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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 30, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112b rejections (pages 12) and the 35 U.S.C. 102/ 103 rejections of claims 1-48 have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102/ 103 rejections of claims 49-52 (pages 15-17) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein the at least one stiffening region comprising at least two stiffening regions” would be more grammatically correct as “wherein the at least one stiffening region comprises at least two stiffening regions”. 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/ are:
“support element” introduced in claim 1 (because A – “element” is a nonce / placeholder term; B-“support” represents the function, and C-no structural limitations are recited, that may perform said function; in other words, the phrase is equivalent to “means for support(ing)”) which is herein interpreted to as: “individual bodies”, “plate-like elements”, “annular bodies” and their equivalents (paras. [0076]- [0078] of the written specification).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 49-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KADNIKOV (DE-102018124518-A1) in view of GENTNER (DE-102014111426-A1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claims 49, 52, and 53, (having similar limitations, differing as noted below), KADNIKOV teaches a trailer hitch for motor vehicles (Abstract; Trailer Coupling 20, Fig. 1), comprising a bearing unit (Pivot Bearing Unit 30, Fig. 1) which carries a ball neck (Ball Neck 40, Fig. 1) which at a first end (First End 42, Fig. 1) is connected to the bearing unit (30) and at a second end (Second End 44, Fig. 1) carries a hitch ball (Ball Neck 40 being connected to Pivot Bearing Unit 30 near First End 42 and having a Coupling Ball 46 disposed near Second End 44 as illustrated in Fig. 1), and a holding base (Bearing Base 32, Fig. 2) which supports the bearing unit (30) and which is connectable to a vehicle body (Vehicle Body 12, Fig. 1), by a crossmember (Cross Member 22, Fig. 1) mountable on the vehicle body (Cross Member 22 being mounted on Vehicle Body 12 as illustrated in Fig. 1), wherein the holding base (32) has a mounting body (Flange Body 36, Fig. 2) that has at least two interconnected shaped parts (Support Webs 38 & 39, Fig. 2 considered interconnected in that they are illustrated as connected together near Pivot Bearing Unit 30 in Fig. 5, and shaped in that they are illustrated as having defined external forms as illustrated in Fig. 6) made of flat material (Support Webs 38 & 39 being illustrated in Figs. 3 & 4 as having a cross-sectional profile with a substantially consistent thickness as in a flat sheet or plate), and wherein the mounting body (36) on the one hand forms a mounting region (Passage 64, Fig. 7; considered a mounting region in that it is an area in Flange Body 36 that supports Pivot Bearing Unit 30 as illustrated in Figs. 3 & 7) molded into the shaped parts (Passage 64 being formed into Support Webs 38 & 39 as illustrated in Fig. 7) and on the other hand forms at least one stiffening region (“BND”, Fig. 4 Annotated, considered stiffening regions in that they are illustrated as bends, which are known in the art to provide stiffness to parts made of otherwise flat material) arranged outside the mounting region (Stiffening Regions BND being disposed at some distance from Passage 64 as illustrated in Figs. 4 &7) and molded into the shaped parts (Stiffening Regions BND being integral parts of Support Webs 38 & 39 as illustrated in Fig. 4),
PNG
media_image1.png
550
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in the mounting region (64), at least one of the shaped parts (38 & 39) forms at least one support surface (Outer Side 86, Fig. 7) for the bearing unit (Outer Side 86 is illustrated in Figs. 6 & 7 as supporting Pivot Bearing Unit 30 in an axial direction along Pivot Axis 50 in the area of Passage 64 of Support Web 39);
wherein the shaped parts (38 & 39) are arranged on mutually opposed sides of a center plane (Plane 34, Fig. 3) of the mounting body (36) running transversely to the crossmember (Support Webs 38 & 39 being disposed on opposite sides of Plane 34, Plane 34 running in a transverse direction to Cross Member 22 and centrally to Flange Body 36 as illustrated in Fig. 3),
wherein each of the shaped parts (38 & 39) has a contour profile (a profile being formed by the flat material of Support Webs 38 & 39 as illustrated in Fig. 4) on the corresponding side of a center plane (Plane 34, Fig. 3) of the mounting body (36), has an extent between outer regions (“OR”, Fig. 4 Annotated) of the mounting body (36) but varies by reshaping of the flat material transversely to the areal extent of said material (the contour profile of each of Support Webs 38 & 39 being reshaped by the Stiffening Regions BND such that it varies in a transverse direction from the flat contour each of the Support Webs 38 & 39 have in the area of the Flange Body 36 as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated); and
{wherein the mounting body (36) has, on a side of the mounting region (64) opposite to the at least one stiffening region (BND) holding flanges (Support Webs 38 & 39, Fig. 4) for connection to the crossmember (22) of the trailer hitch (Support Webs 38 & 39 connecting to Cross Member 22, Fig. 4) [claim 52 only]}.
KADNIKOV does not teach a bulge formed in the mounting body [claim 49 only].
GENTNER teaches, in another trailer coupling (Abstract), a mounting body (Support Base 32, Fig. 7) which has a bulge (“BLG”, Fig. 7 Annotated) running away from a center plane (a plane central to Support Base 32 and parallel to the face indicated by “FC” in Fig. 7 Annotated) of the mounting body (Bulge BLG being formed into Support Base 32 and extending in a direction away from the central plane of Support Base 32).
PNG
media_image2.png
583
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of KADNIKOV and GENTNER in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KADNIKOV’s trailer hitch to include a bulge formed in the mounting body as suggested by GENTNER. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a bulge for stiffening that would beneficially make a stronger assembly. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the bulge as a bend in the flat material as suggested by the bends (BND) taught by KADNIKOV, and doing so would have the advantage of using a similar manufacturing process already used on the part that would beneficially make an easier and cheaper part to manufacture.
KADNIKOV does not teach an embossed portion below the holding flanges [claim 52 only].
GENTNER teaches a contour profile (“BLG”, Fig. 7 Annotated) that includes an embossed portion (Teeth 116, Fig. 7) that extends below holding flanges (“HF”, Fig. 4 Annotated) (Teeth 116 being disposed below Holding Flanges HF, Figs. 4 and 7).
PNG
media_image3.png
681
966
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of KADNIKOV and GENTNER in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KADNIKOV’s trailer hitch to include an embossed portion as suggested by GENTNER. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing positive engagement between assembly parts that would beneficially make a stronger assembly. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the embossed portion as a bend in the flat material as suggested by the bends (BND) taught by KADNIKOV, and doing so would have the advantage of using a similar manufacturing process already used on the part that would beneficially make an easier and cheaper part to manufacture.
KADNIKOV does not teach that the contour profile extends below a central axis of the bearing unit [claim 53 only].
GENTNER teaches a shaped part (Support Base 32, Fig. 7, considered a shaped part in that it has defined external forms as illustrated in Fig. 7) which has a contour profile (“BLG”, Fig. 7 Annotated) wherein at least a portion of the contour profile extends at least partly below a central axis (Pivot Axis 50, Fig. 7) of a bearing unit (Pivot Bearing Unit 30, Fig. 5) (at least a portion of Contour Profile BLG extending below Pivot Axis 50 as illustrated in Fig. 7 Annotated).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of KADNIKOV and GENTNER in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KADNIKOV’s trailer hitch such that that the contour profile extends below a central axis of the bearing unit as suggested by GENTNER. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of extending a structural support that would beneficially make a stiffer mount.
Regarding Claim 50, KADNIKOV further teaches that at least one of the shaped parts (38 & 39) in the at least one stiffening region (BND) has molded-in beads or bent edges (the Stiffening Regions BND of Support Webs 38 & 39 being formed as bent edges as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 51, KADNIKOV further teaches that at least one of the shaped parts (38 & 39) in the at least one stiffening region (BND) has molded-in beads or bent edges (the Stiffening Regions BND of Support Webs 38 & 39 being formed as bent edges as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated).
KADNIKOV does not teach a bulge formed in the mounting body as claimed but GENTNER does (see the 103 rejection of claim 49 above for the teachings of GENTNER and motivation to combine them with the trailer hitch of KADNIKOV).
Regarding Claim 54, KADNIKOV does not teach bend portions of a single shaped part that extend in different directions.
GENTNER teaches a contour profile (BLG) with portions extending in different directions (Contour/ Bulge BLG having portions which extending in different directions, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of KADNIKOV and GENTNER in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KADNIKOV’s trailer hitch to include contour portions that extend in different directions as suggested by GENTNER. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of extending a structural support that would beneficially make a stiffer mount. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the contour portions as bends in the flat material as suggested by the bends (BND) taught by KADNIKOV, and doing so would have the advantage of using a similar manufacturing process already used on the part that would beneficially make an easier and cheaper part to manufacture.
Regarding Claim 55, KADNIKOV does not teach an embossed portion/ embossing, but GENTNER does (see the 103 rejection of claim 52 above for the teachings of GENTNER and motivation to combine them with the trailer hitch of KADNIKOV).
Regarding Claim 56, KADNIKOV does not teach stiffening regions in one shaped part that extend transversely to each other.
GENTNER teaches stiffening regions (BLG) with portions extending transversely to each other (Stiffening Regions/ Bulge BLG having at least portions which extending transversely to each other, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of KADNIKOV and GENTNER in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KADNIKOV’s trailer hitch to include stiffening regions that extend transversely to each other as suggested by GENTNER. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of extending a structural support that would beneficially make a stiffer mount.
Regarding Claim 57, KADNIKOV does not teach at least two bends in one shaped part.
GENTNER teaches multiple stiffening regions (BLG) in a shaped part (Support Base 32, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of KADNIKOV and GENTNER in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KADNIKOV’s trailer hitch to include at least two bends in one shaped part as suggested by GENTNER. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of increasing the structural support that would beneficially make a stiffer mount. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the stiffening regions as bends in the flat material as suggested by the bends (BND) taught by KADNIKOV, and doing so would have the advantage of using a similar manufacturing process already used on the part that would beneficially make an easier and cheaper part to manufacture.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 is not made because the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art of record. Every element of the claims is not taught by any of the references individually and the prior art of record fails to permissibly teach the overall combination as claimed. Even if one could construe the prior art of record such that the combination disclosed each and every limitation of the claims, the ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references in reference to themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The closest prior art of record, as highlighted above, KADNIKOV and GENTNER, generally discloses a trailer hitch with similar components of claim 1.
However, neither KADNIKOV, GENTNER, nor the other prior art cited in previous office actions specifically disclose support elements in the form of individual bodies, plate-like elements, annular bodies or their equivalents, which are disposed between and support mounting regions as claimed.
Even if each and every element of the present invention were taught individually by the aforementioned references, combining the references as an ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references present in the aforementioned references themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In view of the foregoing, claims 1,4,6-7,9-40 and 42-48 are allowed, and claim 41 would be allowable if the corresponding claim objection is corrected.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights