DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 04/16/26 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1 and 13 have been amended, while all the remaining claims are maintained as previously presented in the application. In view of amendment, all the previously raised objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. In view of argument and in view of the further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejections is made under 35 USC §103 (details below). Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments see (‘Remarks’ filed 04/16/2026, pages 6-12). In view of argument, the applicant contends that the 35 USC § 102 rejection made for claims 1, 19 and 13-17 are deficient and that the claimed features are not taught or aligned or suggested, or applied in a manner that attempted to explicitly make up for addressing the deficiency of claim 1 have been fully considered, but were not found persuasive for this reason:
In view of argument [ ‘Remarks’, pages 7-8], the applicant asserts that “the apertures 48, 50 of Miller are utilized to secure two components together, not three different structures as called for with the pivot connections recited in claim 1.” The examiner disagrees. Miller’s fig. 1 expressly shows apertures 48 and 50 being used to secure multiple structure, including structure of the trailer itself. As described in Miller, apertures 48 and 50 are provided to secure a securing pin that passes through aligned openings of different components to lock them together. Thus, Miller clearly teaches the concept of using aligned apertures in separate structures to receives a locking member that secures and restrict relative movement between those structure. The fact that Miller’s locking pin is used to secure three structures rather than two does not distinguish the claimed invention. Miller’s disclosure of a pin extending through multiple aligned apertures to immobilize connected components fully meets the claimed functional purpose and renders the features obvious; However, to overcome such an argument and upon further consideration, the examiner brought in an another reference (in view of Paul details below) where Paul expressly teaches the feature as required by the claimed invention where locking mechanism, called as “locking means” are used and telescopic movement of the rod is restricted by the use of locking member and thereby restricting rotational movement of the rod bar to obtain enhanced towing stability, improved safety and predictable alignment. Accordingly, the argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
In view of further argument [ ‘Remarks’, pages 9-10] regarding all claim rejections under 35 USC § 102 and § 103 have been fully considered but in light of amendment, all the remaining arguments are moot because a new ground of rejection under 35 USC § 103 over Miller in view of Paul (details below) does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Because these structural details are well-known and routinely employed in the art, their presence in the reference does not confer patentability; they represent nothing more than a predictable design choice.
To overcome applicant’s argument regarding the applicant’s assertion that the apertures 48, 50 of Miller are utilized to secure two components together, not three different structures and also the requirement of “the coupler bracket and the second position restricting rotation of at least one of the hitch coupler about the lateral axis and the coupler bracket about the fore-and-aft axis”, the examiner further considered the teaching of Paul. Paul expressly discloses the very limitations required by claim 1. In view of this, and with due consideration of record, it is concluded that Miller- alone or in combination with Paul – renders the claim subject matter obvious under § 103. The cited references collectively provide solid evidence that the claim limitations were known in the prior art. Accordingly, a Non- Final type of rejection is made in the interest of compact prosecution (details below).
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.
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.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 20190299728 A1; hereinafter “Miller”) in view of Roper, Paul (WO 2017121903; hereinafter, “Paul”).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses: a trailer coupler assembly (10, fig. 1-2 and [0012]) comprising:
a hitch coupler (12, fig. 1);
a coupler bracket (draw bar 14, [0014]);
a trailer assembly (fig. 1);
a first pivot connection (48, fig. 2) pivotably connecting the hitch coupler (12) to the coupler bracket (via 16A, fig. 2), such that the hitch coupler (12) can rotate about a lateral axis relative to the coupler bracket (14) [para. 0014 discloses that the first drawbar aperture (a first pivot connection 48) cooperates to define a first lateral drawbar passageway through the drawbar 14];
Miller discloses a second pivot connection (50, fig. 2); however, in view of argument, the applicant contends that the remaining claimed features “a second pivot connection pivotably connecting the coupler bracket to the trailer assembly” as required by claim 1 are not taught or aligned or suggested, or applied in a manner that attempted to make up for addressing the deficiency of claim 1; however,
Paul in another splitable trailer coupler similar to Miller teaches that a second pivot connection (A, annotated fig. 19 of Paul below) pivotably connecting (fig. 19 and 24b) the coupler bracket (“coupler bar extension” 202, fig. 5; [0069]) to the trailer assembly [para. 0085 teaches: “as mentioned above, the design of the trailer coupler of the present invention allows the coupler bar to be unlocked and removed from the lock, housing and sleeve assembly, while this assembly remains attached to the trailer”], such the coupler bracket (202) can rotate about a fore-and-aft axis [ para. 00115 teaches: “as discussed above, the ability of the coupler bar to move in a forward and backwards motion (equivalent to rotate about a fore-and-aft axis, [see fig. 25a]) relative to the housing (and hence the trailer) when the towing vehicle is moving is essential”]; and
a lock out member (securing mechanism as depicted in fig. 19 that constitute locking means 4, figs. 8-9; [0072]) movable between a first position (figs. 13b and 19) disengaged from the hitch coupler and the coupler bracket (202) and a second position (figs. 13a and 20b) restricting rotation of at least one of [para. 0072 teaches that figure 13a shows the locking means locked around the end of the coupler bar extension. Figure 13b shows how the locking means are released or opened; also, para. 0011 teaches that the locking means may comprise a peripheral lock comprising: a plurality of jaws arranged in a ring about a central aperture into which an article to be locked is receivable; wherein each jaw is pivotable between an open position and a closed position, wherein the size of the central aperture is greater when then the jaws are in their open position; thus, a first position disengaged from the hitch coupler and the coupler bracket and a second position restricting rotation of at least one of]:
the hitch coupler (ball socket 201; [0069]) about the lateral axis (“lateral or radial movement of the sleeve within the housing”; [0068]), or
the coupler bracket (202) about the fore-and-aft axis (forward and backwards motion; [00115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trailer coupler assembly of Miller in view of Paul. Paul teaches a second pivot connection pivotably connecting a coupler bracket to a trailer assembly such that the coupler bracket can rotate about a fore-and aft axis, as well as a lock-out member of at least one of the pivoting components. Incorporating Paul’s teachings into the assembly of Miller would have predictably resulted in a trailer coupler assembly capable of selectively limiting rotational degrees of freedom during towing or coupling operations, thereby improving stability and control. Such a modification represents the predictable use of known mechanical features to achieve an expected improvement, and therefore the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
975
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 19 of Paul
Regarding claim 2, Miller as modified above further teaches that the hitch coupler (12 od Miller) comprises a ball coupler [ para. 0013 of Miller teaches that the trailer coupler 12 is a conventional, ball-type trailer coupler; thus, the hitch coupler comprises a ball coupler.]
Regarding claim 3, Miller as modified above further teaches that lock out member (locking means 4, figs. 8-9; [0072] of Paul) restricts rotation (when locked, fig. 13a of Paul) of the both the hitch coupler (ball socket 201; [0069] of Paul) and the coupler bracket (202 of Paul) in the second position [see fig. 14d and para. 0072 of Paul].
Regarding claim 4, Miller as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that the hitch coupler defines a first aperture, the coupler bracket defines a second aperture, and the lock out member extends through the second aperture and into the first aperture in the second position to restrict rotation of both the hitch coupler and the coupler bracket; however,
Paul teaches that the hitch coupler (201) defines a first aperture (“FA”, see annotated fig. 19 of Paul above), the coupler bracket (202) defines a second aperture (“SA”, see annotated fig. 19 of Paul above), and the lock out member (4) extends through (fig. 20a) the second aperture (“SA”, annotated fig. 19 of Paul above) and into the first aperture (“FA”; annotated fig. 19 of Paul above) in the second position to restrict rotation (when locked, fig. 13a of Paul) of both the hitch coupler (201) and the coupler bracket (202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hitch coupler that defines a first aperture, the coupler bracket defines a second aperture, and the lock out member extends through the second aperture and into the first aperture in the second position to restrict rotation of both the hitch coupler and the coupler bracket as taught by Paul into the invention of Miller in order to advantageously configure a coupler bracket in such that the configuration provides a direct mechanical interlock that simultaneously restrict of both pivot connections compared to friction-based or surface contact lockouts, the aperture-to-aperture and offer more secure rotational restrictions.. Incorporating Paul lock out configuration into the invention of Miller would have been a predictable substitution of known pivoting hardware to achieve the same articulated movement, and thus claim 4 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Miller as modified above further teaches that the lock out member (4 of Paul) comprises a lock bar (fig. 24a of Paul) configured to be movable along the fore-and-aft axis (see fig. 20b); and the at least one of the hitch coupler (12 with 28 of Miller 201 of Paul) or the coupler bracket (202 of Paul) defines an aperture (603, fig. 4 and [0066]) sized to receive the lock bar (fig. 25a) therein.
Regarding claim 6, Miller as modified above further teaches that the coupler bracket (14 of Miller) includes a rear wall (40, fig. 2 of Miller) and side walls (44 and 46, [0014] of Miller), and the hitch coupler (12 of Miller) is pivotably coupled (via 17A, fig. 2 of Miller) to the side walls (44 and 46 of Miller) of the coupler bracket (14) by shafts (first pin 20A, [0012] of Miller) to form the first pivot connection [para. 0012 of Miller teaches that the first pin (shaft) 20A disposed withing the bushing and respective aperture in the coupler; thus, forming the first pivot connection.]
Regarding claim 7, Miller as modified above further teaches that the hitch coupler (12 of Miller) comprises a hood portion (“ball-receiving portion” 28; [0013] of Miller); and the shafts (17A and 17B of Miller) extend laterally outwardly (fig. 1 at 20A and 20 B locations where shafts are positioned and extended laterally outwardly) from the hood portion (28 of Miller).
Regarding claim 8, Miller does not appear to expressly teach that the coupler bracket includes a rear wall defining an opening therein, and the trailer assembly includes a rod member pivotably received within the opening of the rear wall to form the second pivot connection; however,
Paul teaches that the coupler bracket (201) includes a rear wall (wall of sleeve 6, fig. 3) defining an opening (front opening 603, fig. 4, [0066]) therein, and the trailer assembly (“two-part trailer coupler”; [0064]) includes a rod member (“cylindrical section” 208, fig. 7 and [0070]) pivotably received within the opening (603. Fig. 4) of the rear wall (wall of 6) to form the second pivot connection (fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify miller to include the rear-wall opening and rod-type second pivot connection as taught by Paul in order to advantageously configure a coupler bracket having a rear wall with an opening that pivotably receives a rod member of the trailer assembly, thereby allowing rotation about fore-and-aft axis. Incorporating Paul pivot structure into the invention of Miller would have been a predictable substitution of known pivoting hardware to achieve the same articulated movement, and thus claim 8 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Miller as modified above further teaches that a securing mechanism (securing mechanism as depicted in fig. 19 of Paul) coupled to the lock out member (locking means 4 of Paul) and configured to hold (fig. 19) the lock out member (4) in the first or second position (see annotated fig. 19 above for the first and second position)
Regarding claim 10, Miller as modified above further teaches that the securing mechanism but fails to teach a threaded fastener configured to frictionally hold the lock out member in the first or second position; however,
Paul teaches that the securing mechanism (“locking means”; fig. 21 [00107]) comprises a threaded fastener (“screw or bolts” with bores 4610 “threaded”; fig. 21; [00107]) configured to frictionally hold the lock out member in the first or second position (see annotated fig. 19 above for the first and second position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a securing mechanism comprises a threaded fastener configured to frictionally hold the lock out member in the first or second position as taught by Paul into the invention of Miller in order to advantageously optimize the coupling assembly and removably receive the coupler bar in order to arrest rotational movement of the sleeve about its longitudinal axis, through abutment against the internal walls of the housing [ para. 00109 of Paul].
Regarding claim 11, Miller as modified above further teaches the lock out member but fails to teach a stop configured to stop movement of the lock out member in the first and second positions as the lock out member is moved along the fore-and-aft axis; however,
Paul teaches that the lock out member comprises a stop (“dead stop”, variable stops, or other mechanical inhibitors”; [0080]) configured to stop movement (“stroke limit”; [0080]) of the lock out member in the first and second positions ( see annotated fig. 19 of Paul above) as the lock out member (“locking means”) is moved along the fore-and-aft axis (see figs. 25a and 25b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a the lock out member that includes a stop configured to stop movement of the lock out member in the first and second positions as the lock out member is moved along the fore-and-aft axis as depicted in fig. 25a and as taught by Paul into the invention of Miller in order to advantageously optimize the coupling assembly so that the allowable movement may be limited by the natural stroke limits and the design degrees of freedom of other mechanical/electrical/electronic devices [para. 0080 of Pasul]. Such a modifications represent predictable uses of prior art elements according to their established functions that facilitate secure, releasable locking means, and the combination yields no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, Miller as modified above further teaches the trailer assembly, but fails to teach first and second lock out holders, each of the lock out holders including laterally spaced posts and so on; however,
Paul teaches that the trailer assembly includes first and second lock out holders (X, see annotated fig. 25a of Paul below) each of the lock out holders (X' and B') including laterally spaced posts (X', B' , C and D, annotated fig. 25A of Paul below) and a cross-bar (“cross bar”, annotated fig. 25a of Paul) extending between the posts (C and D); and the stop (“slot”) of the lock out member (locking means 4; fig. 25a) abutting the one of the posts in the first and second positions (see fig. 25a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide lock-out holders with laterally spaced posts and a cross-bars and the stop of the lock out member abutting the one of the posts in retention and release position as taught by Paul into the invention of Miller in order to advantageously provide predictable design choice in the mechanical arts. The cited reference collectively teaches lock-out mechanisms and stop features, and their combination represents the routing application of known structural elements to achieve the expected result of restricting movement of a lock-out member. Accordingly, claim 12 does not involve an inventive step but instead constitutes an obvious variation of the prior arts.
PNG
media_image2.png
747
1018
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 25a of Paul.
Regarding claim 13, Miller teaches: a method for operating a trailer coupler assembly (10) including a hitch coupler (12, fig. 1), a coupler bracket (14, [0014]), a trailer assembly (fig. 1), a first pivot connection (48, fig. 2) between the hitch coupler (12 of Miller or 201 of Paul) and the coupler bracket (14 of Miller or 202 of Paul) allowing the hitch coupler to pivot about [para. 0014 discloses that the first drawbar aperture (a first pivot connection 48) cooperates to define a first lateral drawbar passageway through the drawbar 14], and a second pivot connection (A, annotated fig. 19 of Paul above) between the coupler bracket (“coupler bar extension” 202, fig. 5; [0069]) and the trailer assembly (trailer assembly of Paul) allowing the coupler bracket (14 of Miller or 202 of Paul) to pivot about a fore-and-aft axis (“forward and backward motion” ; [0085 of Paul]), the method comprising:
moving a lock out member (securing mechanism as depicted in fig. 19 that constitute locking means 4, figs. 8-9; [0072] of Paul) coupled to the trailer assembly (para. 0085 of Paul) from a first (figs. 13b and 19), disengaged position to a second position (figs. 13a and 20b of Paul) engaging at least one of:
the hitch coupler (ball socket 201; [0069] of Paul) to thereby restrict rotation of the hitch coupler about the first pivot connection; or the coupler bracket (202 of Paul) to thereby restrict rotation (when locked, fig. 13a of Paul) of the coupler bracket (202 of Paul) about the second pivot connection (A, annotated fig. 19 of Paul above); and
coupling the hitch coupler (201 of Paul) to a hitch of a towing vehicle (trailer to a towing vehicle; [‘Abstract’]). Note that: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 1 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Regarding claim 14, Miller as modified above further teaches that moving the lock out member (4) to the first, disengaged position (figs. 13b and 19), to allow free rotation of the hitch coupler (201 of Paul) about the first pivot connection (48 of Miller) and the coupler bracket (14 of Miller or 202 of Paul) about the second pivot connection (A, annotated fig. 19 of Paul above). Note that: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 1 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 15, Miller as modified above further teaches that moving the lock out member (4 of Paul) from the first, disengaged position (figs. 13b and 19 of Paul) to the second position (figs. 13a and 20b of Paul) comprises engaging both of the hitch coupler (201) and the coupler bracket (202) to thereby restrict rotation (when locked, fig. 13a of Paul) of both the hitch couplers (201 of Paul) about the first pivot connection (48 of Miller) and the coupler bracket (202 of Paul) about the second pivot connection (A). Note that: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claims 1 and 3 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 16, Miller as modified above further teaches that moving the lock out member (“locking means” 4 of Paul) from the first, disengaged position (figs. 13b and 19 of Paul) to the second position (figs. 13a and 20b of Paul) comprises engaging only the hitch coupler (201 of Paul) with the lock out member (“locking means” 4 of Paul), allowing the coupler bracket (202) to at least partially rotate [para. 0011 teaches: “preferably the coupler bar can rotate within the locked jaws of the locking means”]. about the fore-and-aft axis (forward and backwards motion; [00115] of Paul). Note that: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 1 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 17, Miller as modified above further teaches that moving the lock out member (“locking means” 4 of Paul) from the first, disengaged position (figs. 13b and 19 of Paul) to the second position (figs. 13a and 20b of Paul) comprises engaging only the coupler bracket (14) with the lock out member (4 of Paul), allowing the hitch coupler (12) to at least partially rotate about the lateral axis (axis at 16A of Miller). Note that: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 1 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 18, Miller further teaches that the at least one of the hitch coupler (12 of Miller or 201 of Paul), or the coupler bracket (202 of Paul) defines an aperture (603, fig. 4 and [0066]); and moving the lock out member (4) from the first, disengaged position (figs. 13b and 19) to the second position (figs. 13a and 20b) comprises sliding the lock out member (4) along the fore-and-aft axis into the aperture (603, see fig. 20b). Note that: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claims 1 and 5 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 5 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 19, Miller as modified above further teaches that the lock out member (4 of Paul) from the first, disengaged position figs. 13b and 19) to the second position (figs. 13a and 20b) further comprises moving the lock out member (4 of Paul) until a stop (“dead stop”, variable stops, or other mechanical inhibitors”; [0080]) of the lock out member (4) prevents further movement (“stroke limit”; [0080]) of the lock out member (4). Note that: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 11 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 11 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 20, Miller does not appear to explicitly teach that securing the lock out member in the second position with a securing mechanism; however,
Paul teaches that the securing the lock out member (4) in the second position (figs. 13a and 20b) with a securing mechanism (“failsafe mechanism”; [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide securing mechanism to the lock device, such as lock out member as taught by Paul into the invention of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the trailer coupler assemblies and provides a confirmation that the hitch ball is properly, secured for towing and ensuring the locking means/peripheral lock has a failsafe mechanism incorporated therein [para. 0082 of Paul].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7584984 B1 to Williams discloses: a hitch assembly for connecting a towed vehicle to a towing vehicle include a housing mounted on the towing tongue of the towed vehicle having a tow bar mounted in an internal cavity having a restricted throat. Tow bar can be extended and pivoted to position a hitching eyelet on a variably proximately located towed vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights