DETAILED ACTION
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 1-9 of this application are subject to examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
GROUND 1: Claims 3-5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which enable the claimed invention to achieve the desired results.
Claim 1 recites “a spacer arm joined to a hitch arm in a generally L-shaped configuration; said spacer arm comprising an outer end configured to be removably connected to said rear end of said log arch frame; said hitch arm extending generally vertically upward from said spacer arm and log arch when said spacer arm is connected to said rear end of said log arch, and said log arch is generally horizontal supported on said wheels” (ll. 3-8). Based on this claimed subject matter, claim 1 is directed to (i) the embodiment shown in Figs. 2, 3, 3A and 4, and (ii) the embodiment shown in Figs. 5-7. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and, thus, includes all of the limitations of claim 1. However, claim 3 recites “in which said spacer arm is permanently attached to said rear end of said log arch frame”. Based on this claimed subject matter, it appears that claim 3 is intended to be directed to the embodiment shown in Fig. 2A. The original disclosure describes Fig. 2A as showing a hitch arm (not a spacer arm) permanently attached to the rear end of the log arch frame. No other embodiment has an arm of the transport adapter permanently attached to the rear end of the log arch frame. There is no support in the original disclosure for a combination of the embodiment shown in Fig. 2A with either (i) the embodiment shown in Figs. 2, 3, 3A and 4, or (ii) the embodiment shown in Figs. 5-7. Such a combination of embodiments (as required by claim 3) is not possible, based on the original disclosure, because the embodiment of Fig. 2A does not include the spacer arm required by claim 1. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a spacer arm joined to a hitch arm in a generally L-shaped configuration; said spacer arm comprising an outer end configured to be removably connected to said rear end of said log arch frame; said hitch arm extending generally vertically upward from said spacer arm and log arch when said spacer arm is connected to said rear end of said log arch, and said log arch is generally horizontal supported on said wheels” (ll. 3-8). Based on this claimed subject matter, claim 1 is directed to (i) the embodiment shown in Figs. 2, 3, 3A and 4, and (ii) the embodiment shown in Figs. 5-7. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and, thus, includes all of the limitations of claim 1. However, claim 4 recites “in which said spacer arm is hingedly attached to said rear end of said log arch frame, whereby it can be folded out of the way when not in use”. Based on this claimed subject matter, it appears that claim 4 is intended to be directed to the embodiment shown in Fig. 2B. The original disclosure describes Fig. 2B as showing a hitch arm (not a spacer arm) hingedly mounted to the rear end of the log arch frame so it could be folded down out of the way when not in use. No other embodiment has an arm of the transport adapter hingedly attached to the rear end of the log arch frame. There is no support in the original disclosure for a combination of the embodiment shown in Fig. 2B with either (i) the embodiment shown in Figs. 2, 3, 3A and 4, or (ii) the embodiment shown in Figs. 5-7. Such a combination of embodiments (as required by claim 4) is not possible, based on the original disclosure, because the embodiment of Fig. 2B does not include the spacer arm required by claim 1. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites “in which said spacer arm is permanently attached to said rear end of said log arch frame”. Based on this claimed subject matter, it appears that claim 3 is intended to be directed to the embodiment shown in Fig. 2A. Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and, thus, includes all of the limitations of claim 3. However, claim 4 recites “in which said spacer arm is hingedly attached to said rear end of said log arch frame, whereby it can be folded out of the way when not in use”. Based on this claimed subject matter, it appears that claim 4 is intended to be directed to the embodiment shown in Fig. 2B. There is no support in the original disclosure for a combination of the embodiment shown in Fig. 2A with the embodiment shown in Fig. 2B. Such a combination of embodiments (as required by claim 4) is not possible, based on the original disclosure, because the embodiment of Fig. 2A is mutually exclusive from the embodiment of Fig. 2B. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “in which said spacer arm is hinged relative to said hitch arm; said hinge being releasably lockable so that when locked said spacer arm and said hinge arm are generally perpendicular to one another, but when unlocked can be adjustable positioned relative to one another, whereby when said spacer arm is connected to said rear end of said log arch supported on said log arch wheels, the relative position of said hitch arm can be readily varied so that vehicle hitches of varying heights may be more easily accommodated when initially engaging said transport adapter 100′ with said vehicle hitch receiver” (ll. 1-7). Based on this claimed subject matter, claim 5 is directed to the embodiment shown in Figs. 5-7. However, the original disclosure does not describe the embodiment of Figs. 5-7 as including (i) a hinge that is releasably lockable, and (ii) the relative position of the hitch arm can be readily varied. Rather than describing a releasably lockable hinge, the original disclosure describes a brace extending from the hitch arm and including spaced latching plates that receive the spacer arm therebetween, with the latching plates and spacer arm having holes receiving a locking pin to connect the spacer arm in an L-shaped configuration relative to the hitch arm. Rather than describing the relative position of the hitch arm as being readily varied, the original disclosure describes the spacer arm as rotating from the L-shaped configuration relative to the hitch arm to one or more different positions including a horizontal position. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites “connecting said spacer arm of said transport adapter to the rear end of said log arch frame to be transported, with said hitch arm extending generally vertically upright from said spacer arm; providing a transport vehicle with a vehicle hitch receiver; positioning said log arch as supported on its wheels with said upright hitch arm positioned near said transport vehicle hitch receiver; rotating said log arch to a generally vertical upright position with said open end of said hitch arm facing said vehicle hitch receiver; moving said hitch arm into engagement with said vehicle hitch receiver, whereby said log arch can be transported with said log arch wheels off the ground, thereby facilitating rapid transport without risking damage to said log arch wheels and their axles” (ll. 9-18). Based on this claimed subject matter, claim 6 is directed to the embodiment shown in Figs. 2, 3, 3A and 4. Claim 8 depends from claim 6 and, thus, includes all of the limitations of claim 6. However, claim 8 recites “in which said transporter adapter transport provided has said spacer arm hinged to said hitch arm, said hinge being releasably lockable so that when locked said spacer arm and said hinge arm are generally perpendicular to one another, but when unlocked can be adjustably positioned relative to one another; said method step of positioning said log arch spacer arm near said transport vehicle hitch receiver being performed with said hinge being unlocked and said hitch arm being pointed toward said transport vehicle hitch receiver; moving said log arch toward said vehicle hitch until said hitch arm engages said vehicle hitch receiver; thereafter rotating said log arch into a generally vertically position and locking said hinge to retain said log arch in said generally vertical position with said log arch wheels off the ground”. Based on this claimed subject matter, claim 8 is directed to the embodiment shown in Figs. 5-7. There is no support in the original disclosure for a combination of the embodiment shown in Figs. 2, 3, 3A and 4 with the embodiment shown in Figs. 5-7. Such a combination of embodiments (as required by claim 8) is not possible, based on the original disclosure, because the method illustrated in Figs. 2, 3, 3A and 4 is distinct from the method illustrated in Figs. 5-7, i.e., the two methods are mutually exclusive. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the transport adapter provided is permanently attached to the rear of said log arch to be transported” (ll. 1-2). Based on this claimed subject matter, claim 7 is directed to the embodiment shown in Fig. 2A. Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and, thus, includes all of the limitations of claim 7. However, claim 8 recites “in which said transporter adapter transport provided has said spacer arm hinged to said hitch arm, said hinge being releasably lockable so that when locked said spacer arm and said hinge arm are generally perpendicular to one another, but when unlocked can be adjustably positioned relative to one another; said method step of positioning said log arch spacer arm near said transport vehicle hitch receiver being performed with said hinge being unlocked and said hitch arm being pointed toward said transport vehicle hitch receiver; moving said log arch toward said vehicle hitch until said hitch arm engages said vehicle hitch receiver; thereafter rotating said log arch into a generally vertically position and locking said hinge to retain said log arch in said generally vertical position with said log arch wheels off the ground”. Based on this claimed subject matter, claim 8 is directed to the embodiment shown in Figs. 5-7. There is no support in the original disclosure for a combination of the embodiment shown in Fig. 2A with the embodiment shown in Figs. 5-7. Such a combination of embodiments (as required by claim 8) is not possible, based on the original disclosure, because the two embodiments are mutually exclusive. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 depends from claim 6 and, thus, includes all of the limitations of claim 6. However, claim 9 recites essentially the same method required by claim 8. See the explanation above with respect to claim 8. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 9 both recite “in which said transporter adapter transport provided has said spacer arm hinged to said hitch arm, said hinge being releasably lockable so that when locked said spacer arm and said hinge arm are generally perpendicular to one another, but when unlocked can be adjustably positioned relative to one another” (ll. 1-4). Further, claims 8 and 9 both recite “said hinge being unlocked” (l. 6) and “locking said hinge” (l. 10). See the explanation above with respect to claim 5. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-9 are 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.
The preamble of claim 1 states that the claim is directed to a transport adapter. Therefore, the patentability of the claim should be based solely on the structure and function of the transport adapter. However, the body of claim 1 defines the transport adapter relative to and in combination with a log arch having wheels (see ll. 6-11). If the patentability of the claim is based solely on the structure and function of the transport adapter, then one must ignore the structure and function of the log arch defined at lines 6-11. But limitations recited in the body of the claim are normally considered to be required limitations. Such a definition of the claimed transport adapter based upon what appears to be unclaimed subject matter (i.e., the log arch’s structure and function) renders the claim indefinite because it is impossible to determine what weight, if any, is to be afforded to the limitations of lines 6-11.
In claim 1, the recitation “is rotated to a and…” (l. 10) is indefinite because it is incomplete. The indefinite article “a” is used, but it is not followed by any noun or noun phrase.
Claim 2 recites “in which said spacer arm and said hitch arm are integral with each other, forming an integral one piece generally ‘L’ shaped transport adapter”. The term “integral” is generally recognized as being broader than the term “one piece”. Thus, the recitation of both an “integral” structure and a “one piece” structure, in the same claim, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is limited only to the broader term, or whether the claim requires the narrower term. Further, it is unclear what constitutes “an integral one piece” structure since an “integral” structure is not necessarily a “one piece” structure.
Claims 3-5, 8 and 9 are indefinite because they fail to accurately characterize the invention described in the specification. See the explanations in GROUND 1 above.
In claim 5, the term “said hinge arm” (l. 2) lacks proper antecedent basis. Note that claim 1 recites “a hitch arm”, not “a hinge arm”.
In claim 5, the recitation “but when unlocked can be adjustable positioned relative to one another” (ll. 3-4) is indefinite because it fails to specify what is “unlocked”, it fails to specify what is “adjustable”, and it fails to specify what is “positioned relative to one another”. Further, the language is confusing and unconventional.
In claim 5, the term “said rear end of said log arch” (l. 4) lacks proper antecedent basis. Note that claim 1 recites “a log arch frame with a frame rear end”.
In claim 5, the terms “said vehicle” (l. 8) and “said transporter lock” (l. 9) lack proper antecedent basis.
In claim 6, the terms “the rear end of said log arch frame” (l. 5), “said rear end of said log arch” (l. 6), “said wheels” (l. 7), “the rear end of said log arch frame to be transported” (ll. 9-10), “said upright hitch arm” (l. 12), “said open end” (l. 14), “said log arch wheels” (l. 17) and “said log arch wheels and their axles” (l. 18) lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 introduces “a vehicle hitch receiver” (l. 8) and then re-introduces “a vehicle hitch receiver” (l. 11). This creates confusion as to whether the claim requires one vehicle hitch receiver, or two vehicle hitch receivers.
In claim 6, the term “said vehicle hitch receiver” (ll. 15 and 16) is indefinite because more than one vehicle hitch receiver has been previously introduced. Does this refer to both, or just one?
In claim 7, the terms “the rear of said log arch to be transported” (l. 2) and “said step of connecting said adapter to said log arch” (ll. 2-3) lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and, thus, requires all of the limitations of claim 6. However, claim 7 states that at least one of the limitations of claim 6 “can be omitted” (l. 3), i.e., claim 7 purports to be broader in at least one respect than the claim from which it depends. Such a dependent claim is indefinite because it is impossible for it to (i) include every limitation of its independent claim (by definition), and (ii) be broader than its independent claim.
In claims 8 and 9, the term “said transport adapter transport provided” (l. 1) lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, this recitation is confusing and unconventional.
In claims 8 and 9, the terms “said method step of positioning said log arch spacer arm near said transport vehicle hitch receiver” (l. 5) and “said log arch spacer arm” (l. 5) lack proper antecedent basis.
In claim 8, the term “said vehicle hitch” (l. 8) lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claims 8 and 9, the term “said vehicle hitch receiver” (ll. 8-9) is indefinite because more than one vehicle hitch receiver has been previously introduced in claim 6. See the explanation above.
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Andrews et al.”
US Patent No. 11,453,448 B1
“Chesney”
US Patent No. 4,744,590
“Cox”
US Patent No. 6,109,644
“Crawford et al.”
US Patent No. 7,905,508 B2
“Dykstra”
US Patent No. 9,375,986 B1
“Jones, Jr. et al.”
US Publication No. 2018/0333998 A1
“Hanson et al.”
US Publication No. 2023/0159120 A1
“Hill”
US Patent No. 5,368,209
“Lohr”
US Patent No. 7,341,417 B1
“Lutz”
DE Publication No. 20 2004 010 988 U1 (with translation)
“Kittrell”
US Publication No. 2010/0320739 A1
“Varcoe”
US Publication No. 2008/0011143 A1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
GROUND 3: Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kittrell.
NOTE: Claims 1 and 5 are defined as being directed to a transport adapter. Therefore, the patentability of the claims is considered to be based solely on the structure and function of the transport adapter (not on the structure and function of the log arch referred to in the claims).
With respect to claim 1, Kittrell discloses a transport adapter comprising:
A spacer arm 80 joined to a hitch arm 12 in a generally L-shaped configuration. See Figs. 2-7 and 10; ¶¶ 0028-0030.
The spacer arm 80 comprising an outer end configured to be removably connected to an end of a frame member 13 of a trailer 10. See Figs. 1-2, 6-7 and 9-11; ¶¶ 0031-0032.
The trailer 10 being supported on wheels 60 in a generally horizontal orientation. See Figs. 1-3, 6-7 and 9-11; ¶ 0033. As shown in Figs. 2-7 and 10, in the generally horizontal orientation of the trailer 10, the hitch arm 12 extends generally vertically upward from the spacer arm 80 and the trailer 10.
The hitch arm 12 has an outer end (provided with mounting holes 14) configured to be removably connected to a vehicle hitch receiver in a generally horizontal orientation. See Figs. 1, 9 and 11; ¶ 0029.
The trailer 10 being rotated to and supported in a generally vertical position on the end of the spacer arm 80 with the wheels 60 off the ground. See ¶¶ 0001, 0003, 0028, 0030.
With respect to claim 5, the spacer arm 80 is hinged relative to the hitch arm 12 via a pin 44 such that the spacer arm 80 can pivot/adjust relative to the hitch arm 12 and the relative position of the hitch arm 12 can be readily varied, and another pin 43 is used to releasably lock the spacer arm 80 relative to the hitch arm 12 when the trailer 10 is rotated/pivoted up into the generally vertical position with the spacer arm 80 and the hitch arm 12 generally perpendicular to one another. See Figs. 1-2, 6-7 and 9-11; ¶¶ 0028-0030.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
GROUND 4: Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cox in view of Hill.
NOTE: Claims 1 and 2 are defined as being directed to a transport adapter. Therefore, the patentability of the claims is considered to be based solely on the structure and function of the transport adapter (not on the structure and function of the log arch referred to in the claims).
With respect to claim 1, Cox discloses a handcart/wagon (see col. 1, l. 9) comprising:
A generally L-shaped rear member 32 having a spacer arm 33 joined to a “hitch” arm 36 in a generally L-shaped configuration. See Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 22-26.
The spacer arm 33 comprising an outer end configured to be removably connected to a rear end 13 of a frame member 28 of the handcart/wagon. See Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 22-31. See also the disclosure of box tubing at col. 2, l. 10.
The handcart/wagon being supported on wheels 70, 72 in a generally horizontal orientation. See Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 56-63; col. 3, ll. 24-25. As shown in Fig. 1, in the generally horizontal orientation of the cart/wagon, the “hitch” arm 36 extends generally vertically upward from the spacer arm 33 and the cart/wagon.
Cox further discloses that (i) the handcart/wagon is extensible to accommodate a variety of objects, and (ii) at least the handle of the handcart/wagon can be removed to allow for easy storage of the handcart/wagon. See col. 1, ll. 8-17; col. 3, ll. 1-10 and 24-26.
With respect to claim 1, Cox fails to disclose that the “hitch” arm 36 has an outer end configured to be removably connected to a vehicle hitch receiver in a generally horizontal orientation such that the handcart/wagon can be rotated to and supported in a generally vertical position on the end of the spacer arm with the wheels off the ground.
Hill teaches a vehicle cargo carrier 10 comprising a spacer arm 16 joined to a hitch arm 21 in a generally L-shaped configuration, wherein the hitch arm 21 extends generally vertically upward when the cargo carrier 10 is in a generally horizontal orientation (shown in Fig. 1), and wherein the hitch arm 21 has an outer end (provided with mounting hole(s) 22) configured to be removably connected to a vehicle hitch receiver 20 when the cargo carrier 10 is rotated to and supported in a generally vertical position (shown in Fig. 2). See Figs. 1-2; col. 3, ll. 13-46. Hill further teaches that the vehicle cargo carrier 10 can be constructed in the form of a handcart/ wagon having wheels 32 that support the handcart/wagon in a generally horizontal orientation. See Figs. 7-8; col. 3, l. 59 to col. 4, l. 24.
The skilled artisan would appreciate:
From the teachings of Cox, that it is desirable to allow for easy storage of a handcart/wagon.
From the teachings of Hill, that it is desirable to support a handcart/wagon in a generally vertical storage position on a vehicle hitch receiver so the handcart/ wagon can be transported in the storage position and moved to different locations of use.
Based on the combined teachings of Cox and Hill, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cox by configuring the outer end of the arm 36 to be removably connected to a vehicle hitch receiver in a generally horizontal orientation such that the handcart/wagon can be rotated to and supported in a generally vertical position on the end of the spacer arm with the wheels off the ground. The skilled artisan would have been led to make this combination in order to provide the handcart/wagon of Cox with a generally vertical storage position on a vehicle hitch receiver so the handcart/wagon can be transported in the storage position and moved to different locations of use.
With respect to claim 2, Cox’s generally L-shaped rear member 32 is an integral one piece structure.
GROUND 5: Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cox in view of Hill (GROUND 4) and further in view of Chesney.
See the detailed discussion of Cox and Hill in GROUND 4.
With respect to claim 5, the Cox and Hill combination fails to teach a spacer arm hinged and lockable relative to a hitch arm.
Chesney teaches a vehicle cargo carrier 10 comprising a hitch arm 30 having an outer end (provided with mounting hole(s) 36) configured to be removably connected to a vehicle hitch receiver 32. See Figs. 1 and 4; col. 3, ll. 19-50; col. 5, ll. 29-40. Chesney further teaches:
An embodiment in which the vehicle cargo carrier 10 is constructed in the form of a handcart/wagon having wheels 44 that support the handcart/wagon in a generally horizontal orientation. See Fig. 2; col. 3, l. 51 to col. 4, l. 10; col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 4.
An embodiment in which a spacer arm 26 is hinged relative to a hitch arm 28 via a hinge 18 such that the spacer arm 26 can pivot/adjust relative to the hitch arm 28 and the relative position of the hitch arm 28 can be readily varied, and retaining member 64 is used to releasably lock the spacer arm 26 relative to the hitch arm 28 when the cargo carrier 10 is rotated/pivoted up into a generally vertical position with the spacer arm 26 and the hitch arm 28 generally perpendicular to one another. See Figs. 2-3 and 5; col. 4, ll. 11-20 and 42-58; col. 5, ll. 11-28; col. 6, ll. 35-42.
From the teachings of Chesney, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Cox by utilizing a spacer arm hinged and lockable relative to a hitch arm in the manner taught by Chesney. The skilled artisan would appreciate, from the teachings of Chesney, that such a hinged and lockable structure is desirable because it makes it easier to place the handcart/wagon in and remove the handcart/wagon from the storage and transport position on the vehicle hitch receiver.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Crawford et al. (Figs. 11-14) teaches a wagon that is mountable on a vehicle hitch receiver via a spacer arm that is hinged and lockable relative to a hitch arm.
Dykstra teaches a cart that is mountable on a vehicle hitch receiver via a hitch arm extending vertically from a frame of the cart. The method of mounting the cart to the vehicle hitch receiver includes positioning the cart near the hitch receiver, engaging a base of the hitch arm with an adapter received in the hitch receiver, rotating the cart upward, and securing the hitch arm to the adapter.
Hanson et al. teaches a cart that is mountable on a vehicle hitch receiver via a spacer arm that is hinged and lockable relative to a hitch arm.
Jones, Jr. et al. teaches a cart/wagon/trailer that is mountable on a vehicle hitch receiver via a spacer arm that is hinged and lockable relative to a link arm, and a hitch arm that is hinged and lockable relative to the link arm.
Lohr teaches a wheeled vehicle that is mountable on a vehicle hitch receiver via a spacer arm that is fixed to a hitch arm in a generally L-shaped configuration.
Lutz teaches a wheeled log arch.
Varcoe (Figs. 3-5) teaches a log hauler that is mountable on a vehicle hitch receiver via a spacer arm that is hinged relative to a hitch arm.
Other Art Cited
The subject matter illustrated in Figs. 8-14 of Andrews et al. is cited as being of interest, but it does not qualify as prior art with respect to the claimed invention because Provisional Application No. 63/361,097 (to which Andrews et al. claims priority) does not provide a supporting disclosure for the subject matter illustrated in Figs. 8-14 of Andrews et al.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because:
In claim 1, at ll. 7-8, “generally horizontal supported on” is unconventional and fails to conform to normal usage. It appears this should read “generally horizontal and supported on”.
In claim 5, at l. 7, reference number 100’ should be omitted.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to because the title appearing at the top of page 1 of the specification differs from the title given in the Application Data Sheet (ADS). The title given in the ADS controls, but the title given in the specification is the one that is accurate. Thus, the ADS should be corrected to set forth the accurate title.
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 608.01(o). Specifically, the specification fails to describe:
An integral one piece structure (claim 2).
A rear wheeled frame arch (claim 6, l. 1).
A forward hauling beam (claim 6, ll. 1-2).
The specification is objected to because:
In ¶ 00018, the brief description of Fig. 5 is inaccurate because Fig. 5 does not show the transport adapter of Fig. 2. Rather, Fig. 5 shows a mutually exclusive embodiment.
In ¶ 00025, at l. 3, “FIG. 1” should read “FIG. 2”.
In ¶ 00028, at l. 6, “end 48.” should read “end 48 (FIG. 2A).”
In ¶ 00028, at ll. 7-8, “so that it could be folded down out of the way when not in use. (FIG. 2B).” is inaccurate because Fig. 2B does not show the transport adapter folded down out of the way when not in use. Further, it is not apparent from Fig. 2B that the transport adapter is capable of being folded down out of the way when not in use.
In ¶ 00029, at l. 9, “socket end 212” is inconsistent with the later description of element 212 as a “hitch socket” (¶ 00030, ll. 7 and 11)
In ¶ 00034, at l. 6, “the non-adjustable adapter 100 of FIGS. 2-4” is inaccurate because Fig. 2B shows a foldable adapter 100b (not the non-adjustable adapter 100). Further, Fig. 2A shows alternate adapter 100a rather than adapter 100.
In ¶ 00036, at l. 3, “corner hinge assembly 121, 123” is inconsistent with the earlier descriptions of element 121 as an “inner, corner end” (¶ 00032) and element 123 as a “hinge or pivot pin” (¶ 00032). Further, “corner hinge assembly 121, 123” is inaccurate because the corner hinge assembly also includes the inner, corner end 111.
In ¶ 00037, at l. 3, “spacer 110” should read “spacer arm 110”.
In ¶ 00037, at l. 5, “hinge assembly 121, 123” is inconsistent and inaccurate for the reasons given above.
In ¶ 00038, at ll. 11-12, “in this provisional application or in any non-provisional application claiming priority to this provisional application” is inaccurate because the instant application is not a provisional application.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed below must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
“said spacer arm is hingedly attached to said rear end of said log arch frame, whereby it can be folded out of the way when not in use” (claim 4).
The drawings are also objected to because:
Reference number 42 (see Fig. 2) should appear in Fig. 1 because ¶ 00022 describes Fig. 1 as including this reference number.
Fig. 1 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference number 44 is used to designate (i) a manual pull handle, (ii) a winch attachment, and (iii) a vehicle hitch connector. The same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
Fig. 1 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because reference character 48b (see ¶ 00024) does not appear in Fig. 1 or the rest of the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
In Figs. 2 and 2A, the lead line for reference number 48a is not directed to a square socket (see Fig. 1; ¶¶ 00024, 00026) at the frame’s rear end 48. Rather, in Figs. 2 and 2A, the lead line for reference number 48a appears to be directed to the hole 48b described in ¶ 00024.
In Fig. 2B, the lead line for reference number 10 is directed to the transport adapter 100b rather than to the trailer (see Fig. 2).
Fig. 2B does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because reference character 130’ appears in Fig. 2B, but it is not mentioned in the specification. Reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings.
In Fig. 3A, the lead line for reference number 48a is not directed to a square socket (see Fig. 1; ¶¶ 00024, 00026) at the frame’s rear end 48. Rather, in Fig. 3A, the lead line for reference number 48a appears to be directed to the hole 48b described in ¶ 00024.
Figs. 5-7 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference number 130 is used to designate an inner corner brace that differs in both its structure and function compared to the inner corner brace 130 shown in Figs. 2-2A, 3A and 4. The same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
Fig. 7 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because reference number 131 appears in Fig. 7, but it is not mentioned in the specification. Reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. In Fig. 7, it appears that reference number 131 should be changed to 133 (see Fig. 5).
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this application should be directed:
By Patent Center1: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail2 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 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).
2 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.