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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in communication with hydraulic pump” in Line 13-14 is grammatically awkward. “in communication with said hydraulic pump” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in communication with hydraulic pump” in Line 22-23 of Page 7 is grammatically awkward. “in communication with said hydraulic pump” is suggested. 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: “tilting unit” in claim 1.
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.
In Claim 1-7, “tilting unit”, on Line 26 of Page 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The “tilting unit” is described on Page 6 of the specification as a hydraulic cylinder, motor and hydraulic pump.
In Claims 8-10, “tilting unit” is followed by structure and therefore does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and in view of Poindexter 2004/0018076 and in view of Kaufman 6,361,256.
In Re Claims 1 and 2, Poindexter teaches a hay transporting assembly having a motorized sled and a tiltable bed, said assembly, comprising: A frame (frame of vehicle 24) and a plurality of wheels (wheels of 24) rotatably attached to said frame wherein said plurality of wheels is configured to roll along a support surface (ground), said assembly having a bed (28, 36) being mounted on said frame, said bed being oriented to angle downwardly toward a rear end of said frame, (Fig. 3) said bed having a fixed portion (28) being attached to said frame, said bed having a tiltable portion (36) being tiltably mounted to said frame, said tiltable portion being positionable in a deployed position (Fig. 3) having said tiltable portion being angled to extend downwardly to the ground wherein said tiltable portion is configured to facilitate hay to be loaded onto said tiltable portion, (Fig. 3) said tiltable portion being positionable in a stored position (Fig. 1) having said tiltable portion lying flat on said frame wherein said tiltable portion is configured to transport the hay (Cargo, abstract); a rack (148) being rollably disposed on said bed, said rack being rollable between a home position (Fig. 1) and a loading position (Fig. 2), said rack being positioned on said tiltable portion of said bed when said rack is in said loading position wherein said rack is configured to facilitate hay to be loaded or unloaded onto said rack when said tiltable portion is in said deployed position, (Fig. 3) said rack being positioned on said fixed portion of said bed when said rack is in said home position (Fig. 19) wherein said rack is configured to facilitate the hay (Cargo, abstract) on said rack to be transported; and a tilting unit (Paragraph 37) being disposed on said trailer, said tilting unit being in communication with said tiltable portion of said bed, (Fig. 2-3) said tilting unit urging said tiltable portion of said bed between said deployed position and said stored position.
Poindexter does not teach a trailer having a gooseneck hitch.
However, Kaufman teaches a hay transporting trailer assembly comprising a trailer (Fig. 3) having a gooseneck hitch (See hitch shown in Fig. 3), a frame (12) and a plurality of wheels (See wheels, Fig. 3) rotatably attached to the frame wherein the plurality of wheels is configured to roll along a support surface (Fig. 3), said trailer having a bed (14) being mounted on the frame; and wherein, said gooseneck hitch has a vertical portion (54 closest to hitch, Fig. 3) extending upwardly from said frame at a point located adjacent to a front end of said frame; said fixed portion (14) of said bed having a front end and a back end, (See Fig. 3) said front end being attached to and extending rearwardly from said vertical portion of said gooseneck hitch; and said trailer has a plurality of uprights (last three vertical posts 54, Fig. 3) each extending between said frame and a bottom surface of said fixed portion of said bed, said plurality of uprights decreasing in height between said front end and said back end of said fixed portion such that said fixed portion angles downwardly between said front end and said back end. (Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a trailer having a gooseneck hitch in the assembly of Poindexter as taught by Kaufman with a reasonable expectation for success in order to pull maximum load with minimum hitch footprint and good maneuverability.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and in view of Poindexter/Kaufman and in view of Wright et al. 4,015,737.
In Re Claim 4, Poindexter/Kaufman teaches the assembly of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Poindexter/Kaufman do not teach a first set of hay forks being attached to and extending upwardly from said tiltable portion of said bed, said first set of hay forks being positioned adjacent to a rear end of said tiltable portion.
However, Wright et al. teach a first set of hay forks (19) being attached to and extending upwardly from said tiltable portion (18) of said bed, said first set of hay forks being positioned adjacent to a rear end of said tiltable portion. (See Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a first set of hay forks in the assembly of Poindexter/Kaufman as taught by Wright et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to make it easier to load and secure material.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and in view of Poindexter/Kaufman and in view of Pihlstrom et al. 4,930,799.
In Re Claim 6, Poindexter/Kaufman teaches the assembly of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Poindexter/Kaufman do not teach said gooseneck hitch has a vertical portion extending upwardly from said frame at a point located adjacent to a front end of said frame; and said assembly includes a winch being attached to said vertical portion of said gooseneck hitch, said winch including a cable being attached to a forward end of said rack, said rack rolling downwardly along said bed when said winch is actuated to rotate in a first direction thereby playing said cable outwardly from said winch, said rack being drawn upwardly along said bed when said winch is actuated to rotate in a second direction thereby winding said cable around said winch.
However, Pihlstrom et al. teach a hitch having a vertical portion (vertical portion under 23, Fig. 1) extending upwardly from said frame (4) at a point located adjacent to a front end of said frame; (Fig. 1 and 2) and said assembly includes a winch (23) being attached to said vertical portion of said hitch, said winch including a cable (24) being attached to a forward end of said rack (2), said rack rolling downwardly along said bed (12)when said winch is actuated to rotate in a first direction thereby playing said cable outwardly from said winch, said rack being drawn upwardly along said bed when said winch is actuated to rotate in a second direction thereby winding said cable around said winch. (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to place the winch on a vertical portion in the assembly of Poindexter/Kaufman as taught by Pihlstrom et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to make it easier to conserve space.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and in view of Poindexter/Kaufman and in view of Cooper 5,618,146.
In Re Claim 7, Poindexter/Kaufman teaches the assembly of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Poindexter/Kaufman do not teach a plurality of rollers, each of said rollers being rotatably disposed on a bottom surface of said rack, each of said plurality of rollers rolling along said bed thereby facilitating said rack to travel upwardly and downwardly along said bed.
However, Cooper teaches a plurality of rollers (32), each of said rollers being rotatably disposed on a bottom surface of said rack (28), each of said plurality of rollers rolling along said bed (12) thereby facilitating said rack to travel upwardly and downwardly along said bed. (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to plurality of rollers to the assembly of Poindexter/Kaufman as taught by Cooper with a reasonable expectation for success in order to friction and wear between the rack and bed.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and in view of Poindexter/Kaufman and in view of Tian et al. 2022/0242297.
In Re Claim 8, Poindexter/Kaufman teaches the assembly of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Poindexter/Kaufman do not teach wherein said tilting unit comprises: a hydraulic cylinder being coupled between said frame and said tiltable portion of said bed, said hydraulic cylinder being actuatable into an elongated condition thereby urging said tiltable portion of said bed into said deployed position, said hydraulic cylinder being actuatable into a retracted condition thereby urging said tiltable portion of said bed into said stored position, said hydraulic cylinder engaging said tiltable portion at a point being positioned closer to a hinge point of said tiltable portion than a forward end of said tiltable portion; a motor being attached to said frame; and a hydraulic pump being attached to said frame, said hydraulic pump being mechanically coupled to said motor such that said motor drives said hydraulic pump when said motor is running, said hydraulic pump being in fluid communication with said hydraulic cylinder for actuating said hydraulic cylinder between said retracted condition and said extended condition.
However, Tian et al. teach wherein said tilting unit comprises: a hydraulic cylinder (L1) being coupled between said frame (110) and said tiltable portion (210) of said bed, said hydraulic cylinder being actuatable into an elongated condition (Fig. 2) thereby urging said tiltable portion of said bed into said deployed position, (Fig. 2) said hydraulic cylinder being actuatable into a retracted condition (Fig. 1a) thereby urging said tiltable portion of said bed into said stored position (Fig. 1a), said hydraulic cylinder engaging said tiltable portion at a point being positioned closer to a hinge point of said tiltable portion than a forward end of said tiltable portion; (Fig. 3) a motor (motor, Paragraph 93)being attached to said frame; and a hydraulic pump (pump, Paragraph 93) being attached to said frame, said hydraulic pump being mechanically coupled to said motor such that said motor drives said hydraulic pump when said motor is running, (Paragraph 93) said hydraulic pump being in fluid communication with said hydraulic cylinder for actuating said hydraulic cylinder between said retracted condition and said extended condition. (See Paragraph 93)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to plurality of rollers to the assembly of Poindexter/Kaufman as taught by Tian et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to friction and wear between the rack and bed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowed.
Claims 3, 5 and 9 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Christ, Haulsey and Butler teach a trailer comprising a frame, bed, fixed portion and tiltable portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652