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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 7, 2025, regarding the 112b rejections (pages 11-13) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related rejections have been withdrawn; however – in light of the amendment -see the newly raised 112b rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections (pages 14- 17) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, therefore the related rejections have been maintained:
Regarding the applicant’s argument (“A. (a)”, page 14) that KADNIKOV does not teach all of the features of claim 1, as amended, because the bend lines of KADNIKOV are not stiffening regions and are not on opposite sides of the housing region as claimed, the examiner disagrees. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a bend placed in a plate material as in KADNIKOV would serve to stiffen the plate. Further, the bends are on opposite sides of the mounting region as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 1 below.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (“A. (b)”, page 14) that neither KADNIKOV nor GENTNER teach a bulge in a contour profile as claimed, the examiner disagrees- pointing to the 103 rejections of claims 28 and 49 below which detail the claimed features.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (“A. (c)”, page 14) that KADNIKOV does not teach the holding flanges as claimed, the examiner disagrees- pointing to the 103 rejections of claims 41 and 52 below which detail the claimed features.
In response to applicant's argument (“B”, page 15) that the teachings of GENTNER are not combinable with those of KADNIKOV because GENTNER relies on a cast component where KADNIKOV relies on flat material, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981), MPEP 2145 (III). In this case the teachings of GENTNER suggest adding certain features such as the claimed bulge in order to provide added stiffness (see the 103 rejection of claim 28 below). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that similar features could be added to the apparatus of KADNIKOV by any of the methods known in the art, such as stamping or embossing.
In response to applicant's argument (page 17, paras. 3- 4: “As far as…”) that the Base 40 and Holding Elements 100 & 102 of HAUSTEIN do not teach the claimed spaced shaped parts because Base 40 is a single part and Holding Elements 100 & 102 are not the mounting region, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981), MPEP 2145 (III). In this case the teachings of HAUSTEIN would suggest spacing apart the Support Webs 38 & 39 of KADNIKOV (see the 103 rejection of claim 42 below).
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 1-48 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the contour profile of at least one of the shaped parts has the at least one stiffening region at least on opposite sides outside of the mounting region” renders the claims indefinite because the phrases “at least one of the shaped parts/ stiffening regions” are at odds with the phrase “on opposite sides” because to be on opposite sides implies the existence of at least two shaped parts/ stiffening regions instead of at least one. Therefore it is not clear whether a single shaped part/ stiffening region would be sufficient to be regarded as the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 41, the limitation “between stiffening regions of the at least one stiffening region” renders the claims indefinite because the phrase “between stiffening regions” is at odds with the phrase “of the at least one stiffening region” because to be between stiffening regions implies the existence of at least two stiffening regions instead of at least one. Therefore it is not clear whether a single stiffening region would be sufficient to be regarded as the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-48 are 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)(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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-19, 21-24, 26-27, 29, 34-41, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KADNIKOV (DE-102018124518-A1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 1, 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),
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) that, 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 contour profile of at least one of the shaped parts (38 & 39) has the at least one stiffening region (BND) at least on opposite sides outside of the mounting region (an instance of Stiffening Region BND being disposed on either of the left and right sides of Passage 64 on Flange Body 36 as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, KADNIKOV further teaches that each of the shaped parts (38 & 39) is formed in one piece (each of Support Webs 38 & 39 being illustrated as singular pieces in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 6, KADNIKOV further teaches that the mounting region (64) is molded into the contour profile of at least one of the shaped parts (Passage 64 being formed- i.e. molded- into the flat contour profile of Support Webs 38 & 39 as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated and Figs. 10 & 11).
