34).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Williams discloses an adjustable hitch (hitch apparatus 10) for use with a wheeled equipment (towed vehicle, claim 10), comprising:
[Claim 7] a machine mounting assembly (frame 12) attached to a motorised machine (vehicle V);
a lifting assembly (actuators 50 and 60), being adjustably connected to the machine mounting assembly, including at least one gas strut (actuators 50; pneumatic actuator, Col. 7, Lns. 7 – 12) connected to at least one lifting arm (members 12m) in a manner so that the at least one the gas strut biased to push the lifting arm up (as in Fig. 10); and
an engagement assembly (20, 30 and 34), being connected to the at least one lifting arm, wherein it has a face (guide 20) and a jaw (pintle hook 34) that are configured to securely engage with the wheeled equipment (towed vehicle, claim 10);
wherein the lifting arm (members 12m) comprises a planar upper surface (the upper surface of 12m near indicial 12a, in Fig. 5) configured to receive a downward force applied thereto, the downward force capable of lowering the lifting arm to facilitate the face and the jaw to securely engage the wheeled equipment from below (when actuating the actuators, even the gravity pulls down on the lifting arms, in addition to the actuator’s pulling force; Col. 2, Lns. 7 – 8); and
[Claim 8] wherein the at least one gas strut is solely biased to push the at least one lifting arm up (the “The actuators may be …pneumatic actuators”; Col. 2, Lns. 7 – 8; the actuator is biased by the pneumatic force, to push at least one or all of the lifting arms 12m upward).
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 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, in view of patent application publication number US 20100071968 A1 to Gavarini et al. (hereinafter referred to as Gavarini).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Williams discloses the hitch of claim 1, wherein there are two lifting arms (members 12m). However, Williams does not disclose the two lifting arms allow the face to always be approximately 90 degrees to the horizontal plane of the machine.
Gavarini discloses a self-moving car for the moving of a trailer machine wherein two lifting arms (parallelogram are 21) allow a face (vertical face of coupling flange 22, as oriented in Figs. 1-3, 6, 8) to always be approximately 90 degrees to the horizontal plane of the machine to which it attaches (See Fig. 3 showing the coupling flange remains perpendicular to horizontal in a raised and a lowered position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Williams such that the face is always approximately 90 degrees to horizontal to keep the vehicle being lifted steady and prevent tilting.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, in view of patent number US 4,491,338 to Sheldrake.
Regarding claim 6, Williams discloses the hitch (hitch apparatus 10) of claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose the hitch further comprises nylon bushes which are fitted to two rotating brackets and connected via a pin.
However, Sheldrake discloses a hitch wherein a nylon bush (nylon bush 246) is fitted to pivoting parts and connected via a pin (steel pivot pin 248; Col. 7, Lns. 40 – 45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to add nylon bushes to the pivoting brackets of Williams, to reduce wear of the hitch and eliminate noise. And, although Sheldrake only discloses one nylon bush at one joint, it would have been obvious to add a nylon bush at each of the brackets/joints of Williams for even rotation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, Williams teaches the linear actuator (50) which effects a raising and lowering of the hitch is not biased to push the at least one lifting arm up as in claim 1 (Remarks, Page 6). However, the generally recognized definition of “bias”, when it relates to forces, means “applying a pushing force in a certain direction”. In this case, the actuators, including actuator (50), applies a horizontal and simultaneously vertical pushing force to all of the frame (12), at point (50b), to raise the frame. Since, frame member (12m) is a part of frame (12), then the actuator (50) also pushes frame member (12m) upwards. Also, actuator (12m) can be a gas strut (pneumatic, Col. 2, Lns. 7 – 8).
Applicant argues that the modification of Williams with Gavarini to address the limitations of claim 4 “wherein there are two lifting arms which allow the face to always be approximately 90 degrees to a horizontal plane of the machine” interferes with the intended operation of Williams device. Examiner disagrees with this assertion. From the Abstract, we see the purpose of the hitch is clearly stated.
“The hitch apparatus includes a user controlled positioning system with a user input device that is configured to allow a user to extend and retract the tow bar and to articulate the tow bar up-down and left-right so as to position the tow bar distal end at a desired position within a three-dimensional coordinate system.” (Abstract, Williams)
Since, the purpose of Williams’ hitch is to position the distal end (the face) of the hitch within a three-dimensional coordinate system, then modifying it to have two arms to ensure horizontal orientation of the distal end (the face) during positioning does not interfere with its operation and purpose.
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 Felicia L Brittman-Alabi whose telephone number is (313)446-6512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6.
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 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.
/Felicia L. Brittman-Alabi/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights