DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: ‘110’. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: PG publication paragraphs 81-135 describe “sequentially numbered embodiments”. It is unclear how these are considered separate embodiments as they are simply copies of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4, 6 and 14-54 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “for guiding the bearing cheeks and extends parallel to the pivot axis between these guide surfaces”, and the claim also recites “from one guide surface to the other guide surface" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claims 3 and 6 recite the broad recitation “formed by parts directly connected to one another”, and the claim also recites “by joining" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 14, lines 1-2 describe “the flange elements have support regions adapted in this manner to the support bodies”. It is unclear what “in this manner” is attempting to describe.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “the flange elements have support regions adapted in this manner to the support bodies”, and the claim also recites “the flange elements enter into a positive-locking operative connection with the support bodies in directions parallel to their areal extent" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 13 introduces the element “support regions” in line 2. Claim 14, lines 1-2 (dependent from claim 13) then introduce “the flange elements have support regions”. It is unclear if the “support regions” in claim 14 are referring to the “support regions” in claim 13 or are separate “support regions”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the coupling apparatus" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the rest position" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “the pivot axis extends transversely”, and the claim also recites “perpendicularly" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the coupling apparatus" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the operating position" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the guide body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “the holding unit”, and the claim also recites “in particular the guide body" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the operating position" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the central axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “at least a partial region”, and the claim also recites “the whole" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the whole" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the central axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 25 recites the broad recitation “at least a subportion of the receptacle”, and the claim also recites “the whole receptacle" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the whole receptacle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the region of the receptacle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the holding body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation “the holding unit”, and the claim also recites “in particular the guide body" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the rest position" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the operating position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the rest position" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the operating position" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the operating position end stop" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the coupling apparatus" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claims 31-33 recites the broad recitation “the holding unit”, and the claim also recites “in particular on a guide body" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 31, line 6 introduces the element “a guide body”. Claim 32, dependent from claim 31, then references “a guide body”. It is unclear whether the “guide body” in claim 32 is referring to the “guide body” in claim 31 or is a separate “guide body”.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the at least one fixing position" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (only a previous singular “a fixing position” has been introduced).
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the rest position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the direction of the at least one fixing position" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the at least one fixing position" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (only a previous singular “a fixing position” has been introduced).
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the releasing position" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 44, line 2 refers to “it”. It is not clear what element is being referred to with the use of the term “it”.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "the movement direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "the influence of the actuating unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "the at least one fixing position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (only a previous singular “a fixing position” has been introduced).
Claim 45 recites the limitation "the releasing position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 46, line 2 refers to “it”. It is not clear what element is being referred to with the use of the term “it”.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the at least one fixing position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (only a previous singular “a fixing position” has been introduced).
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the releasing position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 47, line 2 refers to “it”. It is not clear what element is being referred to with the use of the term “it”.
Claim 47 recites the limitation "the at least one fixing position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (only a previous singular “a fixing position” has been introduced).
Claim 47 recites the limitation "the releasing position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 48 recites the limitation "the rest position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 49, line 2 refers to “it”. It is not clear what element is being referred to with the use of the term “it”.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "the operating position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 50 recites the limitation "the locking body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 51, line 2 refers to “it”. It is not clear what element is being referred to with the use of the term “it”.
Claim 51 recites the limitation "the releasing position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 52 recites the limitation "the coupling apparatus" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 52 recites the limitation "the locking apparatus" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 52 recites the broad recitation “the holding unit”, and the claim also recites “in particular, the guide body" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 52 recites the limitation "the guide body" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 52 recites the limitation "the receptacle" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 52 recites the limitation "the operating position" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 53 recites the broad recitation “the holding unit”, and the claim also recites “in particular, on the guide body" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "the receptacle body" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "the pivot bearing unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 54 recites the limitation "the locking apparatus" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 54 recites the broad recitation “the holding unit”, and the claim also recites “in particular, on the guide body" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 54 recites the limitation "the support surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 33 and 34 describing the relationship of the “housing” to the “holding unit” as “part of” and “integrated” as opposed to “included” in claim 32 (all claims which directly depend from claim 31) are not further limiting the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 and 10-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rimmelspacher et al. (US 2021/0370729), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claim 1, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses a coupling apparatus (20) comprising a carrier unit (20, 22) which is mountable at a rear side (fig. 1) on a vehicle bodywork (12), a holding unit (30) held on the carrier unit (20, 22) and a carrier element (32) for a coupling element (34), said carrier unit (20, 22) being mounted on the holding unit (30) pivotable relative to said holding unit by a pivot bearing unit (110) about a pivot axis (112), wherein the coupling element (20, 22) is configured either for pulling a trailer or for carrying a load carrier (abstract), wherein the holding unit (30) has a guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) on which the pivot bearing unit (110) is arranged, by which pivot bearing unit (110), bearing cheeks (92, 94) of the carrier element (32) are mounted on the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5), and wherein the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) extends with at least one portion in a direction parallel (fig. 4) to the pivot axis (112) from one bearing cheek (92) to the other bearing cheek (94). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 2, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) comprises a guide portion (see figs. 2-6, portion around element 98) which carries guide surfaces (see figs. 2-6, side portions of element 98) arranged on both sides thereof for guiding the bearing cheeks (92, 94) and extends parallel to the pivot axis (112) between these guide surfaces (see figs. 2-6, side portions of element 98), in particular from one guide surface to the other guide surface. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claims 4 and 7, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the guide portion is formed by a single-piece body (figs. 2-6). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
With respect to claim 5, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) extends parallel to the pivot axis (112) with a cross-sectional area perpendicular to the pivot axis (112), the areal extent of said cross-sectional area corresponding to at least the areal extent of the guide surfaces (see figs. 2-6, side portions of element 98). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
With respect to claim 8, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) is connected to the carrier unit (20, 22) by a connecting unit (82, 84). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
With respect to claim 10, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the connecting unit (82, 84) is formed from two flange elements (fig. 2) arranged spaced from one another. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
With respect to claim 11, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the flange elements (82, 84) receive at least a partial region of the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) between them (fig. 2). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
With respect to claim 12, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the flange elements (82, 84) are fixed to mutually opposite sides of the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) (paragraph 264 “the pin earner 98 is arranged between the side parts 82, 84 and fixedly connected thereto”). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
With respect to claim 13, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the flange elements (82, 85) are supported with support regions on support bodies (see flanges at the base of 82, 84; seen in figs. 2, 5, 8-11, 13, 22-24) arranged on the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 14, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the flange elements (82, 85) have support regions adapted in this manner to the support bodies (see flanges at the base of 82, 84; seen in figs. 2, 5, 8-11, 13, 22-24) and wherein, in particular, the flange elements enter into a positive-locking operative connection with the support bodies in directions parallel to their areal extent. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 15, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses a coupling apparatus (20) comprising a carrier unit (20, 22) which is mountable at a rear side (fig. 1) on a vehicle bodywork (12), a holding unit (30) held on the carrier unit (20, 22) and a carrier element (32) for a coupling element (34), said carrier unit (20, 22) being mounted on the holding unit (30) pivotable relative to said holding unit by a pivot bearing unit (110) about a pivot axis (112), wherein the coupling element (20, 22) is configured either for pulling a trailer or for carrying a load carrier (abstract), wherein, in the rest position (fig. 6), the carrier element is arranged between the holding unit (30) and a rear region of the vehicle bodywork (12). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 16, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the pivot axis (112) extends transversely, in particular perpendicularly, to a vertical longitudinal central plane (fig. 3) of the coupling apparatus. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 17, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses a coupling apparatus (20) comprising a carrier unit (20, 22) which is mountable at a rear side (fig. 1) on a vehicle bodywork (12), a holding unit (30) held on the carrier unit (20, 22) and a carrier element (32) for a coupling element (34), said carrier unit (20, 22) being mounted on the holding unit (30) pivotable relative to said holding unit by a pivot bearing unit (110) about a pivot axis (112), wherein the coupling element (20, 22) is configured either for pulling a trailer or for carrying a load carrier (abstract), wherein the carrier element (20, 22) is configured as a receptacle body (figs. 2-3) with a receptacle (inner body of 32) for an inserting portion of the coupling element (34). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 18, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses in the operating position of the receptacle body (figs. 2-3), the receptacle (inner body of 32) is arranged on a region of the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) facing toward a roadway. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 19, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the holding unit (30), in particular the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5), has a support surface (136; fig. 3) which, with the inserting portion (figs. 2-3) of the coupling element (34) inserted into the receptacle (inner body of 32) of the receptacle body (figs. 2-3) which is disposed in the operating position (“working position”, figs. 2-5), abuts the inserting portion (figs. 2-3) and thereby blocks a pivoting of the receptacle body (figs. 2-3) relative to the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) in at least one pivoting direction. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 20, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the inserting portion (figs. 2-3) of the coupling element (34) inserted into the receptacle body (figs. 2-3) in the operating position, the support surface (136; fig. 3) blocks a pivot movement of the receptacle body (figs. 2-3) from the operating position (“working position”, figs. 2-5) in each direction. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 21, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the support surface (136; fig. 3) is arranged on the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) at a spacing from the pivot bearing unit (110). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 22, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the support surface (136; fig. 3) is arranged on the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) on a side of the pivot bearing unit (110) facing toward the receptacle (inner body of 32). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 23, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses with the receptacle body disposed in the operating position (“working position”, figs. 2-5), the support surface (136; fig. 3) extends parallel to a central axis of the receptacle (inner body of 32). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 24, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses in the operating position (“working position”, figs. 2-5) of the receptacle body (figs. 2-3), the support surface (136; fig. 3) forms, in a direction perpendicular to the central axis of the receptacle (inner body of 32), at least a partial region, in particular the whole, of a wall surface delimiting the receptacle. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 25, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses in the operating position (“working position”, figs. 2-5) of the receptacle body (figs. 2-3), the support surface (136; fig. 3) delimits, in the direction of the central axis of the receptacle (inner body of 32), at least a subportion of the receptacle (inner body of 32), in particular the whole receptacle. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 26, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses in the operating position (“working position”, figs. 2-5) of the receptacle body (figs. 2-3), the support surface (136; fig. 3) is arranged on a side of the receptacle (inner body of 32) facing toward the pivot bearing unit (110). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 27, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the receptacle body (figs. 2-3) is configured at least partially U-shaped (u-shaped cross-section in the area where the opening 127 is located) in the region of the receptacle (inner body of 32) and has an open side (127) in which, in the operating position of the receptacle body (figs. 2-3), the support surface (136; fig. 3) arranged on the holding body (30) is situated. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 28, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the holding unit (30), in particular the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) thereof, has an operating position end stop (162) which blocks a pivot movement of the receptacle body (figs. 2-3) from the rest position (fig. 6) in the direction of the operating position (“working position”, figs. 2-5) on reaching the operating position. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 29, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the receptacle body (figs. 2-3) is provided with an end stop body (78; fig. 7) which, in the operating position (“working position”, figs. 2-5), abuts the operating position end stop (162). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 30, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses there is provided on the holding unit (30) a rest position end stop (122) which blocks a pivot movement of the receptacle body (figs. 2-3) from the operating position (“working position”, figs. 2-5) into the rest position (fig. 6) on reaching the rest position (fig. 6). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 31, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the coupling apparatus (20) comprising a carrier unit (20, 22) which is mountable at a rear side (fig. 1) on a vehicle bodywork (12), a holding unit (30) held on the carrier unit (20, 22) and a carrier element (32) for a coupling element (34), said carrier unit (20, 22) being mounted on the holding unit (30) pivotable relative to said holding unit by a pivot bearing unit (110) about a pivot axis (112), wherein the coupling element (20, 22) is configured either for pulling a trailer or for carrying a load carrier (abstract), wherein a locking apparatus (220; figs. 8-18) is arranged on the holding unit (30), in particular on a guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) thereof, wherein the locking apparatus is arranged in a housing (354) held on the holding unit (30), wherein, by way of a locking body (320), the locking apparatus fixes the carrier element (32), at least in an operating position (fig. 14), relative to the holding unit (30), wherein the locking body (320) protrudes in a fixing position (fig. 18) out of the housing and cooperates with the carrier element. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claims 32-34, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the housing (354) is included by/part of/integrated into the holding unit (30), in particular by a guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) thereof. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 35, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses in the at least one fixing position (fig. 18), the locking body (220) of the locking apparatus (220; figs. 8-18) blocks a movement of the carrier element out of the operating position and is movable in a movement direction from the at least one fixing position (fig. 12) into a releasing position (fig. 15) in which the carrier element is freely pivotable out of the operating position into a rest position. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 36, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses with the locking body (320), a blocking of the carrier element (32) in the rest position (figs. 12, 18) takes place. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 37, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses for blocking the carrier element (32) in the operating position, the locking body (220) is movable into a first fixing position (see fig. 11 for different positions) and, for blocking the carrier element in the rest position, is movable into a second fixing position (see fig. 11 for different positions). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 38, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the locking body of the locking apparatus (220; figs. 8-18) is resiliently urged by an actuating unit (322) in the direction of the at least one fixing position (see fig. 11 for different positions). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 39, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the actuating unit (322) is arranged in the housing (354). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 40, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the actuating unit has an actuating body (324, 324’) arranged in the housing (354), said actuating body being acted upon by a resilient element (326). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 41, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the housing (354) forms a guiding receptacle (fig. 17) for the actuating body. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 42, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the guiding receptacle (fig. 17) for the actuating body is configured as a guide channel in the housing (354). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 43, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the actuating body (324, 324’) is movable in a linear manner (fig. 11) in the movement direction between the least one fixing position and the releasing position (see fig. 11 for different positions). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 44, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses an influence on the locking body (220) to move it in the movement direction takes place by way of an influence (322) on the actuating unit (322) (paragraphs 184-186, 200, 323-329). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 45, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the influence on the actuating unit (322) to move the locking body (220) from the at least one fixing position into the releasing position (see fig. 11 for different positions) takes place by way of an actuating transmission (paragraphs 184-186, 200, 323-329). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 46, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses an influence on the locking body (220) to move it from the at least one fixing position into the releasing position takes place by way of a manual action (paragraph 15). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 47, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses an influence on the locking body (220) to move it from the at least one fixing position into the releasing position (see fig. 11 for different positions) takes place by way of a drive unit (322) controlled by a control system (paragraphs 184-186, 200, 323-329). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 48, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses a detent apparatus (294) is provided for fixing the carrier element in the rest position (paragraph 303). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 49, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses an actuation of the detent apparatus (294) to release it correlates with an influencing of the carrier element (32) to move said carrier element (32) from the rest position in the direction of the operating position (figs. 8-10) (paragraphs 302-308). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 50, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the actuation of the detent apparatus (294) correlates with the actuation of the locking body (220). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 51, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses an influence on the locking body (220) to move it from the at least one fixing position (figs. 8-111 for different positions) into the releasing position correlates with the transference of the detent apparatus (294) from a detent position into a detent releasing position (figs. 8-10). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 52, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the coupling apparatus (20) comprising a carrier unit (20, 22) which is mountable at a rear side (fig. 1) on a vehicle bodywork (12), a holding unit (30) held on the carrier unit (20, 22) and a carrier element (32) for a coupling element (34), said carrier unit (20, 22) being mounted on the holding unit (30) pivotable relative to said holding unit by a pivot bearing unit (110) about a pivot axis (112), wherein the coupling element (20, 22) is configured either for pulling a trailer or for carrying a load carrier (abstract), wherein the locking apparatus (220; figs. 8-18) is arranged on the holding unit (30), in particular, the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) thereof, in a region between the carrier unit (32) and the receptacle (fig. 17) disposed in the operating position. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 53, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the locking apparatus (220; figs. 8-18) is arranged on the holding unit (30), in particular on the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) thereof, between bearing cheeks (92, 94) of the receptacle body which are mounted thereon by the pivot bearing unit (110). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
As best understood, with respect to claim 54, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the locking apparatus (220; figs. 8-18) is arranged on the holding unit (30), in particular, on the guide body (98; figs. 3, 5) thereof, between the pivot bearing unit (110) and the support surface (136; fig. 3). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.)
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 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 3, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimmelspacher et al.
As best understood, with respect to claims 3 and 6, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the guide portion is formed by a single-piece body but is silent regarding a body formed by parts directly connected to one another, in particular by joining. (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 248-360.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the body formed by parts directly connected to one another, in particular by joining, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With respect to claim 9, Rimmelspacher et al. discloses the connecting unit is formed separate pieces joined together (figs. 2-7) but not as a single piece on the guide body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the connecting unit is formed as a single piece on the guide body, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614