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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to for the following informalities: Line 9-10 recites: “the contract surface” which should read “the contact surface” for the purpose of consistency.
Claims 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 use inconsistent spelling for the word “adaptor” or “adapter”. While both spellings are correct, examiner suggests having one consistent spelling of the word throughout the claims to ensure clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-20 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 1, 16, and 18 lines 3 recites “during towing” which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations of the claim apply at all times, for instance when the vehicle and towed vehicle are parked, or only “during towing”. All remaining claims depend from either 1, 16, or 18 and are also rejected as indefinite due to their dependency from claims 1, 16, or 18.
Claim 10 line 2 recites “the shank further defines a vertically extending recess exposed on its bottom side” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “its bottom side” refers to a bottom side of the recess or a bottom side of the shank. Examiner suggests “the shank further defines a vertically extending recess exposed on a bottom side of the shank” for clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Doman (US 2022/0363096 A1, Effective filing date May 14, 2021).
In regards to claim 1: Doman teaches a removable gooseneck hitch ball (Shown in Figure 7c) comprising:
a hitch ball (607) having a generally spherical outer profile received in a coupler of a towed vehicle during towing (Last sentence of Abstract: “Additionally, the assembly can include a hitch mount interface configured to interface with an attachment structure that facilitates coupling the weight measuring hitch ball assembly to a tow vehicle.”);
a neck (shown not labeled in Figure 7c directly under hitch ball) extending downwardly from the hitch ball, the neck and the hitch ball defining a generally vertical towing pivot axis (See Figures 7A-7C); and
a shank (609) extending downwardly from the neck, the shank defining a central axis with a contact surface of the shank extending around the central axis, wherein the contact surface includes a plurality of arc surfaces (arced surfaces shown in Figures 7A and 7C) and a plurality of flat surfaces (flat surfaces between smaller arced surfaces in Figures 7A and 7C), the plurality of arc surfaces collectively defining a cylinder centered on the central axis (See Figure 7C wherein a cylinder could be drawn around the arced corners on the outside of the shank), each of the flat surfaces being parallel to the central axis and inside the cylinder defined by the arc surfaces (Examiner notes that a cylinder drawn around the shank and touching the arced surfaces would have the flat surfaces on the inside of the cylinder), such that the shank can be matingly received in a cylindrical socket of the towing vehicle with the arc surfaces in contact with the cylindrical socket or can be matingly received in a prism shaped socket of the towing vehicle with the flat surfaces in contact with the prism shaped socket (See Paragraph 0089 discussing the receiver. The shape of the receiver is not disclosed. However, examiner notes that the shank shown in Figure 7C would be capable of fitting in a cylindrical or a prism shaped receiver of appropriate sizing.)
In regards to claim 2: The removable gooseneck hitch ball of claim 1 is taught by Doman. Doman further teaches wherein the flat surfaces collectively define a rectangular prism (See Figure 7C).
In regards to claim 3: The removable gooseneck hitch ball of claim 2 is taught by Doman. Doman further teaches wherein the flat surfaces collectively define a square prism (See Figure 7C).
In regards to claim 8: The removable gooseneck hitch ball of claim 1 is taught by Doman. Doman further teaches wherein the shank defines a first pin receiving through-hole (611) extending transversely through the central axis (See Figure 7C).
In regards to claim 10: The removable gooseneck hitch ball of claim 1 is taught by Doman. Doman further teaches wherein the shank further defines a vertically extending recess (recess in hole 611) exposed on its bottom side (Examiner notes that bottom half of hole 611 is exposed on the side, the bottom of the recess is exposed to the inside of the shank, and the claim does not specify what the bottom side must be exposed to) which sets the depth of the shank when inserted into a socket (Paragraph 0089: The lower portion 609 comprises one or more through holes 611 extending through the lower portion 609. The through holes 611 are configured to receive a connecting pin or shaft from a hitch receiver to lock or secure the hitch ball into the hitch receiver. The through holes 611 are formed to have an elongated profile. Thus, the through holes 611 provide vertical clearance to allow the hitch ball 607 to move vertically even when the connecting pin or shaft extends through one of the through holes 611.”).
