DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/29/25 has been entered
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 Interpretation
Claim limitations
• Locking Means in position of said extension (claim 1)
have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder
• Locking Means
Coupled with functional language
• in position of said extension
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-15 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
• 51 spring, 52 piston, 53 mechanical stop page 9 line 15-25)
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 el seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
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.
Claim 1-4, 6-7, 9-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the lock” has insufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination the limitations will be interpreted as “the locking means”
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gecchelin (US PG Pub No. 2018/0022405) in view of Allen (US Patent No. 4,844,497).
Regarding claim 1, Gecchelin teaches A device for connecting modular vehicles capable of rigidly connecting at least one leading vehicle (102B figure 1) and one trailing vehicle (102A figure 1) in motion, characterized by that comprising, for each vehicle,
at least one supporting spar (area that houses 28 21 an 20 figure 7) extending for the entire length of said vehicles said spar comprising a front cavity (area around 28 figure 7) and a rear cavity (area around 19 figure 7) both said cavities open towards the outside,
said rear cavity (area 19 figure 7) hosting an actuator (21 figure 7) and an extension (area that houses 28, 21, 20 figure 7) of said side spar,
said actuator (21 figure 7 and 14 actuator paragraph 73) , connected to one end of said extension (110 figure 8 and 15) capable of moving said extension so as to position an extension of the lead vehicle partly in a front cavity of the trailing vehicle and partly in a rear cavity of the lead vehicle in order to rigidly connect said two vehicles (figure 15-18 paragraph 82-84)
said front and rear cavities equipped with locking means in position of said extension (281 figure 16 and 17 locking means paragraph 94)
Gecchelin does not explicitly teach however Allen teaches where the locking means are a spring, a piston and mechanical stop (see 112f above; locking means figure 2 and 3 latch p[in 62 spring 64 mechanical stop 56 or 66 column 3 line 45-55).
wherein said locking means (5) in position of said extension (4) comprise at least one compression spring (51) (64 figure 2 and 3) capable of blocking the movement of said extension (4) constraining said extension by interference to an internal surface (21) of said spar (2).
wherein said locking means (5) in position of said extension (4) comprise pistons (52) (62 figure 2 and 3) adapted to actuate mechanical stops (53) adapted to rigidly connect at least said extension (4) to said spars (2A, 2B) of said vehicles (A, B).
the extension (110 figure 8 and 15) is held in position by the mechanical stops (56 of 66) activated by the pistons, for each vehicle, the piston and the stop have the function of releasing the extension,
“the locking means” being guaranteed by the properly dimensioned compression spring, said compression spring (64) preventing any possible involuntary release.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gecchelin based on the teaching of Allen to teach where the locking means are a spring, a piston and mechanical stop wherein said locking means (5) in position of said extension (4) comprise at least one compression spring (51) capable of blocking the movement of said extension (4) constraining it by interference to an internal surface (21) of said spar (2) said locking means (5) in position of said extension (4) comprise pistons (52) adapted to actuate mechanical stops (53) adapted to rigidly connect at least said extension (4) to said spars to said spars (2A, 2B) of said vehicles (A, B) the extension (110 is held in position by the mechanical stops activated by the pistons, for each vehicle, the piston and the stop have the function of releasing the extension, “the locking means” being guaranteed by the properly dimensioned compression spring, said compression spring preventing any possible involuntary release. The motivation would be to automatically couple hitch to vehicle (Allen column 1 line 55-67))
Regarding claim 2, Gecchelin teaches wherein at least one end of said extension defines a pyramidal shape (area 19 figure 15 and 14055 figure 14 paragraph 89).
Regarding claim 3, Gecchelin teaches wherein at least one end (4") of said extension (4) defines a pyramidal shape whose lateral faces have different inclinations (area 19 figure 15 and 14055 figure 14 paragraph 89).
