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 § 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 1, 3-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (US-20040226780) in view of Widgery (US-20210170997).
Regarding claim 1, Olson et al. discloses a reversible wheel chock (10), comprising: a body portion (10/10B) comprising: a bottom face (12); an external front face and an external rear face (fig 10, external vertical portions right and left of 126’) extending upward relative to the bottom face (figs 8 and 10, external vertical portions extending perpendicular to 126/12), the external front face having an external front wall height, and the external rear face having an external rear wall height equivalent to the external front wall height (fig 10); a spine (fig 6, 17) forming a top surface parallel to the bottom face (12, fig 6), the spine defining apertures (figs 4, 9 and 11, unnumbered hole T’ housing T) and ; a first chocking face (14) spanning a first surface distance between the spine and the external front face (at least figs 6, 8, 10); and a second chocking face (16) spanning a second surface distance between the spine and the external rear face (at least figs 6, 8, 10),; a handle (fig 4, T) attachable to the body portion via the apertures (T’), ; and a base pad (126) attached to the body portion adjacent to the bottom face (figs 9 and 11).
Regarding claim 1, Olson et al. is silent as to a ratio wherein the first surface distance and the second surface distance are between 3 and 4 times greater than the external front and external rear wall heights. Widgery teaches a wheel chock wherein the dimensions and relative heights of the wheel engaging portions and wall heights are selected based one the wheel size and desired clearance (Widgery, [0034] at least wherein the front wall 120 can have a height proportional to the radius of the curvature of the wedging wall 118).
Widgery teaches wherein the ratio between walls 120 and 118 are about 1:2, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative length of the inclined wheel engaging surfaces with respect to the wall heights in order to obtain a desired wheel/chock engagement relationship, ground clearance, and contact position for different wheel sizes. The selection of three to four times vs a ratio of 1:2 is a predictable dimensional adjustment that only requires routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Olson et al. discloses wherein the first surface distance (14) and the second surface distance (16) are equivalent (figs 8 and 10 and [0023] wherein the sides 14 and 16 are of equal width, this dimension being somewhat less than the width of the bottom 12).
Regarding claim 4, Olson et al. discloses wherein the first chocking face and the second chocking face comprise a respective angle relative to the front face and the rear face ranging from 25 degrees to 45 degrees (figs 8 and 10 and [0023] wherein the sides can form an isosceles or equilateral triangle therefore making the angle of the faces fall within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, and under a first interpretation, Olson et al. discloses wherein the front wall height and the rear wall height range between 1 inch and 3 inches (fig 10 and [0033] wherein the pad 126 is ¼ inch and the vertical legs have been interpreted to be at least 1 inch).
Regarding claim 5 and under a different interpretation, Olson et al. is silent as to the wall height. However, Olson et al. teaches wherein choosing a size for the application of a wheel chock depends on the size and/or type of vehicle being restrained. In other words, choosing the size specifications is specific to the engineering design and desired results of the restraint (Olson et al. at least [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose size specifications regarding to the chock size specifications based on the engineering design and desired results and only requires routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Olson et al. discloses wherein the base pad is adhered to the bottom face ([0035] at least via 126’).
Regarding claim 7, Olson et al. discloses further comprising a high visibility material integrally formed with at least one of the body portion or the handle (figs 12, as broadly recited, it has been interpreted that the material of the chock is visible and therefore also highly visible).
Regarding claim 8, Olson et al. discloses wherein the handle maintains an upright, self-standing position (at least figs 1 and 4 wherein it has been interpreted that if left in position the cord would be self-standing in said position). Claim 8 is broad in the sense that the self-standing position does not require a material property or structural feature of the handle, only that is maintain a position.
Regarding claim 9, Olson et al. discloses an aviation wheel chock ([0002], aircraft, 10), comprising: a body portion (10/10B) comprising: a bottom face (12); an external toe wall (fig 10, vertical portions right and left of 126’) extending upward relative to the bottom face (fig 10); a spine (17) forming a top surface parallel to the bottom face (fig 6 and 10), the spine defining apertures (T’); and a chocking face (14 and 16) spanning a surface distance between the spine and the external toe wall (figs 1-12), wherein the surface distance is sized to engage aircraft wheels of varying diameters (fig 1, W); and a handle (T) attachable to the body portion via the apertures (fig 1 and 4, T’).
Regarding claim 9 Olson et al. is silent as to a ratio wherein the surface distance is between 3 and 4 times greater than a wall height of the external toe wall. Widgery teaches a wheel chock wherein the dimensions and relative heights of the wheel engaging portions and wall heights are selected based one the wheel size and desired clearance (Widgery, [0034] at least wherein the front wall 120 can have a height proportional to the radius of the curvature of the wedging wall 118).
