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 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each of the one or more support members for moving the one or more support members” in lines 2-3 should be corrected as --each of the one or more extendable support members for moving the one or more extendable support members--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each said raisable structure until each said raisable structure” in lines 9-10 is interpreted as --each said slidably attached raisable structure until each said slidably attached raisable structure--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: both “said raisable structure” in line 1 and line 4 are interpreted as --said slidably attached raisable structure--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 48 is objected to because of the following informalities: both “said raisable structure” in line 3 and line 4 are interpreted as --said slidably attached raisable structure--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a moving mechanism … for moving the one or more extendable support members” in claim 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification, para[0034] and [0320] shows that a moving mechanism is an actuator for moving the support member and comprises a first moving mechanism and a second moving mechanism, and as seen in figures (i.e. fig22). Therefore, for examination purposes, the term, “a moving mechanism” has been interpreted to be an actuator for moving the support member including a first moving mechanism and a second moving mechanism or equivalents thereof, as best understood from the originally filed specification and drawings.
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.
Claims 31-39, 46-48, 55, 58 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.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "said first moving mechanism" in lines 1-2 and in “said second moving mechanism” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “said first moving mechanism” and “said second moving mechanism” are interpreted as --[[said]]a first moving mechanism-- and --[[said]]a second moving mechanism-- respectively.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "said first moving mechanism" in line 2 and in “said second moving mechanism” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “said first moving mechanism” and “said second moving mechanism” are interpreted as --[[said]]a first moving mechanism-- and --[[said]]a second moving mechanism-- respectively.
Claim 36 recites “said one end” in line 2 and “said another end” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “said one end” and “said another end” are interpreted as --[[said]] one end-- and --[[said]] another end-- respectively.
Claim 46:
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the contacting surface" in lines4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the contacting surfaces” is interpreted as --[[the]] contacting surfaces--.
Claim 46 recites “each of the one or more extendable support members” and recites claimed limitations which require more than one extendable support members. The scope of the claims is indefinite. For examination purposes, claim 46 is interpreted as below:
“The assembly of claim 38 wherein each of the one or more extendable support members comprises at least two of the extendable support members, wherein each of the at least two of the extendable support members is pivotally attached to the support base generally under opposite sides of the upper surface such that when the at least two of the [[one or more]] extendable support members are in the first position, contacting surfaces are in close adjacent relation to one another”
Claim 47:
Claim 47 recites the limitation "said pivotal attachment" in lines2-3 and “the upright position” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “said pivotal attachment” and “the upright position” are interpreted as --[[said]]a pivotal attachment-- and --[[the]]an upright position-- respectively.
It is noted that claim 47 depends on claim 46. For the reason above (for claim 46), “each of the one or more extendable support members” throughout the body of claim 47 is interpreted as --each of at least two of the [[one or more]] extendable support members--.
Claim 48: It is noted that claim 48 depends on claim 46. For the reason above (for claim 46), “each of the one or more extendable support members” throughout the body of claim 48 is interpreted as --each of at least two of the [[one or more]] extendable support members--.
Claims 32-34, 37-39, 55, and 58 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 30 recites that each of the one or more extendable support members comprises the base structure and one of the at least one slidably attached raisable structure. However, such limitations are already recited/claimed in claim 28 which upon claim 30 depends. Claim 30 does not recite any further structural limitations of the retractable trailer stand assembly. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 25-39, 46-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (5,868,379) in view of Candlin, Jr. (3,183,854, “Candlin”, hereinafter).
Regarding claim 25, Ellis (‘379) discloses a retractable trailer stand assembly (abstract) for supporting a trailer T (fig6, col.8 line22), the assembly comprising: (a) a support base 105 (col.8 line27, figs6-7) for mounting atop (fig6), or at least partially under a ground surface; and (b) one or more support members 120,121 (col.9 line20) attached to the support base 105 (figs6,8) and moveable between a first position (col.2 lines49-52, col.9 line41, “a collapsed position”) and a second supporting position (fig6) for supporting the trailer T by contact with an underside of the trailer T (fig6). However, Ellis does not explicitly disclose that the one or more support members is extendable. Candlin (‘854) teaches a use of one or more extendable support members 34 (col.4 lines28-29,33-36, figs1,7-8,19a, comprising two telescoping members 44,46 which are moved between extended and retracted positions by jack devices 48) attached to a support base 140 (col.6 line75, fig9) and moveable between a first position (fig2) and a second supporting position (figs1,7-8) for supporting a trailer 16 (figs7-8, col.4 line3) by contact with an underside 110 (col.5 lines41-42) of the trailer 16 (figs7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ellis to use one or more extendable support members, as taught by Candlin, so that the height of the one or more extendable support members can be adjusted to support an underside of a trailer which is at a higher point with respect to a ground surface and to lift and lower the trailer when needed (figs7-8).
Regarding claims 26-27, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 25. It is noted that as aforementioned, “a moving mechanism” is interpreted to have first and second moving mechanisms or equivalents thereof. Ellis further discloses a first moving mechanism 140 (figs10-11, col.8 line35-34) for moving the one or more support members 120,121 between the first and second positions. Candlin further teaches a use of a second moving mechanism 48 (col.4 lines35-38) in order to extend the one or more extendable support members 34. It is noted that as aforementioned, “a moving mechanism” is interpreted to have first and second moving mechanisms or equivalents thereof.
Regarding claims 28 and 30, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim, wherein each of the one or more extendable support members comprises a base structure 46 (col.4 lines35-36, Candlin) and at least one slidably attached raisable structure 44 (col.4 line35, Candlin).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 28, wherein each said at least one slidably attached raisable structure 44 (Candlin) is slidably attached to a respective said base structure 46 (Candlin, figss7-8).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 30. Ellis further discloses wherein a first moving mechanism 140 is attached to one end thereof to the support base 105 (fig6) and at another end thereof to a respective said one or more support member 120,121 (fig10). Candlin further teaches wherein a second moving mechanism 48 (col.4 lines35-38) is attached at one end thereof to the respective said base structure 46 and at another end thereof to a contacting end 30 (figs1,16) of a respective said one of the at least one slidably attached raisable structure 44 (figs1,16) in order to extend the at least one slidably attached raisable structure 44.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 31 wherein the respective base structure and slidably attached raisable structure is in a storage position (“a collapsed position”-Ellis, fig2-Candlin) when the respective one of said one or more extendable support members is in the first position (“a collapsed position”-Ellis, fig2-Candlin), and wherein the respective base structure and slidably attached raisable structure is in an upright position (fig6-Ellis, fig1-Candlin) when the respective one of said one or more extendable support members is moved out of the first position by the first moving mechanism, each said first moving mechanism for moving each said base structure and slidably attached raisable structure from the storage position to the upright position, and each said second moving mechanism for slidably raising each said slidably attached raisable structure until each said slidably attached raisable structure contacts the underside of the trailer such that each of said one or more extendable support members is in the second position (figs5-7, Candlin).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 32, wherein each said slidably attached raisable structure 44 (Candlin) is in a position that is substantially adjacent each said respective base structure 46 (Candlin) when the respective one or more extendable support members is in the first position (fig2,Candlin), and wherein each said slidably attached raisable structure 44 (Candlin) is at least partially raised out of the substantially adjacent position when the respective one of said one or more extendable support members is in the second position (fig1,Candlin).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 31, wherein each said contacting end comprises a contacting surface (fig10-Ellis, figs1-2-Candlin) for contacting said underside of the trailer (fig6-Ellies, figs7,8-Candlin) when each said one or more extendable support members is in the second position (figs6-Ellis, figs7,8-Candlin), each said second moving mechanism being attached at said another end thereof to a side of the contacting end that is opposite the contacting surface (fig13-Candlin).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 30. Ellis further discloses a first moving mechanism 140 (figs10-11, col.8 line35-34) comprising a first hydraulic cylinder (col.8 line54). Candlin further teaches a use of a second moving mechanism 48 (col.4 lines35-38) in order to extend the one or more extendable support members 34. However, Candlin’s second moving mechanism 48 is a mechanical moving mechanism. Ellis further discloses that the moving mechanism can be engaged with a hydraulic cylinder or a pneumatic cylinder or a mechanical/electrical drive (col.5 lines47-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second mechanism of Candlin to use a hydraulic cylinder, as taught by Ellis, as a hydraulic cylinder is one of known moving mechanisms for moving the support members.
Regarding claim 36¸ the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 35, wherein each said first hydraulic cylinder (Ellis) is pivotally attached to at one end thereof to the support base (Ellis, fig6) and pivotally attached to another end thereof to the respective said base structure (the support member, Ellis, fig6).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 36. Ellis, as modified by Candlin, further teaches an upper surface 147 (col.9 line64) when each said base structure is in the storage position (the collapsed position), and an outer cover 147 (the outer cover is defined by the upper surface 147) attached to each said base structure, the upper surface comprising each said outer cover.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 37. Ellis, as modified by Candlin, further discloses at least front, rear, right, and left side walls (fig11) removably attached between the support base and the upper surface with bottom ends of the at least front, rear, right, and left side walls abutting outer edges of the support base and top ends of the at least front, rear, right, and left side walls abutting outer edges of the supper surface, at least the support base, the front, rear, right, and left side walls (figs7,11), and the upper surface forming an enclosure for receiving each of said one or more extendable support members and each of said first and second moving mechanisms when each of the one or more extendable support members is in the first position (collapsed position).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 38, wherein each of the support base (fig11-Ellis) and the upper surface (fig11-Ellis) has a substantially quadrilateral shape (fig11-Ellis), and wherein the support base has a longer length and a longer width than the length and width of the upper surface such that each of the at least front, rear, right, and left side walls forms a ramp (fig11-Ellis).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 38 wherein each of the one or more extendable support members is pivotally attached to the support base. However, the combination of Ellis and Candlin does not explictliy teach a use of at least two of the extendable support members. It is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP2144.04. VI. B.). With two of the extendable support members, it will be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configured to attach each of the two extendable support members pivotally to the support base generally under opposite sides of the upper surface such that when the two of the extendable support members are in the first position, contacting surfaces are in close adjacent relation to another to be in a collapsed/storage position.
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 46, wherein actuation of each said first hydraulic cylinder (Ellis) causes each said base structure (of the extendable support member) to pivot about a pivotal attachment of each of the two of the extendable support members to the support base so that the two of the extendable support members pivot away from one another (in order to move from the first position to the second position) until each said base structure and slidably attached raisable structure is in an upright position (the second position).
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 47, wherein actuation of each said second hydraulic cylinder (the second moving mechanism) once each said base structure and slidably attached raisable structure is in the upright position (the second position) causes each said slidably attached raisable structure (Candis) to slidably raise until each said contacting surface of said slidably attached raisable structure contacts the underside of the trailer such that each of the two of the extendable support members is in the second position (figs7-8, Candlin).
Claim(s) 55 and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ellis (5,868,379) and Candlin, Jr. (3,183,854, “Candlin”, hereinafter) in further view of Ishii et al (JP 3174979 U).
Regarding claims 55, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 38, however, does not explicitly teach a use of a temperature sensor and at least one heating pad. Ishii et al (‘979) teaches a snow melting device (under “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION”) that may be used on a pavement comprising a temperature sensor 28 and a heating pad 1-4, the temperature sensor 28 communicatively coupled to the heating pad 1-4 and causing the heating pad 1-4 to activate when the temperature sensor 28 detects that an ambident temperature is at or below a threshold temperature (pgs5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ellis and Candlin to use a temperature sensor and at least one heating pad, as taught by Ishii et al, to prevent snow and ice accumulation on the assembly to be used in winter conditions.
Regarding claims 58, the combination of Ellis and Candlin teaches the assembly of claim 38, however, does not explicitly teach a use of a illuminating mechanism and apertures formed such that illumination of the illuminating mechanism is visually perceivable. Ishii et al (‘979) teaches a snow melting device having an illuminating mechanism 8 (light emitting diodes, pg4) that a user can perceive through apertures to help locating the snow melting device (pg4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ellis and Candlin to use an illuminating mechanism, as taught by Ishii et al, to help locating and the apparatus (pg4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723