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 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “holding jaw” in claims 1, 3, 7, 12, and 13 is used by the claim to mean “the portion of the hitch ball seat abutting against the vertical groove” while the accepted meaning of a “jaw” in engineering contexts is a dynamic mechanism that grips or holds an object, particularly from the outside. See Correll N., Introduction to Autonomous Robots – “The most common industrial mechanism is the two-finger parallel jaw gripper. It operates by squeezing an object between its two parallel jaws, which are usually driven by a single actuator and therefore move in concert.”. In the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any capability for movement or external gripping for the “holding jaw” in the specification and has not provided an alternative definition, rendering the term indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good – US Pub. 2009/0295123 A1 in view of Bodily – US Pub. 2022/0118804 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Good teaches a hitch ball hook device comprising: a hitch ball pendant (assembly including all components except 10 and 12, Fig. 2) and a hitch arm body (“channel base member” 20, Para. [0031]);
wherein the hitch ball hook device further comprises: a square steel (“shank” 12, Para. [0030]) connected to the hitch arm body (connection depicted in Fig. 1) and configured to connect to a vehicle receiver (Para. [0030] – “… a shank 12… is mounted into a vehicle receiver hitch…”); the hitch ball pendant comprises: a hitch ball seat (40), and the hitch ball seat comprises: at least a hitch ball (54); the hitch ball pendant further comprises: a holding jaw (“base member” 42, Para. [0033]), and the holding jaw is disposed at a front end (towards the front of the vehicle when mounted, i.e., the upper left side of Fig. 2) of the hitch ball seat (40);
wherein the hitch arm body comprises: two side walls (“flanges” 26 and 28, Para. [0032]), and the hitch arm body defines a vertical groove (“U-shaped channel” 24, Para. [0032]) disposed between the two side walls (depicted in Fig. 1); a front end of the holding jaw (42) abuts against the vertical groove (disposition of 42 against 24, Fig. 2), and the holding jaw is connected to the hitch arm body (20) through the two side walls (depicted contact between 42, 26, and 28, Figs. 1 and 2).
Good additionally teaches the hitch ball pendant comprising: two hitch balls (depicted in Fig. 2), and the two hitch balls are respectively disposed up and down on the hitch ball pendant (configuration depicted in Fig. 2).
Good additionally teaches the hitch ball hook device further comprising: at least a latch (“locking member” 60, Para. [0034]), disposed at the side walls of the hitch arm body (position of 60 relative to 26, Figs. 1 and 2), and the holding jaw (42) is connected to the hitch arm body (20) through the latch (60 passes through 42 and holes 32, pinning 42 to 20, Figs. 1 and 2).
Good additionally teaches the latch provided with an R-shaped pin (top of R-shaped pin depicted in Fig. 2, additionally Para. [0035] – “Clips or other locking mechanisms are secured to the ends of the pins 62, 64…”).
Good additionally teaches a front end of the holding jaw defining transverse grooves (annotated elements A1 and A2, Diagram 1 below), dividing the holding jaw into an upper and lower holding jaw (portion of element 40 above A1 and below A2, respectively).
Good additionally teaches one of the sides of the walls defining a plurality of first through holes (30, Fig. 1) the holding jaw defining a plurality of second through holes (Para. [0033] – “The rear face 44 of the base member 42 also includes two spaced holes 46, 48…”), and the other side wall defines a plurality of third through holes (32), and the hitch arm body (20) and the hitch ball pendant assembly including all components except 10 and 12, Fig. 2) is connected by the latch (60) sequentially penetrating one of the plurality of first through holes. A corresponding one of the second through holes, and a corresponding one of the plurality of third through holes (assembly and configuration of elements depicted in Fig. 2).
Good does not teach a “through groove” which passes through the hitch ball seat to the holding jaw.
In the same field of endeavor of adjustable trailer hitches, Bodily teaches a trailer hitch ball seat (Bodily – “ball attachment bracket” 40, Para. [0034]) defining a through groove (“ball pin opening” 54, Para. [0036]) penetrating the hitch ball seat (disposition of elements depicted in Fig. 3) to the holding jaw (integrated into 40 as a monolithic part, as 40 attaches to adjusting element “shank” 20 directly), additionally including a holding pin (44) to be inserted into the hole.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the adjustable trailer hitch assembly of Good with the through groove of Bodily, yielding predictable results. A skilled artisan would recognize the utility of adding a hole to an attachable element, here the hitch ball seat, to facilitate the use of an additional fastener to further secure the attached element to a base element, here the hitch arm body, yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Good as modified by Bodily above already teaches all the limitations of Claim 2, including wherein the hitch ball pendant comprises two hitch balls (Good – depicted in Fig. 2), and the two hitch balls are respectively disposed up and down on the hitch ball pendant (configuration depicted in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Good as modified by Bodily above already teaches all the limitations of Claim 3, including wherein the hitch ball hook device further comprises: at least a latch (Good – “locking member” 60, Para. [0034]), disposed at the side walls of the hitch arm body (position of 60 relative to 26, Figs. 1 and 2), and the holding jaw (42) is connected to the hitch arm body (20) through the latch (60 passes through 42 and holes 32, pinning 42 to 20, Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Good as modified by Bodily above already teaches all the limitations of Claim 4, including wherein the latch is provided with an R-shaped pin (Good – top of R-shaped pin depicted in Fig. 2, additionally Para. [0035] – “Clips or other locking mechanisms are secured to the ends of the pins 62, 64…”).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good in view of Bodily, and in further view of Martel et. al, hereinafter Martel – US Pub. 2022/0258799 A1.
Regarding Claims 5-6, Good as modified by Bodily above already teaches all the limitations of Claim 4, but does not teach a first tightening screw disposed in the through groove, connecting the hitch ball pendant to the hitch arm body, and a handle connected to the first tightening screw.
Martel, in the same field of endeavor of adjustable ball-type trailer hitches, teaches a threaded rod/screw (Martel – 322) inserted into a corresponding threaded hole (330), affixing the ball sleeve assembly (304) to a rear articulating assembly (132), the threaded rod including a handle (324) enabling it to be hand-operated (Para. [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the holding pin (44) in the hole of Bodily as applied to Good with the threaded rod/screw (322) and corresponding threaded hole (330) of Martel, yielding predictable results. Both a smooth holding pin and a threaded hand screw are well-known fasteners in the art, and one of ordinary skill would recognize the benefit of using a threaded hand screw to both enjoy stronger engagement of the fastened elements due to the threads, and the handle to facilitate the easy and quick disengagement of the fastener without the need for tools. Note applicant has not discussed the criticality of the use of a threaded versus unthreaded fastener.
Regarding Claim 7, Good as modified by Bodily and Martel above already include all the limitations of Claim 7, including a front end of the holding jaw defining transverse grooves (annotated elements A1 and A2, Diagram 1 below), dividing the holding jaw into an upper and lower holding jaw (portion of element 40 above A1 and below A2, respectively).
PNG
media_image1.png
321
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diagram 1 - Annotated inset of Good - Fig. 2
Regarding Claims 12-13, Good as modified by Bodily and Martel above already includes all the limitations of Claim 12 and its dependent Claim 13.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good in view of Bodily, and in further view of Young – US Patent 5,988,667.
Regarding Claims 8-10, Good as modified by Bodily above already teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Good/Bodily does not teach rubber rings disposed on the square steel, an iron ring disposed against the square steel and abutting against the rubber rings, or a receiver pin disposed on the square steel connected to the hitch receiver.
Young, in the same field of endeavor of trailer hitch receivers, teaches a trailer hitch receiver (30) further comprising rubber rings (“elastomeric deformable member” 14, Abstract) disposed on the square steel (“tubular receiver” 32, disposition depicted in exploded assembly Fig. 1). Young further teaches an iron ring (“slidable plate” or “flange” 12, Paragraph (10)) disposed on the square steel (disposition depicted in exploded assembly Fig. 1) and the iron ring abuts against the rubber rings (abutting depicted in unexploded assembly Fig. 2). Young further teaches a receiver pin (“cross pin” 36) disposed on the square steel (32, disposition depicted in Fig. 2) and configured to connect to the vehicle receiver (36 inserts into hole 44 on the square steel 32, which is part of vehicle receiver 30).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the trailer hitch assembly as taught by Good/Bodily with the rubber rings, iron ring, and receiver pin as taught by Young, yielding predictable results. Rubber trailer hitch rings, sometimes known as anti-rattle or silencer pads, abutting metal rings (often integrated into the hitch receiver as a monolithic part) and holding pins for connecting the hitch assembly to the receiver, are all well-known components in the art, and provide desirable anti-NVH (nose, vibration, harshness) in the case of the rubber rings and their abutting iron ring structure, and increased trailer safety in the case of the holding pin.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Good, Bodily, Martel, and in further view of Kirtland – US Patent 7,740,267.
Regarding Claim 11, Good/Bodily/Martel teaches the hitch ball hook device of Claim 5, but does not teach the other limitations of the claim.
Kirtland, in the same field of endeavor as socket-type trailer hitch accessories, teaches a tightening screw (“draw bolt” 4) fixing a hitch arm body (shown here as a flat surface “mounting plate” 5, Fig. 1D) to the vehicle receiver (9, which also denotes the square steel, via “securing pin” 6), disposed at a bottom of a connection between the square steel (underneath the top side surface connection between 9 and 5, Fig. 1C) and the hitch arm body (5).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the trailer hitch assembly as taught by Good/Bodily/Martel with the second tightening screw of Kirtland, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would have appreciated affixing the flat hitch arm body to the square steel/receiver as separate parts, rather than as one more complex monolithic component, reducing manufacturing costs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 Eastern.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/Mitchell James Price/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611