Widgery teaches wherein the ratio between walls 120 and 118 are about 1:2, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative length of the inclined wheel engaging surfaces with respect to the wall heights in order to obtain a desired wheel/chock engagement relationship, ground clearance, and contact position for different wheel sizes. The selection of three to four times vs a ratio of 1:2 is a predictable dimensional adjustment that only requires routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Olson et al. discloses wherein the aviation wheel chock comprises a trapezoidal cross-section (at least figs 6, 8, and 10).
Regarding claim 11, Olson et al. discloses a base pad (126) attached to the body portion adjacent to the bottom face (12, figs 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 13, Olson et al. discloses wherein the body portion defines a plurality of core outs (at least P and/or 31/23) extending upward from the bottom face (at least figs 9-12, hollow cutouts separated by cross members).
Regarding claim 12, Olson et al. discloses as set forth above but lacks wherein the body portion comprises a polyurethane material. Widgery teaches a wheel chock wherein a high-density polyurethane foam is used for the body portion in order to improve durability (Widgery, [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the high-density polyurethane material of Widgery with the wheel chock of Olson et al at least to improve the durability and extend the service life (Widgery, [0027]).
Claims 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (US-20040226780) in view of Widgery (US-20210170997) and in further view of Milo et al. (US-20210061239).
Regarding claim 14, Olson et al. discloses a wheel chock (10), comprising: a body portion (10/10B) comprising: a bottom face (12) comprising a plurality of core outs (at least P and/or 31/23) and defining a recess along a periphery of the bottom face(figs 9, 10 and [0033], wherein 21 are integral with the partitions P and are deployed around the bottom 12); an external toe wall (fig 10, external vertical portions right and left of 126’) extending upward relative to the bottom face (fig 10); a spine (17) forming a top surface parallel to the bottom face, the spine defining an aperture (T’); and a chocking face (14/16) spanning a surface distance between the spine and the toe wall (figs 1-12); a handle (T) extending through the aperture (fig 4) and into a core out (fig 4 and 9) of the plurality of core outs; and a base pad (126) disposed in the recess (fig 10) and attached to the bottom face, the base pad covering the plurality of core outs (fig 9 and [0033]).
Regarding claim 14, Olson et al. is silent as to a ratio wherein the surface distance is between 3 and 4 times greater than a wall height of the external toe wall. Widgery teaches a wheel chock wherein the dimensions and relative heights of the wheel engaging portions and wall heights are selected based one the wheel size and desired clearance (Widgery, [0034] at least wherein the front wall 120 can have a height proportional to the radius of the curvature of the wedging wall 118).
Widgery teaches wherein the ratio between walls 120 and 118 are about 1:2, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative length of the inclined wheel engaging surfaces with respect to the wall heights in order to obtain a desired wheel/chock engagement relationship, ground clearance, and contact position for different wheel sizes. The selection of three to four times vs a ratio of 1:2 is a predictable dimensional adjustment that only requires routine skill in the art.
Olson et al. also lacks wherein the handle extends through a pair of apertures and core outs. Milo et al. teaches wherein a wheel chock (100) comprises a plurality of apertures (fig 13, at least 108, 116 and 110) on the spine of the chock, wherein a handle 106/136 is attached thereto in order to move or more easily handle the chock (Milo et al., [0040], wherein the tether 136 may then be used to transport, deploy and/or maneuver improved wheel chock 100 into position. Additionally, the opposite end of the tether 136, or a second tether may be retained by the attachment hole or opening 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of apertures on the spine of the chock of Olson et al. as taught by Milo et al. at least in order to enable the user to more easily transport improved wheel chock 100, or to removably attach a first wheel chock 100 to a second wheel chock 100 to prevent unwanted movement of a vehicle wheel (not shown) in either direction (i.e., forward or backward) (Milo et al., [0040]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Olson et al. is silent as to specific size requirements of the chock. Olson et al. teaches wherein choosing a size for the application of a wheel chock depends on the size and/or type of vehicle being restrained. In other words, choosing the size specifications is specific to the engineering design and desired results of the restraint (Olson et al. at least [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose size specifications regarding to the chock size based on the engineering design and desired results and only requires routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Olson et al. discloses wherein: the body portion includes a flange (at least 21/23 and/or P) around the recess; and the base pad (126) protrudes below the flange (fig 10) to support the wheel chock on a ground surface ([0033], wherein pad member 126 covers, and is attached to, the bottom 12 of the body 10B and the purpose of the pad member is to increase the skid resistance of the chock to lateral forces).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (US-20040226780) in view of Widgery (US-20210170997) and in further view in view of Milo et al. (US-20210061239) and Clark (US-2184487).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Olson and Milo disclose and teach as set forth above but lack wherein the handle is specifically a cable with a sheath including a semi-flexible portion and a rigid portion. Clark teaches wherein a wheel chock (5) for an airplane includes a semi-rigid handle/cable (13) wherein one end thereof is inserted into a bush (14) as a rigid portion and driven into the chock (5b) in order to protect the cable from being cut or damaged (Clark, col. 2, lines 30-40).
