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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393.
Regarding claim 1, Bertoch et al. disclose a recreational trailer (col. 1, lines 5-6) comprising: a body (12; Fig. 35; disclosed as a “hull” in col. 9, line 35) having exterior panels comprising a floor (91; Fig. 35; col. 9, line 37), sides (75, 77; Fig. 35; col. 9, lines 38-39), a front (81; Fig. 35; col. 9, line 38), a back (89; Fig. 35; disclosed as a “rear wall” in , col. 9, line 38) and a roof (79; Fig. 35; disclosed as a “ceiling” in col. 9, line 38) to form a rigid structure in that the exterior panels maintain their shape once assembled to form a recreational trailer body.
However, Bertoch et al. do not disclose that the recreational trailer has interior components integrated together with the exterior panels to form a rigid structure.
However, Madsen et al. disclose a vehicle with a floor 11, two end walls 12 and 13, two side walls 14 and 15 and a roof 16 as shown in Figs. 1-3 and as disclosed in col. 2, lines 10-13 forming an enclosed living space, where the living space includes a rigid bed base (29; Figs 1 and 2) with connections with a sidewall (15; Fig. 1), a rear end wall (12; Fig. 2) and the floor (11; Fig. 3) as pointed out in annotated Figs. 1 and 2 below as well as storage compartments (32; Figs. 2 and 3; as well as 33; Figs. 2 and 3).
With respect to claim 6, the storage compartments are coupled to the floor, a side and the roof either directly or indirectly as shown in Figs. 1-3.
With respect to claim 9, the storage compartments (33; Figs. 2 and 3) are also considered to be storage bins given the definition of a bin to be “an enclosed space used for storage” at merriamwebster.com and these “bins” are fastened, either directly or indirectly, to interior components including the bed base (29; Figs 1 and 2) and storage compartment (32; Figs. 2 and 3).
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Madsen et al. reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Madsen et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to trailers with living spaces therein, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the recreational trailer of Bertoch et al. with interior components including a bed base at the rear of the trailer connected to the back wall, sides and the floor as well as storage compartments and storage bins which are directly or indirectly connected to the floor, a side and the roof of the trailer as taught by Madsen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the interior living space of Bertoch et al. with accommodations for users comfort and storage needs.
Regarding claim 2, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, comprising a chassis (11; Fig. 2), said floor (91; Fig. 35) of said body (12; Fig. 35) coupled to said chassis (11; Fig. 2), as disclosed in col. 7, lines 48-49.
Regarding claim 3, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 2, as explained above, wherein said chassis (11; Fig. 2), includes an axle (provided with vertical suspension plates (33; Fig. 2) attached to the chassis as disclosed in col. 6, lines 60-61) and tongue (13; Fig. 2) coupled to said chassis (as shown in Fig. 2) and two wheels (shown in Fig. 1) coupled to said axle.
Regarding claim 6, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, wherein said interior components include storage compartments coupled to said floor, a side and roof of said exterior panels, as explained in the obviousness statement above.
Regarding claim 9, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, wherein said back exterior panel includes interior storage bins fastened to said interior components, as explained in the obviousness statement above.
PNG
media_image1.png
1380
971
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of Ross US 6,042,135.
Regarding claim 4, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 3, as explained above, except for wherein said tongue is extendable.
However, Ross discloses a vehicle (14; Figs 7 and 8) which includes an extendable hitch, i.e., tongue, (10; Figs. 7 and 8), where the tongue is extended between Figs. 7 and 8. The extended position of the tongue (10; Fig. 8) allows for the back hatch (shown in dashed lines in Fig. 8) to have sufficient clearance to open.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Ross reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Ross reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to towing hitches or tongues for trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the tongue of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., to be extendable as taught by Ross with a reasonable expectation of success so that a rear hatch of the pulling vehicle may have sufficient clearance from the front end of the trailer to be opened while the trailer is still connected to the pulling vehicle.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claims 1, and further in view of Alford US 4,355,834.
Regarding claim 5, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., discloses the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein the bed base is positioned at the front of the trailer and is coupled to the front exterior panel.
However, Alford discloses a trailer (11; Fig. 1) having a living space with a bed (98; Fig. 6) therein positioned at the front of the trailer as seen in Fig. 6.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Alford reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Alford reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to relocate the bed base of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., to the front of the trailer and couple it to the front exterior panel as taught by Alford with a reasonable expectation of success in order to permit access to the living space from the rear of the trailer, whereby entry into the vehicle can be achieved without obstruction from a forward coupled tongue/hitch receiver used to attach the trailer to a pulling vehicle.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claims 1, and further in view of Crean US 6,290,284.
Regarding claim 7, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., discloses the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein said interior components include a closet coupled to said floor, a side and roof of said exterior panels.
However, Crean discloses a trailer (200; Fig. 6) having a wardrobe “closet” (252; Fig. 8; col. 18, line 35) directly or indirectly coupled to a floor, side and roof of the trailer.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Crean reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Crean reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the trailer living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with a closet directly or indirectly coupled to said floor, a side and roof of said exterior panels as taught by Crean with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the interior living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with accommodations for additional storage needs.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claims 1, and further in view of Alford US 4,355,834 and Cline 11,535,146.
Regarding claim 8, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., discloses the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein the bed area is positioned at the front of the trailer and except wherein said front exterior panels include a cargo hatch providing access to a bed area.
However, Alford discloses a trailer (11; Fig. 1) having a living space with a bed (98; Fig. 6) therein positioned at the front of the trailer as seen in Fig. 6.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Alford reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Alford reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to relocate the bed base of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., to the front of the trailer and couple it to the front exterior panel as taught by Alford with a reasonable expectation of success in order to permit access to the living space from the rear of the trailer, whereby entry into the vehicle can be achieved without obstruction from a forward coupled tongue/hitch receiver used to attach the trailer to a pulling vehicle.
In addition, Cline discloses recreational vehicle (10; Fig. 3) with a door (40, Fig. 12) that can function as an emergency exit (col. 11, lines 38-40, i.e., a hatch) that is positioned adjacent to a bed area (39; Fig. 12) .
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Cline reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Cline reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel vehicles, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide an exterior panel of the trailer of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al. and Alford, with a hatch adjacent to the forward positioned bed area as taught by Cline with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a means of emergency exit from the trailer. In addition, it would also 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 to locate the hatch of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al. and Alford and Cline at the front exterior panel with a reasonable expectation of success as an obvious matter of design choice where the forward located bed area is still accessible at such hatch location for emergency exit therethrough.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claims 1, and further in view of Crean US 6,290,284.
Regarding claim 10, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, including a bed interior component.
However, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., do not disclose wherein said interior components include a closet and storage shelves.
However, Crean discloses a trailer (200; Fig. 6) having a wardrobe “closet” 252 (Fig. 8) and shelves (annotated Fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
744
935
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Crean reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Crean reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the trailer living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with a closet and storage shelves as taught by Crean with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the interior living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with accommodations for additional storage needs.
Claims 11, 12, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393.
Regarding claim 11, Bertoch et al. disclose a recreational trailer (col. 1, lines 5-6) comprising: a body (12; Fig. 35; disclosed as a “hull” in col. 9, line 35) having exterior panels comprising a floor (91; Fig. 35; col. 9, line 37), sides (75, 77; Fig. 35; col. 9, lines 38-39), a front (81; Fig. 35; col. 9, line 38), a back (89; Fig. 35; disclosed as a “rear wall” in , col. 9, line 38) and a roof (79; Fig. 35; disclosed as a “ceiling” in col. 9, line 38) to form a rigid structure in that the exterior panels maintain their shape once assembled to form a recreational trailer body. Bertoch et al. further disclose a chassis (11; Fig. 2), said floor (91; Fig. 35) of said body (12; Fig. 35) coupled to said chassis (11; Fig. 2), as disclosed in col. 7, lines 48-49.
However, Bertoch et al. do not disclose that the recreational trailer has interior components wherein said exterior panels and interior components are fastened together to form a monocoque structure.