In regards to claim 11: The removable gooseneck hitch ball of claim 1 is taught by Doman. Doman further teaches two adaptors (634 and 672) removably attached on a bottom of the shank (See Figures 7A and 7B).
In regards to claim 14: The removable gooseneck hitch ball of claim 1 is taught by Doman. Doman further teaches wherein the towing pivot axis is coincident with the central axis of the shank (See Figures 7A-7C where a towing pivot axis from a receiver over the top of the hitch ball would be coincident with the central axis of the shank as the hitch ball is centered on the shank).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doman.
In regards to claims 4-7: The removable gooseneck hitch ball of claim 3 is taught by Doman. Doman is silent as to the exact circumferential contact lengths of the flat surfaces and the arc surfaces in the relied upon embodiment. However, a first generic embodiment described in Paragraph 0055 of Doman teaches: “The hitch mount interface 152 can be or include any suitable geometry or configuration to facilitate interfacing, coupling, joining, mating, etc. with a given attachment structure. For example, the hitch mount interface 152 can comprise at least one of a planar interface surface or a curved interface surface. In some examples, a planar interface surface can at least partially define a rectangular profile. In some examples, a curved interface surface can at least partially define a circular profile.”
Furthermore, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (See MPEP 2144.04 Paragraph IV A).
In the case of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size and relative dimensions of the flat and arc surfaces of the shank of Doman to fit a desired receiver or group of receivers of a certain size thereby allowing for a hitch ball that better suits the needs of various users and vehicles. Additionally, modifying the relative dimensions would not cause the device to perform differently, i.e. fitting into the desired vehicle receiver(s).
In regards to claim 18: Doman teaches a removable gooseneck hitch ball (Shown in Figure 7c) comprising:
a hitch ball (607) having a generally spherical outer profile received in a coupler of a towed vehicle during towing (Last sentence of Abstract: “Additionally, the assembly can include a hitch mount interface configured to interface with an attachment structure that facilitates coupling the weight measuring hitch ball assembly to a tow vehicle.”);
a neck (shown not labeled in Figure 7c directly under hitch ball) extending downwardly from the hitch ball, the neck and the hitch ball defining a generally vertical towing pivot axis (See Figures 7A-7C); and
a shank (609) extending downwardly from the neck, the shank defining a central axis with a contact surface of the shank extending around the central axis (See Figures 7A-7C), wherein the contact surface of the shank can fit in a square prism socket of the towing vehicle or a cylindrical socket of the towing vehicle (See Paragraph 0089 discussing the receiver. The shape of the receiver is not disclosed. However, examiner notes that the shank shown in Figure 7C would be capable of fitting in a cylindrical or a prism shaped receiver of appropriate sizing.) Doman fails to teach wherein the square prism socket is 2.5 x 2.5 inches and the cylindrical socket is 2.75 inches in diameter.
However, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (See MPEP 2144.04 Paragraph IV A).
In the case of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size and relative dimensions of the flat and arc surfaces of the shank of Doman to fit a desired receiver or group of receivers of a certain size thereby allowing for a hitch ball that better suits the needs of various users and vehicles. Additionally, modifying the relative dimensions would not cause the device to perform differently, i.e. fitting into the desired vehicle receiver(s).
In regards to claim 19: The removable gooseneck hitch ball of claim 18 is taught by Doman. Doman teaches wherein the contact surface includes four arc surfaces (arced surfaces shown in Figures 7A and 7C) collectively defining a cylinder (See Figure 7C wherein a cylinder could be drawn around the arced corners on the outside of the shank) centered on the central axis and four flat surfaces parallel to the central axis and inside the cylinder defined by the arc surfaces (flat surfaces between smaller arced surfaces in Figures 7A and 7C, Examiner notes that a cylinder drawn around the shank and touching the arced surfaces would have the flat surfaces on the inside of the cylinder).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doman in view of Gurtler (US 2006/0170192 A1).
In regards to claim 9: The removable gooseneck hitch ball of claim 8 is taught by Doman. Doman further teaches wherein the shank further defines second and third pin receiving through-holes extending transversely through the central axis (See Figure 7C where two holes are shown and corresponding holes would be located on the opposite back sides, not shown in the picture, for a total of 4 holes). Doman fails to teach wherein the second and third through-holes are vertically spaced and both parallel to the first pin receiving through hole. However, Gurtler teaches a removable hitch ball assembly (10) with a shank (26) having three pin receiving through-holes vertically spaced and all parallel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two additional through-holes vertically spaced and parallel to the first as in Gurtler on the shank of Doman to allow for selective positioning of the height of the hitch ball thereby creating a more versatile and adjustable hitch to accommodate the needs of the user and various towed/towing vehicle combinations.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doman in view of Roberts (US 6695338 B1) and Gurtler.
In regards to claim 15: The removable gooseneck hitch ball of claim 1 is taught by Doman. Doman fails to teach wherein the hitch ball and neck are pivotally mounted relative to the shank, wherein the hitch ball, neck and shank are all formed of metal, and further comprising a compressible insert compressed when the hitch ball and neck pivot relative to the shank, the compressible insert being formed of a polymer material.
However, Roberts teaches a gooseneck hitch ball wherein the hitch ball, neck, and shank are all formed of metal (Column 6 lines 33-36: “For example, the ball hitch 30 may be machined from a stress-proof steel material”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ball, neck, and shank of Doman formed of metal as in Roberts to create a hitch mechanism that can withstand high stress thereby allowing the hitch to be more durable while towing heavy loads.
Doman in view of Roberts fails to teach wherein the hitch ball and neck are pivotally mounted relative to the shank, and a compressible insert compressed when the hitch ball and neck pivot relative to the shank, the compressible insert being formed of a polymer material. However, Gurtler teaches wherein the hitch ball and neck (25) are pivotally mounted relative to the shank (26)(Paragraph 0020: “When the trailer vibrates, the torsion bar 16 absorbs the vibration of the trailer transferred through the ball hitch 25 or the mounting tube 44 by rotating slightly which in turn compresses the resilient material 36.”) and a compressible insert (36) compressed when the hitch ball and neck pivot relative to the shank (see quote above), the compressible insert being formed of a polymer material (Paragraph 0018: “the cushioning material 36, which is preferably made of rubber” Examiner notes that rubber is a polymer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally have a the hitch ball of Doman in view of Roberts pivotally mounted relative to the shank with a polymer compressible insert as in Gurtler to allow for torsion and other vibrations to be absorbed thereby creating a smoother and safer towing experience for the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims in addition to overcoming the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action regarding the base claims from which they depend.
Claims 12 (and its dependent 13) and 20 recite two adaptors removably attachable to the bottom of the shank of the hitch that each define an arc surface creating a cylinder centered on the central axis but larger in diameter than the cylinder defined by the arc surfaces of the shank (claim 12) or the cylindrical socket (claim 20). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the art to modify Doman to make the adaptors of Doman larger in diameter than the shank or the socket that the shank fits into as that would render Doman inoperable.
Claims 16 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 16 recites at least one adaptor removably attachable to the bottom of the shank which is within a footprint of the square prism and at least partially outside a footprint of the cylinder. For the reasons stated above regarding the recitation of the specific footprint of the at least one adaptor, claim 16 (and its dependent claim 17) are considered allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. White (US 2006/0097483 A1) teaches a force absorbing towing hitch with a shank that has both arc and flat sides.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL R HYMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0389. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611