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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 5/31/23 fails to fully comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because copies of items 1 and 2 of the non-patent literature documents was not provided. These items have not been considered, however, the remaining citations have been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show (dual ball bearing axis” in claim 14 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means” used in claims 1, 3 and 11. The term “means” is used to defines the terms preceding each use thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-10, 12-13 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13, line 1, it is thought that ---one or more—should be added before “structures”.
In claim 16, the second to last like, the phrase “to lower to raise” is contradictory.
In claim 25, line 2, it is thought that –a—should be added before “fixed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-27 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.
The recitation on lines 10-11 of claim 1 that when raising the top panel such movement involves “causing said four upper panels to rise” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the disclosure fails to describe exactly how the top panel is operatively associated with the four upper panels so that raising the top panel also raises the four upper panels. Note that in Fig. 3A two of the upper panels (6, 7) are spaced from the top panel and it would appear that raising the top panel would have no effect on movement of the upper panels (6 and 7).
The recitation in claim 2, lines 17-18, that “when said actuators are moving to an extended position, said top panel is raised causing said second opposing set and said first opposing set to rise concurrently” is also not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention for the same reasons provided above with respect to similar language in claim 1.
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 1-27 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.
In claim 1, lines 2-3, are unclear because the “front lower wall, left lower wall, right lower wall and rear lower wall” are not clearly tied to the recitation of “four walls”. It is thought that “front lower wall, left lower wall right lower wall and rear lower wall” should be changed to –wherein said four walls include a front lower wall, a left lower wall, a right lower wall and a rear lower wall--. On lines 4-5, it is unclear whether the claim is reciting that the top panel is also hingedly attached to the four walls. This does not appear to be the case since Figure 3A shows two of the panels (6, 7) spaced from the top panel. It appears that adding –wherein each of said four side panels are—after “side panels” as well as deletion of the term “each” would correct the issue. Also, the recitation on lines 5-6 of “front upper panel, left upper panel, right upper panel and rear upper panel” lack clear antecedence. It is thought that changing “front upper panel, left upper panel, right upper panel and rear upper panel” to –wherein said four side panels include a front upper panel, a left upper panel, a right upper panel and a rear upper panel-- would correct the issue.
In claim 2, lines 2-3, are unclear because the “front lower wall, left lower wall, right lower wall and rear lower wall” are not clearly tied to the recitation of “four walls”. It is thought that “front lower wall, left lower wall right lower wall and rear lower wall” should be changed to –wherein said four walls include a front lower wall, a left lower wall, a right lower wall and a rear lower wall—to correct the issue. Also, the recitation on lines 7-8 of “front upper panel, left upper panel, right upper panel and rear upper panel” lack clear antecedence. It is thought that changing “front upper panel, left upper panel, right upper panel and rear upper panel” to –wherein said four side panels include a front upper panel, a left upper panel, a right upper panel and a rear upper panel-- would correct the issue.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-27 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The recitation in claim 1 of a hard sided collapsible recreational vehicle comprising
a lower body structure comprising a floor and four walls: an upper body structure comprising a top panel and four side panels each hingedly attached to said four walls wherein when said four upper panels are folded down, and said top panel is lowered to rest onto the lower body structure; when said recreational vehicle is moving from said retracted position to an extended position, said top panel and four upper panels are raised, when said recreational vehicle is fully extended, said four upper panels are in alignment with said four lower walls, wherein said recreational vehicle includes storage compartments that can be accessible from outside when the recreational vehicle is collapsed in its retracted position and accessible from both inside and outside when the recreational vehicle is fully extended; and wherein said recreational vehicle is garageable is not taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Mansen US 3,050,331 disclose a collapsible trailer with hinged side walls (20; Fig. 1), however the end walls are not hinged to lower walls of a lower body structure. Also, Mansen lacks dual accessible storage compartments.
The recitation in claim 2 of a collapsible recreational vehicle that is hard sided comprising: a lower body structure comprising a floor and four walls; a top panel; four vertically oriented actuators, one at each corner of said lower body, one end attached to said floor and the opposing end attached to said top panel; and four upper panels each hingedly attached to said four walls; wherein when said actuators are in a retracted position and said recreational vehicle is collapsed: a first opposing set of said upper panels are folded and resting over said lower body; the remaining second opposing set of said upper panels are folded and resting over said first opposing set; and said top panel is resting over said second opposing set and resting onto said lower body and onto said actuators; when said actuators are moving to an extended position, said top panel is raised as well as said second opposing set and said first opposing set; when said actuators are fully extended: said four upper panels are in vertical alignment with said four walls and said top panel is capable of acting as a roof for said recreational vehicle is not taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Wallace US 3,488,085 disclose an expandable comping trailer with four actuators (18; Fig. 2) which extend between a lower structure and a roof structure. However, the sides are not hinged as recited in claim 2 and they are not hard sides.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hagen US 3,179,462 discloses an expandable travel trailer with various amenities including a kitchen area a sing and a table. See Fig. 3.
Wallace US 3,488,085 disclose an expandable comping trailer with four actuators (18; Fig. 2) which extend between a lower structure and a roof structure.
McCarthy US 3,560,042 disclose an expandable trailer with hard walls including upper side walls hinged to lower side walls, however the upper end walls are slidably mounted to the lower end walls by rails 63. See Fig. 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612