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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Restriction Requirement
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-19, drawn to a trailer or system comprising a trailer frame and body, classified in B60P3/32.
II. Claim 20, drawn to a method of forming a monocoque structure, classified in B32B5/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the method of forming may be used in the creation of any number of apparatus, not limited to a trailer frame and body.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the mutually exclusive and patentably distinct features require different search strategies and differing key terms for making an appropriate determination of patentability.
During a telephone conversation with Robert Gempeler on 10/29/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the Delrin bushings and rock sliders must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
Claim 11 is 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 term “rock sliders” is not sufficiently described in the specification, or cited within the drawings enough for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand what specific feature is being referred to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Elsner (US 2023/0271544).
As concerns claim 1, Elsner discloses a trailer comprising:
a trailer frame (Elsner – 106); and
a body (Elsner – 102) coupled to the trailer frame, the body comprising a monocoque structure that is molded from a plurality of material layers (Elsner – 552), the molded body comprising at least one access and a storage compartment (Elsner – 534) located towards a tongue of the trailer frame.
As concerns claim 3, Elsner discloses the trailer of claim 1, wherein the body comprises at least one accessory point molded into the body, the at least one accessory point comprising one or more of a magnet, a hook, an eye, and a clip. (As the body of Elsner is said to be covered in steel, the entire body is effectively turned into an infinite number of accessory points formed along its length.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner in view of Cashin (US 2009/0042471).
As concerns claim 2, Elsner discloses the trailer of claim 1, however fails to specify wherein the plurality of layers comprises fiberglass matting that has a low-density polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”) core positioned between an inner layer and an outer layer of the plurality of layers of fiberglass matting such that the body is structurally rigid and insulated.
Cashin however teaches wherein an impact resistant sheet can be made from a plurality of layers comprising fiberglass matting that has a low-density polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”) core positioned between an inner layer and an outer layer of the plurality of layers of fiberglass matting such that the body is structurally rigid and insulated. (Cashin – Paragraph [0042])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Elsner as taught by Cashin to provide the body with a plurality of layers including PET and others, due to their rigidity, durability and strength to weight ratio, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner in view of Votruba et al (US 2003/0006627).
As concerns claim 4, Elsner discloses the trailer of claim 1, however fails to specify wherein the body comprises a plurality of return flange mechanical gutters.
Votruba however teaches wherein a body comprises a plurality of return flange mechanical gutters (Votruba – 180) for each of the at least one accesses molded into the body, the plurality of return flange mechanical gutters configured to capture moisture and direct it away from the trailer without additional sealing materials around the at least one access.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Elsner as taught by Votruba to include a plurality of return flange mechanical gutters for the expected benefit of keeping water from running into the compartment, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner in view of Oliver et al (US 2008/0258497).
As concerns claim 5, Elsner discloses the trailer of claim 1, wherein the body is further molded to form at least one of an interior cabin, a window, a roof rack system, and a roof access. (Elsner – Figures 1-8 show various spaces for an interior cabin, a rear area, a rear access, a window, roof access (Paragraph [0021]))
Elsner fails to specify a rear galley or rear galley access.
Oliver, however, teaches a kitchen (or galley) with access as claimed. (Oliver – Paragraphs [0033], p0047], [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Elsner as taught by Oliver to include a rear galley and galley access for the expected benefit of providing users with a dedicated outdoor kitchen space, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 6, Elsner in view of Oliver discloses the trailer of claim 5, wherein the rear galley comprises a kitchen, the kitchen comprising one or more of a sink, a stove, a cooler, a table, and one or more cabinets. (Oliver – Paragraphs [0033], [0047] and [0054]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner in view of Oliver and further in view of McGregor et al (US 11,345,270).
As concerns claim 7, Elsner in view of Oliver discloses the trailer of claim 6, however fails to specify wherein the table forms a removable cabinet door.
McGregor, however, teaches a panel that is removable and functions as a table (250), see Figures 8 and 16, further comprising an adjustable fold-out leg (300) on a first side and a mounting point (264) along an edge of the table for mounting to a side of the trailer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Elsner in view of Oliver as taught by McGregor to include a removable panel which functions as a table, for the expected benefit of providing multiple uses for a single piece of equipment which significantly increases versatility and usefulness of the trailer, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner in view of Oliver and McGregor and further in view of Irvine III (US 5,383,703).
As concerns claim 8, the combination discloses the trailer of claim 7, however fails to specify wherein the edge of the table that mounts to the side of the body comprises a metal edge.
Irvine, however, teaches such a configuration whereby table 20 attached via tongue along slot 20B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as further taught by Irvine to include a table that attaches using a tongue and groove metallic edge, for the expected benefit of providing a strong, sturdy and proven connection system commonly found in the industry, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner in view of Oliver and further in view of Galitzky (US 2005/0275192).
As concerns claim 9, the combination discloses the trailer of claim 5, however fails to specify a roof rack.
Galitzky, however teaches a trailer comprising a roof rack (28), wherein the roof rack system comprises a pair of oppositely located elongated protrusions on the roof of the body that are molded as part of the body and provide an elevated flat surface for mounting items to the roof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Elsner in view of Oliver as taught by Galitzky to include the roof rack for the expected benefit of providing additional storage capacity to the trailer, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner in view of Oliver an Galitzky and further in view of Jeong et al (US 2005/0045679).
As concerns claim 10, the combination discloses the trailer of claim 9, further comprising at least one rail that is couplable to the pair of elongated protrusions and spans a width of the roof between the pair of elongated protrusions for securing items mounted to the roof. (Galitzky – 28)
The combination fails to specify wherein the rail is adjustable.
Jeong, however, teaches such an adjustable rail.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as further taught by Jeong to include an adjustable rail for the expected benefit of being able to adjust the load placement along the roof of the trailer, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner in view of Vey (US 8,356,839), West (US 3,458,214) and John et al (US 11,970,042).
As concerns claim 11, Elsner discloses the trailer of claim 1, however fails to specify the use of a trailing arm suspension as claimed.
Vey (US 8,356,839) teaches a trailer having a trailing arm suspension with bushings (64), and a pivot rod (31) (analogous to eccentric bolts) for toe and camber wheel alignment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Elsner as taught by Vey to include a trailer having a trailing arm suspension with bushings and toe/camber wheel alignment for the expected benefit of providing a known, alternative suspension system for trailers, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
West (US 3,458,214) teaches wherein a bushing for a suspension system would be made out of Delrin (Figures 5-7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Elsner in view of Vey to include the use of Delrin bushings for the expected benefit of providing robust, wear-resistant bushings in order to prolong the useful life of the system, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Finally, John et al (US 11,970,042) teaches an angled shock-in-spring mount for use on a trailing arm suspension for a trailer (Figure 6), along with built-in rock sliders (41) as best understood.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the trailing arm suspension taught by Vey to include the rock sliders of John for the expected benefit of creating a more damage-resistant suspension system by covering and thus protecting the suspension mechanics from debris and other road hazards, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner in view of Karmann (DE 10117769).
As concerns claim 12, Elsner discloses the trailer of claim 1, however fails to specify a hidden hinge.
Karmann (DE 10117769) teaches a hidden hinge for use on a vehicle body that mounts to an interior of the body and a flap, such that when activated the hinge extends outward and upward, clearing the flap from the rest of the body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Elsner as taught by Karmann to include the hidden hinge for the expected benefit of creating a flush interface between the flap and the access opening, while also allowing for the flap to be moved out of the way for easier access, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner in view of Brown (US 10,683,047).
As concerns claim 13, Elsner discloses the trailer of claim 1, however fails to specify the use of a solar panel.
Brown (US 10,683,047) teaches a solar panel (550) coupled to an exterior surface of the body for providing power to electrical components of the trailer. (Column 3, Line 60 to Column 4, Line 4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Elsner as taught by Brown to include the addition of a solar panel for the expected benefit of powering items when no grid power is available, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner alone.
As concerns claim 14, Elsner illustrates a plurality of storage compartments with a cover (548) hingedly attached.
Elsner fails to disclose the specific combination of upper and lower cabinets each having their own hinged door.
The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to provide storage compartments in a variety of number and orientation, having individual hinged doors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included hinged compartment covers for all compartments for the expected benefit of providing greater utility and ease of use.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using specific covers for each compartment would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Elsner to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner in view of Lorber (US 3,805,872).
As concerns claim 16, Elsner discloses the trailer of claim 1, however fails to disclose wherein the at least one access comprises a doorway to an interior of the trailer, an interior edge of the doorway lined with magnetic material for attaching accessories along the doorway.
Elsner does illustrate such openings and discusses wherein the body may be covered in steel or similar metal, however is silent about the use of magnetic material specifically lining the edge of the doorway.
Lorber (US 3,805,872) teaches the attachment of accessories along an edge of a doorway lined with magnetic material. (Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Elsner as taught by Lorber to include magnetic accessory attachment points around the edge of openings, for the expected benefit of being able to provide shade or a screen to keep bugs out, when so desired, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 17, the combination discloses the trailer of claim 16, further comprising a door (Elsner – 550, 534, etc) for the doorway, the door comprising a window that includes an edge that is lined with magnetic material for attaching accessories on the window (Lorber – abstract).
As concerns claim 18, the combination discloses the trailer of claim 17, further comprising wherein the accessories comprise a screen that has magnetic material along an edge of the screen and is sized to fit one of the doorway and the window. (Lorber – Abstract)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner in view of Votruba and John et al.
As concerns claim 19, Elsner discloses a system comprising:
a trailer frame (Elsner – 106);
a body (Elsner – 102) coupled to the trailer frame, the body comprising a monocoque structure that is molded from a plurality of material layers, the molded body comprising:
at least one access and a storage compartment (Elsner – 504) located towards a tongue of the trailer frame.
Elsner fails to specify the use of return flange mechanical gutters or a trailing suspension.
Votruba however teaches wherein a body comprises a plurality of return flange mechanical gutters (Votruba – 180) for each of the at least one accesses molded into the body, the plurality of return flange mechanical gutters configured to capture moisture and direct it away from the trailer without additional sealing materials around the at least one access.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Elsner as taught by Votruba to include a plurality of return flange mechanical gutters for the expected benefit of keeping water from running into the compartment, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
John further teaches a trailer having a trailing arm style suspension system coupled to the trailer frame and each wheel, the trailing arm style suspension system comprising independent suspension for each wheel of the trailer. (Figure 6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Elsner as taught by John to include a trailer having an independent trailing arm style suspension coupled to the trailer frame and each wheel, the trailing arm style suspension system comprising independent suspension for each wheel of the trailer, for the expected benefit of providing a more robust trailer with a longer useful life.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the middle upper cabinet door, when hinged open, folds down and rests onto an angle cut into the two lower cabinet doors, creating an angled surface for resting an object, the two lower cabinets comprising metal plates that are selectively coupled to two hidden magnets in the middle upper cabinet door.”
Neither Elsner nor any additionally cited art of record teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, inter alia, wherein such a configuration would have been anticipated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679