DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 01/13/26 has been entered. Claims 1-19 are currently pending, with claims 16-19 being newly added. Despite the claim amendments to claim 1, the previous 103 rejections are maintained as detailed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the at least one extension member “protrud[ing] from the main body at about a center of the main body” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). See claims 16-17. The extension member 200 is depicted only as being at a side of the main body, as seen in Figure 4-5, 8-9 and 11. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claims 16 and 17 recite that the at least one extension member “protrudes from the main body at about a center of the main body” but there is no discussion of this in the Detailed Description and extension member 200 is depicted only as being at a side of the main body, as seen in Figure 4-5, 8-9 and 11.
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 18-19 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.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected because they each recite “said ground-anchored retention element,” but this term lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 18 depends from claim 1, which defined a “ground-anchored retention plate” and claim 19 depends from claim 9, which defined a “ground-anchored base element.” It is unclear what element is being referred to in claims 18 and 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
REJECTION #1: Jette in view of Ellis
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jette et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,793,119) in view of Ellis (U.S. Patent No. 5,553,987). Jette is directed to a bidirectional wheel chock restraint system. See Abstract. Ellis is directed to a wheel chocking device. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Jette discloses a wheel chock [Figs. 28-31] comprising: a main body (104, 150) having a length, a height, and a width, the main body being configured to engage a wheel assembly of a vehicle (52) to prevent movement, the wheel assembly comprising a rim, a tire (54, 56) and an axis of rotation; said main body having a sloped top wheel-facing side configured to receive in overlay and abutment said wheel tire [see Figs. 7, 29]; a ground-anchored retention plate (102) having protrusions (120) for engagement with teeth elements and, in use, to resist movement of the wheel chock [see Figs. 7, 29]; at least one extension member (210) protruding substantially longitudinally from the main body to extend an effective length of the main body in a direction toward the wheel assembly and substantially orthogonal to the axis of rotation of the wheel assembly [see col. 16, lines 30-59 (“rail 210 extends longitudinally…each wheel chock 104 includes a corresponding channel on its bottom side that fits over the rail 210”); see also Fig. 29], the at least one extension member being configured, in use, to lie adjacent to at least a portion of a side wall of the wheel tire [see Figs. 29, 30], and to further resist movement of the wheel chock and vehicle wheel.
Jette discloses all the limitations of this claim except that there is no discussion of how the extension member is attached to the retention plate. Specifically, Jette does not disclose that the extension member comprises a second “plurality of teeth elements” to releasably engage protrusions on the retention plate. Ellis discloses a wheel chock (10) [Fig. 10] that has a main body (15 or 16) and an extension member (17) extending longitudinally from the main body and configured to lie adjacent to at least a portion of a side wall of the wheel tire (T2) [see Figs. 7-9] and to further resist movement of the wheel chock and vehicle, wherein the at least one extension member further comprises a plurality of teeth elements (17b) configured to releasably engage said corresponding ground-anchored retention plate (30) having protrusions (31) for engagement with said teeth elements. See Fig. 10. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use teeth on the bottom of the Jette extension member (“rail 210”) because it already uses teeth on the wheel chock main body to engage the protrusions of the retention plate, so this would be an intuitive and simple solution to attach the extension member to the retention plate as well. Jette discusses that the extension member rests on the retention plate to “prevent the wheel chocks from pivoting around a vertical axis” [see col. 16, lines 30-46; Figs. 28-31], so a secure engagement such as the one depicted in Ellis would achieve this objective.
Claim 2: Jette discloses a wheel tire-engaging resilient spacer (310). See Fig. 7.
Claim 3: Jette discloses a wheel tire-engaging bulge (180, 182), the bulge protruding from an upper portion of the main body and configured to engage a portion of the wheel tire. See Fig. 7.
Claim 4: Jette discloses that the main body is monolithic. See Fig. 7.
Claim 5: Jette discloses that the at least one extension member extends along at least a portion of a side (152) of the main body. See Fig. 29.
Claim 6-7: Jette discloses that the extension member is coupled to the main body. It would be obvious to modify the system such these components are integral because this is a design choice, perhaps to reduce number of parts. Also, it would be obvious to try since limited possibilities exist here – either they are separate and coupled, or are unitary and integral.
Claim 8: Ellis discloses that the at least one extension member is pivotably coupled to said main body. See Figs. 11-13.
Claim 9: Jette discloses a wheel chock restraint system comprising: a wheel chock according to claim 1, and a corresponding ground-anchored base plate configured to be disposed under a wheel tire and under said wheel chock, and configured to mechanically engage the teeth elements of the wheel chock. See Figs. 7, 28-31.
Claim 10: Jette discloses that the ground-anchored base plate comprises heating means sufficient to melt snow or ice. See col. 7, lines 55-57.
Claim 11: Jette discloses that the ground-anchored base plate is configured to be removably anchored to the ground. See col. 8, lines 1-13.
Claim 12: Jette discloses a plurality of ground-anchored base plates. See col. 7, lines 35-54.
Claim 13: Jette discloses spring-assisted means configured to move the wheel chock into and out of engagement position on said ground-anchored base plate. See col. 15, lines 51-58.
Claim 14-15: Jette discloses that the spring-assisted means is a motorized retractable arm. See col. 15, lines 51-58; Figs. 21-25.
Claims 16-17: Jette discloses that the at least one extension member protrudes from the main body at about a center of the main body to extend an effective length of a base of the main body in a direction toward the wheel assembly and substantially orthogonal to the axis of rotation of the wheel assembly. See Figs. 28-31.
Claims 18-19: Jette discloses a base (bottom of 150) of the main body comprising a second plurality of downwardly projecting teeth elements (160, 162) configured to releasably engage the corresponding ground-anchored retention element having protrusions for engagement with said second plurality of teeth elements and, in use, to resist movement of the wheel chock and wheel assembly once said second plurality of teeth elements are engaged on said ground-anchored retention element. See Figs. 7, 28-31.
REJECTION #2: Jette in view of Winsor
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jette in view of Winsor (U.S. Patent No. 5,302,063). Winsor is directed to a vehicle wheel chock. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Jette discloses a wheel chock [Figs. 28-31] comprising: a main body (104, 150) having a length, a height, and a width, the main body being configured to engage a wheel assembly of a vehicle (52) to prevent movement, the wheel assembly comprising a rim, a tire (54, 56) and an axis of rotation; said main body having a sloped top wheel-facing side configured to receive in overlay and abutment said wheel tire [see Figs. 7, 29]; a ground-anchored retention plate (102) having protrusions (120) for engagement with teeth elements and, in use, to resist movement of the wheel chock [see Figs. 7, 29]; at least one extension member (210) protruding substantially longitudinally from the main body to extend an effective length of the main body in a direction toward the wheel assembly and substantially orthogonal to the axis of rotation of the wheel assembly [see col. 16, lines 30-59 (“rail 210 extends longitudinally…each wheel chock 104 includes a corresponding channel on its bottom side that fits over the rail 210”); see also Fig. 29], the at least one extension member being configured, in use, to lie adjacent to at least a portion of a side wall of the wheel tire [see Figs. 29, 30], and to further resist movement of the wheel chock and vehicle wheel.Jette discloses all the limitations of this claim except that there is no discussion of how the extension member is attached to the retention plate. Specifically, Jette does not disclose that the extension member comprises a second “plurality of teeth elements” to releasably engage protrusions on the retention plate. Winsor discloses a wheel chock (16) [Figs. 5A, 5B] that has a main body (55, 24, 17) with a plurality of teeth elements (22) configured to releasably engage a corresponding ground-anchored retention plate (11) having protrusions (11’) for engagement with said teeth elements and an extension member (21) extending longitudinally from the main body to resist movement of the wheel chock and vehicle, wherein the at least one extension member further comprises a plurality of teeth elements (35) configured to releasably engage the retention plate with said teeth elements [see Figs. 6A-6C]. See Figs. 5A-6C. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use teeth on the bottom of the Jette extension member (“rail 210”) because it already uses teeth on the wheel chock main body to engage the protrusions of the retention plate, so this would be an intuitive and simple solution to attach the extension member to the retention plate as well. Jette discusses that the extension member rests on the retention plate to “prevent the wheel chocks from pivoting around a vertical axis” [see col. 16, lines 30-46; Figs. 28-31], so a secure engagement such as the “locking” one depicted in Winsor would achieve this objective.
Claim 2: Jette discloses a wheel tire-engaging resilient spacer (310). See Fig. 7.
Claim 3: Jette discloses a wheel tire-engaging bulge (180, 182), the bulge protruding from an upper portion of the main body and configured to engage a portion of the wheel tire. See Fig. 7.
Claim 4: Jette discloses that the main body is monolithic. See Fig. 7.
Claim 5: Jette discloses that the at least one extension member extends along at least a portion of a side (152) of the main body. See Fig. 29.
Claim 6-7: Jette discloses that the extension member is coupled to the main body. Winsor discloses that the extension member (18, 21) is integral with the main body. See Figs. 5A, 5B. It would be obvious to modify the system such these components are integral because this is a design choice, perhaps to reduce number of parts. Also, it would be obvious to try since limited possibilities exist here – either they are separate and coupled, or are unitary and integral.
Claim 8: Winsor discloses that the at least one extension member is pivotably coupled to said main body. See Figs. 6A-6C.
Claim 9: Jette discloses a wheel chock restraint system comprising: a wheel chock according to claim 1, and a corresponding ground-anchored base plate configured to be disposed under a wheel tire and under said wheel chock, and configured to mechanically engage the teeth elements of the wheel chock. See Figs. 7, 28-31.
Claim 10: Jette discloses that the ground-anchored base plate comprises heating means sufficient to melt snow or ice. See col. 7, lines 55-57.
Claim 11: Jette discloses that the ground-anchored base plate is configured to be removably anchored to the ground. See col. 8, lines 1-13.
Claim 12: Jette discloses a plurality of ground-anchored base plates. See col. 7, lines 35-54.
Claim 13: Jette discloses spring-assisted means configured to move the wheel chock into and out of engagement position on said ground-anchored base plate. See col. 15, lines 51-58.
Claim 14-15: Jette discloses that the spring-assisted means is a motorized retractable arm. See col. 15, lines 51-58; Figs. 21-25.
Claims 16-17: Jette discloses that the at least one extension member protrudes from the main body at about a center of the main body to extend an effective length of a base of the main body in a direction toward the wheel assembly and substantially orthogonal to the axis of rotation of the wheel assembly. See Figs. 28-31.
Claims 18-19: Jette discloses a base (bottom of 150) of the main body comprising a second plurality of downwardly projecting teeth elements (160, 162) configured to releasably engage the corresponding ground-anchored retention element having protrusions for engagement with said second plurality of teeth elements and, in use, to resist movement of the wheel chock and wheel assembly once said second plurality of teeth elements are engaged on said ground-anchored retention element. See Figs. 7, 28-31.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant traverses the first rejection because Jette allegedly does not disclose the newly added limitation regarding the extension member “protruding from the base to extend an effective length of the base in a direction toward the wheel assembly and substantially orthogonal to the axis of rotation of the wheel assembly.” See Remarks, pages 6-7. In response, Figure 29 of Jette and column 16, lines 30-59 explicitly show and discuss the wheel chock having a channel that fits over a rail 210, which extends longitudinally from the base of the wheel chock. Clearly, the limitation is met since the Jette rail 210 “protrudes from the main body” and, in tandem, “extend[s] an effective length of the main body.” Applicant appears to be taking an overly narrow interpretation of the claim language.
Next, Applicant traverses the first rejection due to alleged deficiencies regarding the combination. Applicant contends that modifying Jette with an extension member would make it “difficult, if not impossible, to balance the chock properly.” See Remarks page 6. In response, the proposed combination does not modify Jette to ‘add’ an extension member – the extension member is already present in Jette. All that is used in the teaching references for BOTH parallel rejections is the means of attachment of the Jette extension member (rail 210) to the plate. Then Applicant argues that Ellis does not disclose an “extension member” since element 17 is a “dolly on wheels.” See Remarks, page 7. Once again, Applicant appears to be taking an overly narrow interpretation of the claim language. Why can’t element 17 in Ellis be an “extension member?” It is a member that ‘extends’ from the main body of a wheel chock, and does so protruding longitudinally from the base to extend an effective length of the base.
Finally, Applicant traverses the second rejection because of alleged deficiencies with the teaching reference Winsor. Specifically, Applicant argues that the Winsor extension member does not disclose the newly added limitation concerning “protruding from the base to extend an effective length of the base in a direction toward the wheel assembly and substantially orthogonal to the axis of rotation of the wheel assembly.” See Remarks, pages 7-8. Again, this feature is disclosed in the base reference Jette, so this argument need not be addressed here. Winsor is offered only to teach how the Jette extension member (rail 210) is attached to the plate.
As a side note, it appears that Applicant has effectively broadened the scope of claim 1, placing some of the original limitations in dependent claims 18-19 (albeit with some indefiniteness problems now). Applicant should strongly consider narrowing the scope of the claims instead in order to move prosecution forward.
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims are rejected as detailed 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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 January 26, 2026