Regarding claim 4, Gecchelin teaches wherein at least one end of said extension defines a part of non-tapered shape wherein size of said extension (4) of said spar (2) and the sizes and shapes of said end (4") are dimensioned to ensure that once the non-tapered part of said extension (4) has been reached, the vehicles are already aligned with each other (area 19 figure 15 and 14055 figure 14 paragraph 89 and see figure 16-17).
Regarding claim 6, Gecchelin does not explicitly teach however Allen teaches wherein said spring (51) (64 figure 2 and 3) acts in a direction not parallel to the direction of prevailing extension of said extension (4a).
Regarding claim 7, Gecchelin does not explicitly teach however Allen teaches wherein said spring (51) (64 figure 2 and 3) acts in a direction substantially perpendicular to the direction of prevailing extension of said extension (4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gecchelin based on the teachings of Allen to teach wherein said spring (51) acts in a direction substantially perpendicular to the direction of prevailing extension of said extension (4a). The motivation would be to automatically couple hitch to vehicle (Allen column 1 line 55-67).
Regarding claim 9, Gecchelin teaches wherein said locking means (5) are configured to allow a moving engagement and release of said vehicles (A, B) (218 figure 16 and 17 paragraph 94 to engage and release vehicle).
Regarding claim 10, Gecchelin teaches wherein said actuator (3) is further adapted to move said extension (4) of said spar (2) in at least two directions under the load of at least one vehicle (A, B) (see figure 15-17)
Regarding claim 11, Gecchelin teaches wherein one end of said extension is capable of extending from the rear cavity of the lead vehicle into the front cavity of the trailing vehicle defines a pyramidal shape, and an opposed end of said extension is said one end of said extension connected to the actuator and defines a part of non-tapered shape (figure 15).
Regarding claim 12, Gecchelin teaches wherein size of said extension of said spar and sizes and shapes of said ends of said extension are dimensioned to ensure that once the part of non-tapered shape of said extension has been reached, the vehicles are already aligned with each other (figure 15-18).
Regarding claim 13, Gecchelin does not explicitly teach however Allen teaches wherein said locking means in position of said extension comprise at least one compression spring capable of blocking the movement of said extension constraining said extension by interference to an internal surface of said spar (figure 2 and 3 spring 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gecchelin based on the teachings of Allen to teach wherein said locking means in position of said extension comprise at least one compression spring capable of blocking the movement of said extension constraining said extension by interference to an internal surface of said spar. The motivation would be to automatically couple hitch to vehicle (Allen column 1 line 55-67).
Regarding claim 14, Gecchelin does not explicitly teach however Allen teaches wherein said spring acts in a direction not parallel to a direction of prevailing extension of said extension (figure 2 and 3 spring 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gecchelin based on the teachings of Allen to teach wherein said spring acts in a direction not parallel to a direction of prevailing extension of said extension. The motivation would be to automatically couple hitch to vehicle (Allen column 1 line 55-67).
Regarding claim 15, Gecchelin does not explicitly teach however Allen teaches wherein said spring acts in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of prevailing extension of said extension (figure 2 and 3 spring 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gecchelin based on the teachings of Allen to teach wherein said spring acts in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of prevailing extension of said extension. The motivation would be to automatically couple hitch to vehicle (Allen column 1 line 55-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants arguments on page 6 paragraph 1, applicant states that Gecchelin does not teach the stated limitation.
Examiner states that Gecchelin is not relied on for those limitations for locking means Allen is. See rejection above.
Regarding applicants arguments on page 6 paragraph 4, applicant states that Gecchelin does not have an obvious solution for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner disagrees and states that Allen has an obvious solution with motivation see rejection above.
Regarding applicants arguments on page 6 paragraph 5, applicant states that Allen does not teach that spring can prevent possible involuntary release.
Examiner disagrees and states that fixed pin 62 spring 64 and mechanical stopper 66 are toughed by Allen to prevent involuntary release. See rejection above
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747