Regarding Claim 7, KADNIKOV further teaches that the at least one stiffening region (BND) is molded in the contour profile of at least one of the shaped parts (Stiffening Regions BND being formed- i.e. molded- into the flat contour profile of Support Webs 38 & 39 as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 8, KADNIKOV further teaches that an aperture (Passage 64 forming a hole- i.e. aperture, Fig. 7) is provided in the mounting region (64) to partially receive the bearing unit (Pivot Bearing Unit 30 extending into Passage 64 as illustrated in Fig. 7) and penetrates the shaped parts (Passage 64 extending through both Support Webs 38 & 39 as illustrated in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 9, KADNIKOV further teaches that the support surface (Outer Side 86) in the respective shaped part (38 & 39) is arranged outside the aperture (Outer Side 86 of Support Web 39 being arranged outside of Passage 64 as illustrated in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 10, KADNIKOV further teaches that the support surface (Outer Side 86) in the respective shaped part (38 & 39) is arranged running around the aperture (Outer Side 86 of Support Web 39 being arranged such that it extends on all sides around Passage 64 as illustrated in Figs. 4 & 7).
Regarding Claim 11, KADNIKOV further teaches that the aperture (64) has a shape deviating from a rotational symmetry with respect to a center axis of the aperture (Para. [0116] and Fig. 11 teach the Passage 64 having Form-Locking Elements 82 arranged such that there is only one rotational position of Pivot Bearing Unit 30 relative to Flange Body 36 where the two parts are able to engage; this property being achieved by arranging Form-Locking Elements 82 asymmetrically around a center axis of Passage 64 as illustrated in Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 12, KADNIKOV further teaches that the aperture (64) is configured to receive a portion of the bearing unit (Passage 64 receiving a portion of Pivot Bearing Unit 30 as illustrated in Figs. 5 & 7).
Regarding Claim 13, KADNIKOV further teaches that the bearing unit (30) abuts with a support element (Bearing Ring 210, Fig. 15) against the support surface (Bearing Ring 210 abutting Outer Side 86 as illustrated in Figs. 7 & 15 to support Pivot Bearing Body 60 of Pivot Bearing Unit 30 as taught in Para. [0155]).
Regarding Claim 14, KADNIKOV further teaches that the bearing unit (30) is supported on each of the shaped parts (Pivot Bearing Unit 30 being supported by Support Web 38 through Support Unit 90 as illustrated in Fig. 14; and by Support Web 39 as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding Claim 15, KADNIKOV further teaches that the bearing unit (30) is supported on each, of the shaped parts (38 & 39) in the region of the aperture (Pivot Bearing Unit 30 being supported by Support Web 38 through Support Unit 90, which is disposed inside of Passage 64 as illustrated in Figs. 7 & 14; and by Support Web 39 as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding Claim 16, KADNIKOV further teaches that the bearing unit (30) has a bearing body (Pivot Bearing Body 60, Fig. 7) which engages in the aperture (Pivot Bearing Body 60 engaging Passage 64 as illustrated in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 17, KADNIKOV further teaches that the bearing body (60) is supported on one side (the right side in Fig. 15) of the mounting body (36) by a support body (Bearing Ring 210, Fig. 15) and on an opposite side (the left side in Fig. 14) of the mounting body (Flange Body 36) by a holding element (a Support Unit 90 being disposed on the left side of Flange Body 36 as illustrated in Fig. 14, considered a holding element in that it blocks movement- i.e. holds- of the Pivot Bearing Body 60 as taught in Para. [0162]).
Regarding Claim 18, KADNIKOV further teaches that the bearing body (Pivot Bearing Body 60) is supported on one side (the right side in Fig. 15) of the mounting body (36) by a support body (Bearing Ring 210, Fig. 15) and on an opposite side (the left side in Fig. 14) of the mounting body (Flange Body 36) by a holding element (a Support Unit 90 being disposed on the left side of Flange Body 36 as illustrated in Fig. 14, considered a holding element in that it blocks movement- i.e. holds- of the Pivot Bearing Body 60 as taught in Para. [0162]), wherein the bearing body (60) has a bearing sleeve (Extension 62, Fig. 14) which penetrates the aperture (64) and which, on a side opposite the support body (210), has a holding extension (Guide Body 120, Fig. 15), which protrudes beyond the aperture and has a holding receptacle (Guide Body 120 extending through Passage 64 opposite of Bearing Ring 210 and having Holding Receptacle “HR”, Fig. 13 Annotated), to which the holding element (90) is fixable (the Support Unit 90 being fixable with Guide Body 120 as taught in Para. [0157]).
PNG
media_image2.png
549
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, KADNIKOV further teaches that the bearing unit (30) abuts with a support element (Bearing Ring 210, Fig. 15) against the support surface (Bearing Ring 210 abutting Outer Side 86 as illustrated in Figs. 7 & 15 to support Pivot Bearing Body 60 of Pivot Bearing Unit 30 as taught in Para. [0155]), wherein the holding element (90) and the holding receptacle (HR) are configured so as to cooperate in such a way that the holding element (90) is movable towards the support element (210) by a relative movement in relation to the holding receptacle (Support Unit 90 being mounted to Holding Receptacle HR along coordinating cylindrical faces such that Support Unit 90 would be moveable left and right along an axial direction, the direction to the right being towards Bearing Ring 210, as illustrated in Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 21, KADNIKOV further teaches that the bearing unit (30) is configured as a pivot bearing unit (Pivot Bearing Unit 30 being named such), on which the ball neck (40) is mounted pivotably about a pivot axis (Para. [0107] teaches that Pivot Bearing Unit 30, which is formed with Ball Neck 40, is rotatable about Pivot Axis 50).
Regarding Claim 22, KADNIKOV further teaches that the mounting body (36) and also the center plane (34) of the mounting body (Flange Body 36) extends perpendicularly to the pivot axis (Plane 34 of Flange Body 36 being disposed perpendicularly to Pivot Axis 50 as illustrated in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 23, KADNIKOV further teaches that an aperture (Passage 64 forming a hole- i.e. aperture, Fig. 7) is provided in the mounting region (64) to partially receive the bearing unit (Pivot Bearing Unit 30 extending into Passage 64 as illustrated in Fig. 7), wherein the pivot bearing unit (30) penetrates the aperture (Pivot Bearing Body 60 of Pivot Bearing Unit 30 extending through- i.e. penetrating- Passage 64 as illustrated in Fig. 7) and on one side (right in Fig. 7) of the aperture (64) supports the ball neck pivotably (Pivot Bearing Body 60 of Pivot Bearing Unit 30 being connected to Ball Neck 40 on the right side as illustrated in Fig. 7 and on the other side (left in Fig. 7) of the aperture (64) has a drive unit (Drive Motor 240, Fig. 13) for locking the ball neck (40) in a working position and/or a rest position and/or for performing a pivoting movement between the working and rest positions (Para. [157] teaches Drive Motor 240 rotating in one direction to move Pivot Bearing Body 60 into a fixing position- i.e. working position- and Para. [0159] teaches Drive Motor 240 rotating in an opposite direction to move Pivot Bearing Body 60 into a release position- i.e. rest position).
Regarding Claim 24, KADNIKOV further teaches that the shaped parts (38 & 39) are fixedly connected to one another in the at least one stiffening region (Support Webs 38 & 39 being fixedly joined in the area of the Stiffening Regions BND as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 26, KADNIKOV further teaches that the at least one stiffening region (BND) comprises a plurality of stiffening regions (BND) that extend as far as the outer regions (OR) of the mounting body (Stiffening Regions BND extending to the Outer Regions OR of Flange Body 36 as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 27, KADNIKOV further teaches that the at least one stiffening region (BND) comprises a plurality of the stiffening regions (BND) that run along outer regions (OR) of the mounting body (Stiffening Regions BND running along at least one of the Outer Regions OR of Flange Body 36; particularly “OR1” as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 29, 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 34, KADNIKOV further teaches that the shaped parts (38 & 39) have connection segments (“CS”, Fig. 4 Annotated) lying against one another in at least one stiffening region (Connection Segments CS of Support Webs 38& 39 lying against one another in the Stiffening Region BND as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 35, KADNIKOV further teaches that the shaped parts (38 & 39) are connected to one another in the region of the connection segments (CS) with a substance-to-substance bond (the Support Webs 38 & 39 being joined together in the region of the Connection Segments CS as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated).
The limitation “the shaped parts are connected to one another… with a substance-to-substance bond” is a product by process limitation, wherein “- a substance-to-substance bond” is the process by which the connected shaped parts are produced. As this limitation is a product by process limitation, the limitation is only examined with regard to the claimed product, a bumper mount. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113. KADNIKOV discloses the shaped parts being connected (the Support Webs 38 & 39 being joined together as illustrated in Fig. 4). Accordingly, KADNIKOV discloses the limitation of “the shaped parts are connected to one another… with a substance-to-substance bond”. Note also that KADNIKOV discloses welding of the Support Webs 38 & 39 to the Cross Member 22 (Para. [0106]); welding being considered a substance-to-substance bond based on Para. [0183] of the instant application’s written description.
Regarding Claim 36, KADNIKOV further teaches that the shaped parts (38 & 39) are connected to one another in the region of the connection segments (CS) with positive engagement (Figs. 9-11 and Para. [0116] teach Form-Fitting Surfaces 72 of Pivot Bearing Body 60 positively engaging with Form-Fitting Surfaces 82 of Flange Body 36, which forms a connection between the Support Webs 38 & 39).
Regarding Claim 37, KADNIKOV further teaches that, to form each stiffening region (BND), the flat material of at least one of the shaped parts (38 & 39) runs in the corresponding stiffening region (BND) at least in some regions (“R1”, Fig. 4 Annotated) at a greater spacing from the other of the shaped parts (38 & 39) than in the mounting region (Region R1 of Support Web 38 being spaced apart from Support Web 39 at a spacing greater than the spacing between the two Support Webs 38 & 39 in the area of Passage 64, as they are joined together in that area, as illustrated in Figs. 4 Annotated & 7; a similar region existing on Support Web 39 as illustrated in Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 38, KADNIKOV further teaches that the shaped parts (38 & 39) in the at least one stiffening region (BND) have at least one reshaping (Stiffening Region BND being considered a reshaping of Support Webs 38 & 39), by which the flat material of the shaped parts (38 & 39) runs in the at least one stiffening region (BND) in some regions (R1 and the corresponding region in Support Web 39, as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 37 above) at a greater spacing from one another than in the mounting region (Region R1 of Support Web 38 being spaced apart from Support Web 39 at a spacing greater than the spacing between the two Support Webs 38 & 39 in the area of Passage 64, as they are joined together in that area, as illustrated in Figs. 4 Annotated & 7; a similar region existing on Support Web 39 as illustrated in Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 39, KADNIKOV further teaches that the shaped parts (38 & 39) in the at least one stiffening region (BND) have reshapings (BND) which cause the flat material of at least one of the shaped parts (38 & 39) to be increasingly distanced from the flat material of the other of the shaped parts (38 & 39) at least in some regions (Support Web 38 having a reshaping in the form of Stiffing Region BND which causes the flat material of Support Web 38 to be increasingly spaced apart from Support Web 39 in Region R1 as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated; a similar region existing on Support Web 39 as illustrated in Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 40, KADNIKOV further teaches that the shaped parts (38 & 39) have, on a side opposite the crossmember (22), at least one connection segment (Flange Body 36 forming a connection segment) by which the shaped parts (38 & 39) are fixedly connected to one another (Support Webs 38 & 39 being fixedly connected to each other by Flange Body 36, which is disposed, at least in part, opposite of the Cross Member 22 from Pivot Bearing Unit 30 as illustrated in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
378
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 41, KADNIKOV further teaches that the mounting body (36) has, on a side (“S1”, Fig. 6 Annotated) lying between stiffening regions (Side S1 being disposed between Stiffening Regions BND as illustrated in Annotated Figs. 4 & 6) of the at least one stiffening region (BND), holding flanges (“HF”, Fig. 6 Annotated) for connection to the crossmember (22) of the trailer hitch (Holding Flanges HF being disposed on Side S1 of Flange Body 36 as illustrated in Fig. 6 Annotated, the Holding Flanges HF being connected to Cross Member 22 as illustrated in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 52, KADNIKOV teaches a trailer hitch for motor vehicles with substantially the same features as the trailer hitch of claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above) and further teaches that the mounting body (36) has, on a side (“S1”, Fig. 6 Annotated) of the mounting region (64) opposite to the at least one stiffening region (Side S1 being disposed opposite of one of the Stiffening Regions BND as illustrated in Annotated Figs. 4 & 6 Annotated) holding flanges (“HF”, Fig. 6 Annotated) for connection to the crossmember (22) of the trailer hitch (Holding Flanges HF being disposed on Side S1 of Flange Body 36 as illustrated in Fig. 6 Annotated, the Holding Flanges HF being connected to Cross Member 22 as illustrated in Fig. 4).
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 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KADNIKOV.
Regarding Claim 20, KADNIKOV further teaches that a plurality of fastening openings (“FO”, Fig. 17 Annotated) for connection elements (“CE”, Fig. 17 Annotated) for mounting of the bearing unit (Connection Elements CE mounting Outer Housing 200 of Pivot Bearing Unit 30 as illustrated in Fig. 17 Annotated), said openings (FO) penetrating {one} shaped part (38), are provided in the mounting region (64), in particular around the aperture (64) and at a spacing therefrom (the Fastening Openings FO being disposed around Passage 64 and spaced from it as illustrated in Fig. 17 Annotated).
PNG
media_image4.png
463
731
media_image4.png
Greyscale
KADNIKOV does not teach that the fastening openings penetrate the shaped parts.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the blind hole of KADNIKOV with a through hole that penetrated the shaped parts as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent fastener hole types recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 25, KADNIKOV further teaches that the mounting body (Flange Body 36) has a stiffening region (BND) on {either side} of the mounting region (an instance of Stiffening Region BND being disposed on either of the left and right sides of Passage 64 on Flange Body 36 as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated).
KADNIKOV does not teach that the stiffening region are on all sides of the mounting region.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the stiffening regions taught by KADNIKOV as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. It is further noted that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the stiffening regions taught by KADNIKOV to all sides of the mounting region in order to advantageously reinforce all sides of the mounting region that would beneficially make a more robust trailer hitch.
Claims 28, 30-33, and 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KADNIKOV in view of GENTNER (DE-102014111426-A1).
Regarding Claim 28, KADNIKOV does not teach a bulge formed in the mounting body.
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_image5.png
583
735
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The bulge (BLG) of GENTNER is arranged such that it is formed by a bead (the Bulge BLG being formed in the shape of a bead as it is ridge shaped) of a shaped part (the Bulge BLG being formed into Support Base 32, which is considered a shaped part in that it has defined external forms as illustrated in Fig. 7) (note: these teachings relate to claim 30 as discussed below).
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.
Regarding Claim 31, KADNIKOV does not teach stepped embossings.
GENTNER teaches a shaped part (32) with stepped embossings (Teeth 116, Fig. 7) that are in a stiffening region (Teeth 116 being disposed in a region between Bulges BLG that provide stiffening to the generally flat material of Support Base 32).
The stepped embossings (116) of GENTNER are arranged such that at least one of the stepped embossings (116) of the flat material (the flat portion of Support Base 32) is formed in a manner running around a mounting region (the Teeth 116 being disposed around a Passage 64, the Passage 64 being considered a mounting region in that it is where a Pivot Element 80 is mounted to Support Base 32 as illustrated in Fig. 9) (note: these teachings relate to claim 32 as discussed below).
The stepped embossings (116) of GENTNER are arranged such that at least one of the stepped embossings (116) of the flat material (32) extends in the vicinity of an outer region (“OR-G”, Fig. 7 Annotated) of the mounting body (the Teeth 116 extending in the vicinity of Outer Region OR-G as illustrated in Fig. 7 Annotated) (note: these teachings relate to claim 33 as discussed below).
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 stepped embossings 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.
Regarding Claims 32 and 33, KADNIKOV, as modified above by GENTNER, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 31 above for the teachings of GENTNER and motivation to combine them with the trailer hitch of KADNIKOV).
Regarding Claim 49, KADNIKOV teaches a trailer hitch for motor vehicles with substantially the same features as the trailer hitch of claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above) and GENTNER teaches the claimed bulge (see the 103 rejection of claim 28 above for the teachings of GENTNER and motivation to combine them with the trailer hitch of KADNIKOV).
Regarding Claims 30 and 51, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), 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 28 above for the teachings of GENTNER and motivation to combine them with the trailer hitch of KADNIKOV).
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).
Claims 42-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KADNIKOV in view of Haustein (EP-2095978-A1; see also the English translation attached as NPL).
Regarding Claim 42, KADNIKOV does not teach that the shaped parts are spaced apart in the mounting region.
Haustein teaches, in another trailer coupling (Abstract), shaped parts (Holding Elements 100 & 102, Fig. 3) for mounting a coupling ball (Coupling Ball 44, Fig. 1) in a mounting region (Opposite Surface 124, Fig. 3), where the shaped parts (100 & 102) in the mounting region (124) are arranged at a spacing relative to one another (Holding Elements 100 & 102 being spaced apart from each other in the region of Opposite Surface 124 as illustrated in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of KADNIKOV and Haustein in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KADNIKOV’s trailer hitch such that the shaped parts are spaced apart in the mounting region as suggested by Haustein. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of increasing the distance between structural parts that would beneficially make a stiffer mount.
Regarding Claim 43, KADNIKOV does not teach support elements acting between the shaped parts.
Haustein teaches that the shaped parts (100 & 102) are held, in the mounting region (124), running at a spacing from one another by a support element (Base 40, Fig. 1) acting between the shaped parts (Holding Elements 100 & 102 being held apart by Base 40 in the area of Opposite Surface 124 as illustrated in Fig. 3).
The support element (40) of Haustein is arranged such that in the mounting region (124), the support element (40) is arranged in a gap between the shaped parts (100 & 102) and support the shaped parts (100 & 102) relative to one another (Base 40 being disposed in a gap between Holding Elements 100 & 102 as illustrated in Fig. 3) (note: these teachings relate to claim 44 as discussed below).
The support element (40) of Haustein is further arranged such that the support element (40) is an individual body which extends from one shaped part to the other (Base 40 being an individual body and extending from Holding Element 100 to Holding Element 102 as illustrated in Fig. 3) (note: these teachings relate to claim 45 as discussed below).
The support element (40) of Haustein is further arranged such that the support element (40) is a plate element which is formed from flat material (Base 40 being formed as a flat plate element as illustrated in Fig. 3) (note: these teachings relate to claim 46 as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of KADNIKOV and Haustein in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KADNIKOV’s trailer hitch to include support elements acting between the shaped parts as suggested by Haustein. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing structural support to the mounting parts that would beneficially make a more robust assembly.
KADNIKOV, as modified above by Haustein, does not teach a plurality of support elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the singular support element taught by KADNIKOV, as modified by Haustein, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claims 44-46, KADNIKOV, as modified above by Haustein, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 43 above for the teachings of Haustein and motivation to combine them with the trailer hitch of KADNIKOV).
Claims 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KADNIKOV, Haustein, and GENTNER.
Regarding Claim 47, KADNIKOV further teaches that an aperture (Passage 64 forming a hole- i.e. aperture, Fig. 7) is provided in the mounting region (64) to partially receive the bearing unit (Pivot Bearing Unit 30 extending into Passage 64 as illustrated in Fig. 7).
KADNIKOV, as modified above to include support elements by Haustein, does not teach that the support elements are annular bodies running around the aperture.
GENTNER teaches support elements (Support Surfaces 118, Fig. 7) formed as annular bodies running in a closed manner which run around an aperture (Support Surfaces 118 being formed as annular bodies which, together with the segments of Teeth 116, form a closed body around Passage 64 as illustrated in Fig. 7).
The support elements (118) of GENTNER are arranged such that they have a cut-out that is congruent with the aperture (the inner- i.e. Passage 64 facing- sides of Support Surfaces 118 being shaped- i.e. cutout- such that they are congruent with the shape of the Passage 64 as illustrated in Fig. 7) (note: these teachings relate to claim 48 as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of KADNIKOV, Haustein, and GENTNER in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KADNIKOV’s trailer hitch, as modified above, such that the support elements are annular bodies running around the aperture as suggested by GENTNER. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing continuous structural support around the pivot point that would beneficially make a more robust assembly.
Regarding Claim 48, KADNIKOV, as modified above by Haustein and GENTNER, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 47 above for the teachings of GENTNER and motivation to combine them with the trailer hitch of KADNIKOV, as modified by Haustein).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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