However, Madsen et al. disclose a vehicle with a floor 11, two end walls 12 and 13, two side walls 14 and 15 and a roof 16 as shown in Figs. 1-3 and as disclosed in col. 2, lines 10-13 forming an enclosed living space, where the living space includes a bed base (29; Figs 1 and 2) with connections with a sidewall (15; Fig. 1), a rear end wall (12; Fig. 2) and the floor (11; Fig. 3) as pointed out in annotated Figs. 1 and 2 above as well as storage compartments (32; Figs. 2 and 3; as well as 33; Figs. 2 and 3).
With respect to claim 15, the storage compartments are coupled to the floor, a side and the roof either directly or indirectly as shown in Figs. 1-3.
With respect to claim 18, the storage compartments (33; Figs. 2 and 3) are also considered to be storage bins given the definition of a bin to be “an enclosed space used for storage” at merriamwebster.com and these “bins” are fastened, either directly or indirectly, to interior components including the bed base (29; Figs 1 and 2) and storage compartment (32; Figs. 2 and 3).
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Madsen et al. reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Madsen et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to trailers with living spaces therein, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the recreational trailer of Bertoch et al. with interior components including a bed base at the rear of the trailer connected to the back wall, sides and the floor as well as storage compartments and storage bins which are directly or indirectly connected to the floor, a side and the roof of the trailer as taught by Madsen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the interior living space of Bertoch et al. with accommodations for users comfort and storage needs. The interconnected exterior panels and interior components of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., form a rigid, monocoque structure in that the exterior panels and interior components maintain their shape once assembled to form a singular recreational trailer body, as broadly as recited.
Regarding claim 12, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 2, as explained above, wherein said chassis (11; Fig. 2), includes an axle (provided with vertical suspension plates (33; Fig. 2) attached to the chassis as disclosed in col. 6, lines 60-61) and tongue (13; Fig. 2) coupled to said chassis (as shown in Fig. 2) and two wheels (shown in Fig. 1) coupled to said axle.
Regarding claim 15, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, wherein said interior components include storage compartments coupled to said floor, a side and roof of said exterior panels, as explained in the obviousness statement above.
Regarding claim 18, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, wherein said back exterior panel includes interior storage bins fastened to said interior components, as explained in the obviousness statement above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claim 11, and further in view of Ross US 6,042,135.
Regarding claim 13, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 3, as explained above, except for wherein said tongue is extendable.
However, Ross discloses a vehicle (14; Figs 7 and 8) which includes an extendable hitch, i.e., tongue, (10; Figs. 7 and 8), where the tongue is extended between Figs. 7 and 8. The extended position of the tongue (10; Fig. 8) allows for the back hatch (shown in dashed lines in Fig. 8) to have sufficient clearance to open.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Ross reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Ross reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to towing hitches or tongues for trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the tongue of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., to be extendable as taught by Ross with a reasonable expectation of success so that a rear hatch of the pulling vehicle may have sufficient clearance from the front end of the trailer to be opened while the trailer is still connected to the pulling vehicle.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claim 11, and further in view of Alford US 4,355,834.
Regarding claim 14, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., discloses the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein the bed base is positioned at the front of the trailer and is coupled to the front exterior panel.
However, Alford discloses a trailer (11; Fig. 1) having a living space with a bed (98; Fig. 6) therein positioned at the front of the trailer as seen in Fig. 6.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Alford reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Alford reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to relocate the bed base of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., to the front of the trailer and couple it to the front exterior panel as taught by Alford with a reasonable expectation of success in order to permit access to the living space from the rear of the trailer, whereby entry into the vehicle can be achieved without obstruction from a forward coupled tongue/hitch receiver used to attach the trailer to a pulling vehicle.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claim 11, and further in view of Crean US 6,290,284.
Regarding claim 16, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., discloses the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein said interior components include a closet coupled to said floor, a side and roof of said exterior panels.
However, Crean discloses a trailer (200; Fig. 6) having a wardrobe “closet” (252; Fig. 8; col. 18, line 35) directly or indirectly coupled to a floor, side and roof of the trailer.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Crean reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Crean reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the trailer living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with a closet directly or indirectly coupled to said floor, a side and roof of said exterior panels as taught by Crean with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the interior living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with accommodations for additional storage needs.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claims 11, and further in view of Alford US 4,355,834 and Cline 11,535,146.
Regarding claim 17, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., discloses the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein the bed area is positioned at the front of the trailer and except wherein said front exterior panels include a cargo hatch providing access to a bed area.
However, Alford discloses a trailer (11; Fig. 1) having a living space with a bed (98; Fig. 6) therein positioned at the front of the trailer as seen in Fig. 6.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Alford reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Alford reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to relocate the bed base of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., to the front of the trailer and couple it to the front exterior panel as taught by Alford with a reasonable expectation of success in order to permit access to the living space from the rear of the trailer, whereby entry into the vehicle can be achieved without obstruction from a forward coupled tongue/hitch receiver used to attach the trailer to a pulling vehicle.
In addition, Cline discloses recreational vehicle (10; Fig. 3) with a door (40, Fig. 12) that can function as an emergency exit (col. 11, lines 38-40, i.e., a hatch) that is positioned adjacent to a bed area (39; Fig. 12) .
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Cline reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Cline reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel vehicles, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide an exterior panel of the trailer of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al. and Alford, with a hatch adjacent to the forward positioned bed area as taught by Cline with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a means of emergency exit from the trailer. In addition, it would also 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 to locate the hatch of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al. and Alford and Cline at the front exterior panel with a reasonable expectation of success as an obvious matter of design choice where the forward located bed area is still accessible at such hatch location for emergency exit therethrough.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claims 11, and further in view of Crean US 6,290,284.
Regarding claim 19, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, including a bed interior component.
However, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., do not disclose wherein said interior components include a closet and storage shelves.
However, Crean discloses a trailer (200; Fig. 6) having a wardrobe “closet” 252 (Fig. 8) and shelves (annotated Fig. 8 above).
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Crean reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Crean reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the trailer living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with a closet and storage shelves as taught by Crean with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the interior living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with accommodations for additional storage needs.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claim 11, and further in view of in view of Koehler US 11,225,187.
Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 11, as explained above, except wherein said interior components include a flip-down seat.
However, Koehler discloses a flip down seat for a vehicle attached living space. See the abstract, line 4.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Koehler reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Koehler reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to transportable living spaces, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the trailer living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with a flip-down seat as taught by Koehler with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a comfort feature for users of the living space.
Claims 21, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393.
Regarding claim 21, Bertoch et al. disclose Regarding claim 1, Bertoch et al. disclose a recreational trailer (col. 1, lines 5-6) comprising: a body (12; Fig. 35; disclosed as a “hull” in col. 9, line 35) having exterior panels comprising a floor (91; Fig. 35; col. 9, line 37), sides (75, 77; Fig. 35; col. 9, lines 38-39), a front (81; Fig. 35; col. 9, line 38), a back (89; Fig. 35; disclosed as a “rear wall” in , col. 9, line 38) and a roof (79; Fig. 35; disclosed as a “ceiling” in col. 9, line 38) to form a rigid structure in that the exterior panels maintain their shape once assembled to form a recreational trailer body. Bertoch et al. further disclose a chassis (11; Fig. 2), said floor (91; Fig. 35) of said body (12; Fig. 35) coupled to said chassis (11; Fig. 2), as disclosed in col. 7, lines 48-49. Bertoch et al. further disclose wherein said chassis (11; Fig. 2), includes an axle (provided with vertical suspension plates (33; Fig. 2) attached to the chassis as disclosed in col. 6, lines 60-61) and tongue (13; Fig. 2) coupled to said chassis (as shown in Fig. 2) and two wheels (shown in Fig. 1) coupled to said axle.
However, Bertoch et al. do not disclose that the recreational trailer has interior components wherein said exterior panels and interior components are fastened together to form a monocoque structure.
However, Madsen et al. disclose a vehicle with a floor 11, two end walls 12 and 13, two side walls 14 and 15 and a roof 16 as shown in Figs. 1-3 and as disclosed in col. 2, lines 10-13 forming an enclosed living space, where the living space includes a bed base (29; Figs 1 and 2) with connections with a sidewall (15; Fig. 1), a rear end wall (12; Fig. 2) and the floor (11; Fig. 3) as pointed out in annotated Figs. 1 and 2 above as well as storage compartments (32; Figs. 2 and 3; as well as 33; Figs. 2 and 3).
With respect to claim 24, the storage compartments are coupled to the floor, a side and the roof either directly or indirectly as shown in Figs. 1-3.
With respect to claim 27, the storage compartments (33; Figs. 2 and 3) are also considered to be storage bins given the definition of a bin to be “an enclosed space used for storage” at merriamwebster.com and these “bins” are fastened, either directly or indirectly, to interior components including the bed base (29; Figs 1 and 2) and storage compartment (32; Figs. 2 and 3).
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Madsen et al. reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Madsen et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to trailers with living spaces therein, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the recreational trailer of Bertoch et al. with interior components including a bed base at the rear of the trailer connected to the back wall, sides and the floor as well as storage compartments and storage bins which are directly or indirectly connected to the floor, a side and the roof of the trailer as taught by Madsen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the interior living space of Bertoch et al. with accommodations for users comfort and storage needs. The interconnected exterior panels and interior components of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., form a rigid, monocoque structure in that the exterior panels and interior components maintain their shape once assembled to form a singular recreational trailer body, as broadly as recited.
Regarding claim 24, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, wherein said interior components include storage compartments coupled to said floor, a side and roof of said exterior panels, as explained in the obviousness statement above.
Regarding claim 27, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, wherein said back exterior panel includes interior storage bins fastened to said interior components, as explained in the obviousness statement above.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claim 21, and further in view of Ross US 6,042,135.
Regarding claim 22, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 21, as explained above, except for wherein said tongue is extendable.
However, Ross discloses a vehicle (14; Figs 7 and 8) which includes an extendable hitch, i.e., tongue, (10; Figs. 7 and 8), where the tongue is extended between Figs. 7 and 8. The extended position of the tongue (10; Fig. 8) allows for the back hatch (shown in dashed lines in Fig. 8) to have sufficient clearance to open.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Ross reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Ross reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to towing hitches or tongues for trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the tongue of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., to be extendable as taught by Ross with a reasonable expectation of success so that a rear hatch of the pulling vehicle may have sufficient clearance from the front end of the trailer to be opened while the trailer is still connected to the pulling vehicle.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claim 21, and further in view of Alford US 4,355,834.
Regarding claim 23, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., discloses the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein the bed base is positioned at the front of the trailer and is coupled to the front exterior panel.
However, Alford discloses a trailer (11; Fig. 1) having a living space with a bed (98; Fig. 6) therein positioned at the front of the trailer as seen in Fig. 6.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Alford reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Alford reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to relocate the bed base of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., to the front of the trailer and couple it to the front exterior panel as taught by Alford with a reasonable expectation of success in order to permit access to the living space from the rear of the trailer, whereby entry into the vehicle can be achieved without obstruction from a forward coupled tongue/hitch receiver used to attach the trailer to a pulling vehicle.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claim 21, and further in view of Crean US 6,290,284.
Regarding claim 25, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., discloses the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein said interior components include a closet coupled to said floor, a side and roof of said exterior panels.
However, Crean discloses a trailer (200; Fig. 6) having a wardrobe “closet” (252; Fig. 8; col. 18, line 35) directly or indirectly coupled to a floor, side and roof of the trailer.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Crean reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Crean reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the trailer living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with a closet directly or indirectly coupled to said floor, a side and roof of said exterior panels as taught by Crean with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the interior living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with accommodations for additional storage needs.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claims 21, and further in view of Alford US 4,355,834 and Cline 11,535,146.
Regarding claim 26, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., discloses the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein the bed area is positioned at the front of the trailer and except wherein said front exterior panels include a cargo hatch providing access to a bed area.
However, Alford discloses a trailer (11; Fig. 1) having a living space with a bed (98; Fig. 6) therein positioned at the front of the trailer as seen in Fig. 6.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Alford reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Alford reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to relocate the bed base of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., to the front of the trailer and couple it to the front exterior panel as taught by Alford with a reasonable expectation of success in order to permit access to the living space from the rear of the trailer, whereby entry into the vehicle can be achieved without obstruction from a forward coupled tongue/hitch receiver used to attach the trailer to a pulling vehicle.
In addition, Cline discloses recreational vehicle (10; Fig. 3) with a door (40, Fig. 12) that can function as an emergency exit (col. 11, lines 38-40, i.e., a hatch) that is positioned adjacent to a bed area (39; Fig. 12) .
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Cline reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Cline reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel vehicles, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide an exterior panel of the trailer of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al. and Alford, with a hatch adjacent to the forward positioned bed area as taught by Cline with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a means of emergency exit from the trailer. In addition, it would also 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 to locate the hatch of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al. and Alford and Cline at the front exterior panel with a reasonable expectation of success as an obvious matter of design choice where the forward located bed area is still accessible at such hatch location for emergency exit therethrough.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claims 21, and further in view of Crean US 6,290,284.
Regarding claim 28, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 1, as explained above, including a bed interior component.
However, Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., do not disclose wherein said interior components include a closet and storage shelves.
However, Crean discloses a trailer (200; Fig. 6) having a wardrobe “closet” 252 (Fig. 8) and shelves (annotated Fig. 8 above).
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Crean reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Crean reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to living spaces for travel trailers, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the trailer living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with a closet and storage shelves as taught by Crean with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the interior living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with accommodations for additional storage needs.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoch et al. US 7,390,052 in view of Madsen et al. US 2,701,393, as applied above to claim 21, and further in view of in view of Koehler US 11,225,187.
Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., disclose the recreational trailer of claim 21, as explained above, except wherein said interior components include a flip-down seat.
However, Koehler discloses a flip down seat for a vehicle attached living space. See the abstract, line 4.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Koehler reference is considered to be relevant art, in that the Koehler reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to transportable living spaces, as the Bertoch et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the trailer living space of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., with a flip-down seat as taught by Koehler with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a comfort feature for users of the living space.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument on lines 5-10 of page 10 of the response, and more specifically lines 7-8, that “It is the integration of the interior and exterior components and panels as shown in Figs. 9-36 that is novel and nonobvious” is not persuasive. The similar argument set forth on lines 11-14 of page 10 of the response is also rebutted in the same manner as follows
This argument can be broken into two parts. The first part involving the claim term “integrated” on line 4 of claim 1 which is directed to the relationship between the claimed “exterior panels”, “interior components” and “to form a rigid structure”. The term “integrated” is the intransitive version of the verb “integrate” which is defined by merriam-webster.com as “to incorporate into a larger unit”. The examiner’s position set forth in the rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 6 above, is that providing the interior of the recreational trailer of Bertoch et al., which has rigid exterior panels that form a rigid structure, with interior components as taught by Madsen et al., namely a rigid bed base having connections with a sidewall, a rear end wall and the floor, as well as storage compartments associated therewith, is obvious to one skilled in the art in order to provide the trailer of Bertoch et al. with accommodations for the comfort of users. Since the exterior panels and interior components of Bertoch et al., as modified by Madsen et al., are each rigid elements that are connected together, they are considered to be “integrated”, as broadly as recited, in that they are “incorporated into a larger unit” as the term “integrated” is defined at merriam-wesbster.com. Such integration of the exterior panels and interior components forms a rigid structure, as broadly as recited. The second part of the argument is the phase “as shown in Figs. 9-36”. It is the claimed invention, not what is shown in the drawings, which would serve to define the current invention over the prior art of record. In addition the statement on lines 8-10 that “all of the interior and exterior components are structurally integrated with tabs” is noted. However, the claims do not recite tabs.
In addition, in applicant’s discussion of Madsen et al. on page 10 of the response, lines 2-4, argues that “the (interior) components include rollers so that they can be easily moved to other positions within the trailer. The interior components are not attached to the trailer and do not form an integrated rigid structure as claimed” is not persuasive. The Madsen et al. reference is being relied upon to teach the stationary a rigid bed base (29; Figs 1 and 2) with connections with a sidewall (15; Fig. 1), a rear end wall (12; Fig. 2) and the floor (11; Fig. 3) as pointed out in annotated Figs. 1 and 2 above as well as storage compartments (32; Figs. 2 and 3; as well as 33; Figs. 2 and 3). Applicant’s argument appears to be directed to the rollaway carriage B (Fig. 2). Note that the components on rollers of Madsen et al. are not the interior components which are the features that are being integrated with the exterior panels of Bertoch et al. in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth in paragraph 6 above.
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 Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612