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 .
Drawings
The drawing objection is withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,602,960. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the elements of the present claims are described in the prior patent claims. The limitations of the application claims correspond to patent claims, as follows (the features of Claims 1 and 3 of the application are taught by claim 1 of the patent and the text of dependent claims 2 and 4-10 of the application is identical to the text of claims 2 and 4-10 of the patent):
Application claim Patent ‘960 claim
1
2
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick (USPN 6,776,431) in view of Rhodes (USPN 9,676,429).
Regarding claim 11, Dick teaches a fifth wheel hitch 10, comprising: a base assembly 22 configured to removably connect to a hitch ball 16 of a towing vehicle 14 (see Figure 1); the base assembly connected to a hitch head assembly 20, 24 (see Figure 3); the hitch head assembly adjustable in height with respect to the base assembly (see Figure 3; col. 4, lines 28-47); the hitch head assembly 20, 24, configured to secure a kingpin 122 of a fifth wheel trailer 12 (Figure 1, col. 3, lines 11-20); and the kingpin secured inside the hitch head assembly (see Figure 5).
Dick lacks the kingpin receiver opening comprising a funnel shape to guide the kingpin into the kingpin receiver socket as the kingpin is lowered vertically into the kingpin receiver socket.
Rhodes teaches a fifth wheel hitch 10 having a plate 12, receiver opening 14 with a funnel shaped portion 16 to guide the kingpin into the kingpin into the kingpin receiver as the kingpin is lowered vertically (see Rhodes, fol. 3, lines 33-35, “surrounding the kingpin hole 14 is a chamfer 16 that aids in aligning the kingpin with the kingpin hole 14 during coupling”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the kingpin receiver opening with a funnel shaped portion, as taught by Rhodes, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in aligning the kingpin with the kingpin receiving opening as the kingpin is lowered vertically.
Regarding claim 12, the hitch head assembly 20, 24, is configured to secure the kingpin 122 of the fifth wheel trailer without an adapter or extension.
Regarding claim 13, Dick teaches a horizontally-oriented hitch plate 26 for engaging a trailer plate 126 of the fifth wheel trailer 12 (see Figure 3); a kingpin receiver opening 28 positioned in the center of the hitch plate; a kingpin receiver socket 24 positioned in the center of the kingpin receiver opening; and the kingpin receiver socket structured to prevent the kingpin from sliding horizontally out of the hitch head assembly after being pulled forward by the towing vehicle.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy (USPB 8,430,418) in view of Rhodes (USPN 9,676.429).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, McCoy teaches a fifth wheel hitch 10, comprising: a base assembly 18, 20, configured to removably connect to a hitch ball 34 (Figure 2) of a towing vehicle; the base assembly connected to a hitch head assembly 12,14; the head assembly comprising a kingpin receiver opening (slot in head 12 for kingpin); the hitch head assembly 12 adjustable in height with respect to the base assembly 18, 20 (McCoy, col. 3, lines 64-67, “each wing 60 of each adjustment plate 16 may include a series of three apertures 62 that may allow the height of the head 12 to be adjusted by three inches relative to the bed of the towing vehicle. Such an arrangement may add flexibility to the positioning of the fifth wheel head 12 so that the head 12 may accommodate a greater variety of kingpins”).; the hitch head assembly configured to secure the kingpin and the kingpin secured inside the hitch head assembly.
McCoy lacks the hitch head assembly the kingpin receiver opening comprising a funnel shape configured to guide a kingpin of a fifth wheel trailer into a kingpin receiver socket as the kingpin is lowered vertically into the kingpin receiver socket. However, McCoy does teach that “the fifth wheel head 12 may be of any appropriate shape or size, such as that generally known in the art (McCoy, col. 3, lines 10-11).
Rhodes teaches a fifth wheel hitch 10 having a plate 12, receiver opening 14 with a funnel shaped portion 16 to guide the kingpin into the kingpin into the kingpin receiver as the kingpin is lowered vertically (see Rhodes, fol. 3, lines 33-35, “surrounding the kingpin hole 14 is a chamfer 16 that aids in aligning the kingpin with the kingpin hole 14 during coupling”). It also teaches a release handle 42 that extends beyond one side of the plate adjacent the pivot bracket 22a (col. 4, lines 9-13) so it is visible from the outside to allow for confirmation that a secure connection between the kingpin and fifth wheel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the kingpin receiver opening with a funnel shaped portion, as taught by Rhodes, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in aligning the kingpin with the kingpin receiving opening as the kingpin is lowered vertically.
Regarding claim 12, the hitch head assembly of the combination is configured to secure the kingpin of the fifth wheel trailer without an adapter or extension.
Regarding claim 13, the hitch head assembly of the combination comprises a horizontally-oriented hitch plate for engaging a trailer plate of the fifth wheel trailer; the kingpin receiver opening positioned in the center of the hitch plate; the kingpin receiver socket positioned in the center of the kingpin receiver opening;
Regarding claim 16, the combination McCoy and Rhodes teaches the claimed combination of elements as well as the method steps. Both references teach providing the fifth wheel trailer; providing the towing vehicle; connecting the fifth wheel hitch to the towing vehicle; raising or lowering the hitch head assembly of the fifth wheel hitch to an appropriate height depending on a particular size of the towing vehicle, fifth wheel trailer, or combinations thereof, positioning the hitch head assembly of the fifth wheel hitch beneath the kingpin of the fifth wheel trailer; lowering the kingpin into the hitch head assembly; and locking the kingpin inside the hitch head assembly. McCoy does not explicitly teach confirming whether a secure connection between the kingpin and the fifth wheel hitch has been properly executed. However, Rhodes teaches a visible handle that indicates the connection has been properly executed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a handle that is visible from the outside of the head assembly for confirmation that the connection is secure, as taught by Rhodes, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order verify that the connection has been properly secured.
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches securing the kingpin of the fifth wheel trailer in the hitch head assembly of the fifth wheel hitch without using an adapter or extension.
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches vertically lowering the kingpin into the funnel shaped kingpin receiver opening of the hitch head assembly to guide the kingpin into the kingpin receiver socket; and preventing the kingpin from sliding horizontally out of the hitch head assembly after being pulled forward by the towing vehicle because the kingpin can only be removed from the kingpin receiver socket vertically (the circular opening of Rhodes provides this function).
Claim(s) 14, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy and Rhodes as applied to claims 11-13 and 16-18 above, and further in view of Hesse (USPN 7,753,391).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, the combination lacks the hitch head assembly comprising a four- way pivot joint; the four-way pivot joint configured to enable the hitch plate to adapt to an abutting engagement with the trailer plate of the fifth wheel trailer.
Hesse teaches a fifth wheel hitch 10 with a hitch plate 31 comprising a four-way pivot joint allowing rotation about transverse axis 85 and longitudinal axis or fore/aft 83 (see Figures 2 and 7; col. 5, lines 14-20); the four-way pivot joint configured to enable the hitch plate to adapt to an abutting engagement with the trailer plate of the fifth wheel trailer, as is conventional.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the hitch head assembly of the combination with a four-way pivot joint, as taught by Hesse, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce stresses as the vehicle is driven over irregular roadways.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Dick lacks a latching and locking mechanism with a clear indication that a secure connection is made with the kingpin. Rhodes, however, teaches a latching and locking mechanism 23 (see Figure 2) configured to secure a kingpin 120 inside its hitch head assembly 12; and the latching and locking mechanism structured to indicate whether a secure connection has been made between the kingpin of the fifth wheel trailer and the fifth wheel hitch (secure connection can be verified by the position of the handle 42 that is visible from outside of the hitch 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the hitch head assembly of the combination with a handle that is visible from outside of the hitch head assembly, as taught by Rhodes, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to verify that the kingpin is securely connected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed over the prior art of record, only an obviousness double patenting rejection remains with respect to these claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the obviousness double patenting rejection cannot be properly addressed because the application claim features were not properly mapped to the patent claim features. The listing of claims in paragraph 4 above indicates the patent claims that provide support for the application claims. Since the terms used in the application and claims are the same and the dependent claims are identical, further explanation is not required.
Applicant argues that the combination of Dick and Rhodes fails to teach the combination of claims 11-13. The examiner disagrees. With respect to apparatus claims 11-13, the only structural difference between the claimed elements and the structure of Rick is the funnel shape to guide the kingpin into the receiver socket. Rhodes teaches a funnel shape that guides a kingpin into a funnel socket. Therefore, the combination is believed to be obvious over the combination of Dick and Rhodes.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights