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 .
Double Patenting
Examiner acknowledges the terminal disclaimer filed June 18, 2026 to overcome the double patenting rejections of claims 1-4 and 7-9 set forth in the non-final office action mailed March 17, 2026.
Claim Objections
In light of the amendments to the claims filed June 18, 2026, the objections to the claim set forth in the non-final office action mailed March 17, 2026 are withdrawn.
Drawings
In light of the amendments to the claims filed June 18, 2026, the objections to the drawings set forth in the non-final office action mailed March 17, 2026 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In light of the amendments to the claims filed June 18, 2026, the 112b rejections to claims 5, 6, 15, and 17 set forth in the non-final office action mailed March 17, 2026 are withdrawn.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 15, 17, 19-21, and 23-25 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 1 recites “a pair of second apertures on the component facing and the vertical facing” in line 6 and then further recites “the second aperture on the vertical facing” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if both the component facing and the vertical facing have a pair of apertures, or if the pair of second apertures includes a second aperture on the vertical facing and a second aperture on the component facing respectively. Additionally, it is unclear which aperture(s) of the pair of second apertures is/are being referred to in line 13 when “the second aperture on the vertical facing” is recited.
Furthermore, line 8 also recites “a pair of third apertures on the component facing and the vertical facing” and line 14 recites “the third aperture” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if both the component facing and the vertical facing have a pair of apertures, or if the pair of third apertures includes a third aperture on the vertical facing and a third aperture on the component facing respectively. Additionally, it is unclear which aperture(s) of the pair of third apertures is/are being referred to in line 14 when “the third aperture” is recited.
Claims 2, 5-9, and 25 depend from claim 1.
Claim 10 recites a series of ports on the component facing and then later recites a leg assembly attachable to the component facing by a fastener and an interlocking flange in a port. It is unclear if the port receiving the interlocking flange is one of the previously introduced series of ports on the component facing or is a newly recited port. Claims 11, 12, 15, 17, and 25 depend from claim 10.
Claim 15 recites a plurality of interlocking flanges comprising three interlocking flanges” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 10, from which claim 15 depends, recites “an interlocking flange” and it is unclear if the interlocking flange in claim 10 is one of the three recited in claim 15 or if the three recited in claim 15 are in addition to the one recited in claim 10 for a total of 4 interlocking flanges.
Claim 17 recites a series of paired ports along the single shear surface which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if a new series of paired ports is being introduced or if the series of ports recited in claim 10 is being referred to and further limited as a series of paired ports.
Claim 19 recites wherein the component facing defines two series of outer ports which renders the claim indefinite because claim 18, from which claim 19 depends, recites a series of vertical ports on the component facing and it is unclear if the component facing further requires two more series of outer ports for a total of three series of ports or if the series of vertical ports recited in claim 18 comprises two series of outer ports as recited in claim 19. Claims 20 and 21 depend from claim 19.
Claim 20 recites “the port” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which port of the various series of ports that have been previously recited is being referred to.
Claim 23 recites “a plurality of fasteners” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 18, from which claim 23 depends, recites “a fastener” and it is unclear if the plurality of fasteners is in addition the fastener previously recited in claim 18 or if the fastener recited in claim 18 is included in the plurality of fasteners.
Claim 25 recites “a plurality of fasteners” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 10, from which claim 25 depends, recites “a fastener” and it is unclear if the plurality of fasteners is in addition the fastener previously recited in claim 10 or if the fastener recited in claim 10 is included in the plurality of fasteners.
Additionally, claim 25 recites “interlocking flanges” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 10, from which claim 25 depends, recites “an interlocking flange” and it is unclear if the interlocking flanges are in addition to the interlocking flange previously recited in claim 10 or if the interlocking flange recited in claim 10 is included in the plural form of interlocking flanges recited in claim 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colibert (US 2011/0169247 A1).
In regards to claim 18: Colibert teaches a connection system (6) for attaching a head (74) of a fifth wheel hitch, the connection system comprising:
a mounting leg (56) including a vertical facing (Shown best in Figure 5) defining an aperture (top foremost 58);
a component facing (64) configured to couple to the head (via 72, Paragraph 0037: “The U-shaped channel 70 also includes a hole 72 configured in such a way as to allow a pin to be placed through the hole 72 to secure the head 74 in the U-shaped channel”) and defining a series of vertical ports (68); and
a fastener (Paragraph 0036: “The head mounting plate 64 can include holes 68 configured in a manner that provides for bolts to be placed through the holes 68 in the head mounting plate 64 and through the holes 58 in the brackets 56” Underline added for clarity) configured to selectively secure through the aperture and one of the ports (top foremost 68 that matches with top foremost 58) so that the vertical facing and the component facing form a single shear surface (outer shear surface of 64 containing ports 68) to set an adjustable elevation of the head relative to the mounting leg (Paragraph 0036: “The holes 68 in the head mounting plate 64 and the holes 58 in the brackets 56 serve to allow the head mounting plate 64 to be adjusted in relation to the brackets 56. […] the head mounting plate 64 can be raised or lowered in relation to the brackets 56 and in relation to the platform 160, and thereby can be used to raise or lower the head 74.”).
In regards to claim 19: The connection system of claim 18 is taught by Colibert. Colibert teaches wherein the component facing defines two series of outer ports (See bottom two rows of ports 68 in Figure 5); and the vertical facing defines two outer apertures (at least bottom right and bottom left apertures 58 in Figure 5), and
further comprising two outer fasteners configured to selectively secure through the two outer apertures and one of the outer ports, respectively (Paragraph 0036: “The head mounting plate 64 can include holes 68 configured in a manner that provides for bolts to be placed through the holes 68 in the head mounting plate 64 and through the holes 58 in the brackets 56” Examiner points to the use of the plural form of the word bolts, necessarily meaning at least more than one bolt is used. Examiner additionally notes that at its lowest point, the assembly would be capable of accepting a maximum of 6 bolts and at its highest point a maximum of two bolts).
In regards to claim 20: The connection system of claim 19 is taught by Colibert. Colibert further teaches wherein the two series of outer ports (bottom two rows of 68) are vertically offset with respect to the port (top foremost 68, Examiner notes that the bottom two rows are not centered on the top foremost 68 but rather aligned on one side and not the other which examiner is considering to be vertically offset) and the two outer apertures (bottom right and left 58) are vertically below the aperture (top foremost aperture 58, see Figure 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 15, 17, 21, 24, and 25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and, in the case of the dependent claims, to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The subject matter of claim 1, from which 2, 5-9, and 24 depend, was previously indicated allowable for the reasons set forth in the non-final office action mailed March 17, 2026.
Claim 10 recites a leg assembly attachable to a component facing by a fastener and interlocking flange in a port, the port being on the component facing. The fastener and interlocking flange can be received by any one of the ports to create a single shear surface and adjust the elevation of the head. The previously relied upon prior art of Janeway fails to teach the interlocking flange on the leg assembly being received in a port on the component facing as well as a single shear surface and the ability to adjust the elevation of the head. The other previously relied upon reference of Colibert fails to teach these limitations or suggest motivation to modify Janeway in this way. Furthermore, while Colibert teaches a leg assembly and component facing secured by a fastener, Colibert fails to teach an interlocking flange that can be received in the ports. The closest art to suggest interlocking flanges is Janeway, and the interlocking flanges of Janeway are not part of a leg assembly and received in a port of a component facing. Additional art was not found to teach such interlocking flanges. Claims 11, 12, 15, 17, and 25 depend from claim 10.
Claim 21 recites an additional bracket coupled to the mounting leg having the two outer apertures on a lower plate and a tab extending from the lower plate defining the aperture. Colibert fails to teach such a bracket. The apertures of Colibert are formed directly in the leg assembly and there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Colibert to have an additional bracket forming both the outer and first apertures.
Claim 23 recites the plurality of fasteners and interlocking flanges which is found to be allowable for the reasons discussed above in regards to claim 10.
Claims 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22 recites wherein the aperture is flanged as well as a bushing fitted onto the flanged aperture. Colibert fails to teach a flanged aperture on a leg assembly with a bushing connected to a port on the component facing via a fastener as required by claims 22 and 18 from which 22 depends. The flanged aperture of Janeway is not also received in a port where the fastener connects the component facing and the leg assembly via a fastener through the flanged aperture and the port. Furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Colibert to have a flanged aperture with a bushing to be received in one of the ports of the component facing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10 and 11, filed June 18, 2026, with respect to newly amended claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The subject matter of claim 10 has been indicated allowable for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding new claim 23 on page 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The subject matter of claim 23 has been indicated allowable for the reasons set forth above.
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 ABIGAIL R HYMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0389. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached 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.
/A.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights