DETAILED ACTION
The Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 03/26/26 has been entered. Claims 1-15 and 18-19 are currently pending, with claims 16-17 being cancelled. Despite the arguments submitted in the Inventor’s Declaration, 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 .
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) 1-15 and 18-19 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 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) 1-15 and 18-19 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 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 submitted in the Inventor’s Declaration filed 03/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because they focus entirely on alleged differences between the cited art and instant invention rather than the claim language itself.
The Inventor’s Declaration contains the various arguments traversing the parallel 103 rejections. In paragraph 7, Applicant states “we have repeatedly explained, and I will further clarify here, that the ‘rail 210’ in the ‘119 patent (Jette) is NOT an extension member as presently claimed” because “[t]hat is not the function of the ‘extension member’ as presently claimed.” The Applicant proceeds in paragraph 9-14 to explain that the rails 210 prevent the chock from twisting about a vertical axis whereas the extension member in the instant application prevents the chock from rolling or rotating about a horizontal axis. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features/functions of the invention, it is noted that the features/functions upon which applicant relies (i.e., preventing rotation about a certain axis) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Nowhere in the Inventor’s Declaration does the Applicant point to a specific claim limitation that is not properly disclosed by the prior art. Simply asserting that the Jette rail 210 does not function in the same manner as the extension member of the instant application is ultimately irrelevant so long as the limitation(s) concerning this claim element are disclosed.
Applicant further argues that “the extension member of the present application [is] not a rail” but there is no reason why the rail 210 can’t be deemed an “extension member” if it meets the recited limitations. Applicant could very easily overcome this rejection by including a negative limitation, reciting that --the extension member is not a rail--. Alternatively, some of the alleged functional differences with the prior art could be explicitly recited in the claim language. As previously advised in the 01/28/26 Final Rejection, Applicant should strongly consider narrowing the scope of the claims instead in order to move prosecution forward.
It should be noted that the Ellis reference itself may read on all the limitations of claim 1, and its “extension member” (17) is not a rail, and would prevent the chock from rolling or rotating about a horizontal axis. This is also true of the Winsor reference, with its “extension member” (21, 18). Please consider the possible use of these references as a 102 reference (or base reference in a revised 103 rejection) when filing a response.
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims are rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 April 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights