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 19 and 20 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 19 recites the limitation "the weight distribution spring bars" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sargent (US 6142500). Sargent teaches:
A separable hitch connection (see title and abstract) for use between a towing vehicle shank (20) and a hitch ball (42) for a towed vehicle tongue, comprising:
a horn (11) which can be fixed relative to the towing vehicle shank so as to provide a seat with a rest recess accessible from above (see obviousness explanation below);
a head (16) which can be fixed relative to the hitch ball, the head comprising a downwardly projecting hook portion (see obviousness explanation below) sized to mate into the rest recess so as to support at least part of weight of the head as well at least part of tongue weight of the towed vehicle tongue from the seat, the head defining a head hitch pin opening space (84) from the hook portion, the mating interaction between the hook portion and the rest recess allowing the horn hitch pin opening (136) to be aligned relative to the head hitch pin opening (84) to allow insertion of a hitch pin (151) into the aligned horn hitch pin opening and head hitch pin opening; and
a hitch pin (151) sized for mating insertion into the aligned horn hitch pin opening and head hitch pin opening during lowering of the tongue.
The structure of Sargent’s adjustable weight distributing trailer hitch differs from applicant’s claimed invention in that the seat which accessible from above (82) in Sargent is located on the head (16) instead of on the horn (11). It is considered an obvious matter of design choice to have switched the side on which the rest recess (82) accessible from above is located to the horn (11). Furthermore, see Sargent column 3, line 25 thru column 4, line 15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 are allowed.
Claims 5-10 are 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 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICK R SOLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4853. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 -5.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/ERICK R SOLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747