While Clark uses a sheath or bush (14) to protect the chock handle/tether at the chock and Applicant’s disclosure utilizes a sheath at the handle portion (not presently claimed), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a sheath or bush in order to protect the handle/tether from unintended damage at a point of frequent use (Clark, col. 2, lines 30-40).
Claim 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US-20110168501) in view of Widgery (US-20210170997).
Regarding claim 21, Henry discloses wheel chock (10), comprising: a body portion (10/11/12) comprising: a bottom face (11); a chocking face sized and shaped to engage a vehicle wheel (figs 1-4 side faces adjacent end faces 12) ; and a plurality of walls adjacent to the chocking face and extending upward relative to the bottom face (figs 1, 2, and 4, walls perpendicular to 11 and under the chocking faces and/or fig 3, at least a first notch adjacent bottom face 11); and a chargeable light emissive material (at least 20/21/22) included in at least part of the body portion (fig 2).
Regarding claim 21, Henry is silent as to a ratio wherein the surface distance is between 3 and 4 times greater than the height of the external wall. Widgery teaches a wheel chock wherein the dimensions and relative heights of the wheel engaging portions and wall heights are selected based one the wheel size and desired clearance (Widgery, [0034] at least wherein the front wall 120 can have a height proportional to the radius of the curvature of the wedging wall 118).
Widgery teaches wherein the ratio between walls 120 and 118 are about 1:2, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative length of the inclined wheel engaging surfaces with respect to the wall heights in order to obtain a desired wheel/chock engagement relationship, ground clearance, and contact position for different wheel sizes. The selection of three to four times vs a ratio of 1:2 is a predictable dimensional adjustment that only requires routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 22, Henry discloses wherein the chargeable light emissive material (at least 20/21/22) is included in the chocking face and each wall of the plurality of walls (fig 3 at least wherein 20 is within an outside periphery of the triangular chock). The lighting module 20 has been interpreted to be inserted through an end face 12 and then resides within the chock including inside and under the chock face.
Regarding claim 23, Henry discloses wherein the chargeable light emissive material (at least 20/21/22) is integrally formed with the at least part of the body portion (figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 24, Henry discloses wherein the vehicle wheel is an industrial utility vehicle wheel ([0003], at least an aircraft).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1-11 and 13, Applicant argues that the prior art of record lacks wherein an external front face and an external rear face extending upward relative to the bottom face, the external front face having an external front wall height, and the external rear face having an external rear wall height equivalent to the external front wall height; a spine forming a top surface parallel to the bottom face, the spine defining apertures; a first chocking face spanning a first surface distance between the spine and the external front face; and a second chocking face spanning a second surface distance between the spine and the external rear face, wherein the first surface distance and the second surface distance are between 3 and 4 times greater than the external front wall height and the external rear wall height, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the Applicant’s annotated figure 10, and as set forth above, Olson discloses front and rear external walls of equivalent height, chocking faces, and a spine. Prior to the amendment to the claims, Examiner had taken the position that the size ratio as claimed was disclosed as being compared to the thickness of the base plate 126 (fig 10 and [0033] wherein the pad 126 is ¼ inch and the vertical legs have been interpreted to be at least 1 inch). In response to the amended claims, and as set forth above, Widgery has been combined with Olson to teach adjustment of the relative length of the inclined wheel engaging surfaces with respect to the wall heights in order to obtain a desired wheel/chock engagement relationship, ground clearance, and contact position for different wheel sizes.
Regarding claims 21-24, Applicant argues that the prior art of record lacks wherein the surface distance is between 3 and 4 times greater than a wall height if the external wall. As set forth above, Widgery has been combined with Henry to teach adjustment of the relative length of the inclined wheel engaging surfaces with respect to the wall heights in order to obtain a desired wheel/chock engagement relationship, ground clearance, and contact position for different wheel sizes.
The double patenting and 112 rejections have been overcome by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/J.K.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights