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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 8th, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 14-15, and 17-26 are pending in the application.
The amendment to Claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2, and 7-8, therefore, the related rejections have been withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4, 6-8, 11, 14-15, 17-18, 20-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2018/0208106 A1 to Doyle, II et al., hereinafter Doyle, in view of U.S. Pub. 2003/0159545 A1 to Teppe, note additional evidence from U.S. Pub. 2022/0063978 A1 to Arellano Agular et al., hereinafter Arellano Agular.
Regarding Claim 1, Doyle teaches a vehicle trailer hitch system, comprising;
a hitch receiver (200, Figs. 3-5, [0021]);
a hitch plate (plate provided with “safety chain loops” 160, Figs. 3-5, [0002]) mounted to an underside of the hitch receiver (configuration of 160 and 200 depicted in Figs. 3-5, [0002]), the hitch plate defining a mid-section (middle of plate extending under hitch receiver “mouth” 215, Figs. 3-5); and
the hitch plate includes a slot (hole of either of loops 160, Figs. 3-5) sized and shaped (sized in relation to a standard pickup truck hitch receiver, and slot-shaped, depicted in Figs. 3-4) to establish a trailer chain placement feature (as the hole of 160 is shaped as a slot with round ends, to accommodate safety chains at the round ends, additionally [0002]).
Doyle does not teach that the hitch plate includes a slot sized and shaped to establish a bottle opener feature within the hitch plate, nor the structure of lateral edges bounded by vertically offset lower and upper lips.
In the similar field of endeavor of bottle openers, Teppe teaches a slot (“cut-out” 16, Fig. 1, [0013]) having a first lateral edge (rightmost edge of 16, Fig. 2) bounded by a lower lip (“catching member” 19 comprising “catching border” 20, Fig. 2, [0013]) and a second lateral edge (left edge connecting to 4, Fig. 2) bounded by an upper lip (“support element” 17 comprising “bearing border” 18, Fig. 2, [0013]) that is vertically offset from the lower lip (configuration of elements depicted in Fig. 1), the upper lip and the lower lip being laterally offset (all elements offset, in this instance, to the right, from 4, Fig. 2) relative to the mid-section of the hitch plate (when replacing Doyle – 160, lateral offset would be from center of plate extending under hitch receiver “mouth” 215, Fig. 3), wherein the bottle opener feature is established by the lower lip and the upper lip (configuration of elements in Figs. 1 and 2, [0013-0014]).
Teppe further teaches a lower lip (“catching member” 19 comprising “catching border” 20) that bounds a first lateral edge (here, the rightmost edge, Fig. 2) of the slot (“cut-out” 16) and an upper lip (“support element” 17 comprising “bearing border” 18) that bounds a second lateral edge (left edge connecting to 4, Fig. 2) of the slot (16).
Teppe further teaches that the lower lip (19 and 20) or the upper lip (17 and 18) establishes a fulcrum of the bottle opener feature (with respect to 18, [0013]), and the other of the lower lip or the upper lip is configured to engage a bottle cap of a bottle (with respect to 20, [0014]).
Teppe further teaches that the lower lip (19 and 20) is laterally outward of the upper lip (17 and 18, connected by “lateral sides” 21 and 22, lateral displacement depicted in Figs. 1 and 2).
Teppe further teaches that the upper lip (17 and 18) is laterally outward of the lower lip (19 and 20, connected by “lateral sides” 21 and 22, lateral displacement depicted in Figs. 1 and 2).
Teppe further teaches the bottle opening process ([0012-0014], describing the bottle opening process, where the upper lip 17 and 18 acts as a fulcrum and the lower lip 19 and 20 act as the prying edge, lifting the bottle cap with motion of the opener or, as can be readily understood, the bottle may move as the opener is held stationary to pry the bottle cap open.).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the trailer safety chain loop plate of Doyle with the bottle opener mounting plate, support element, and catching member of Teppe, symmetrically at both instances of the chain loop holes of Doyle, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would appreciate integrating the structurally common bottle opener feature of Teppe into other vehicle assemblies the rear of a vehicle (see further evidence in US Pub 2022/0063978 to Arellano Aguilar – Abstract, further discussed in Response to Arguments below), adding convenience and increasing user enjoyment during outdoor activities around the rear of vehicles.
Regarding Claim 2, Doyle in view of Teppe further teaches wherein the hitch plate (Doyle – plate comprising 160) includes a first plate section (right instance of 160, Fig. 3), a second plate section (left instance of 160, Fig. 3), and the mid-section (middle of plate extending under hitch receiver “mouth” 215, Fig. 3) extending between the first plate section and the second plate section (disposition of elements depicted in Fig. 3), and further wherein the slot is formed through the first plate section or the second plate section (as the holes in both instances of 160).
Regarding Claim 4, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already teaches a lower lip (Teppe – “catching member” 19 comprising “catching border” 20) that bounds a first lateral edge (here, the rightmost edge, Fig. 2) of the slot (“cut-out” 16) and an upper lip (“support element” 17 comprising “bearing border” 18) that bounds a second lateral edge (left edge connecting to 4, Fig. 2) of the slot (16).
Regarding Claim 6, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already teaches that the lower lip (Teppe – 19 and 20) or the upper lip (17 and 18) establishes a fulcrum of the bottle opener feature (with respect to 18, [0013]), and the other of the lower lip or the upper lip is configured to engage a bottle cap of a bottle (with respect to 20, [0014]).
Regarding Claim 7, Doyle in view of Teppe further teaches that the trailer chain placement feature is established by a first portion of the slot (Doyle – rear-most portion of slot 160 is capable of accommodating a placed chain. Note that the claim is not interpreted to extend its scope to features of an unclaimed undefined chain), and the bottle opener feature is established by a second, different portion of the slot (Teppe – fulcrum formed by 18 and 20, [0013-0014]).
Regarding Claim 8, Doyle in view of Teppe above already teaches that the first portion (Teppe – 22) is the rearmost portion of the slot (when oriented as in Fig. 2, replacing rightmost instance of 160 in Doyle, for example).
Regarding Claim 11, Doyle additionally teaches a vehicle (Doyle – 100, Fig. 1, [0002]), and as modified by Teppe above, already teaches a trailer hitch system (Doyle – which is attached to the vehicle 100, Fig. 1, [0002[) including a hitch plate (Teppe – 4, as symmetrically attached to Doyle – underside of 215) having an integrated bottle opener feature (Teppe – 3);
the hitch plate includes a slot (Teppe – 16) having a first lateral edge bounded by a lower lip (19 and 20) and a second lateral edge bounded by an upper lip (17 and 18) that is vertically offset from the lower lip (configuration of elements depicted in Fig. 1), the upper lip and the lower lip being laterally offset relative to a mid-section of the hitch plate (all elements offset, in this instance, to the right, from 4, Fig. 2); and
wherein the integrated bottle opener feature is established by the lower lip and the upper lip (configuration of elements in Figs. 1 and 2, [0013-0014]), wherein the lower lip and the upper lip are configured to engage a bottle cap of a bottle such that the bottle cap is removed when the bottle is moved along an inward swing path toward a centerline of the vehicle ([0012-0014], describing the bottle opening process, where the upper lip 17 and 18 acts as a fulcrum and the lower lip 19 and 20 act as the prying edge, lifting the bottle cap with motion of the opener or, as can be readily understood, the bottle may move on an inward swing path as the opener is held stationary to pry the bottle cap open.).
Regarding Claim 14, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already teaches that the lower lip (Teppe – 19 and 20) is laterally outward of the upper lip (17 and 18, disposition depicted in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 15, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already teaches that the upper lip (Teppe – 17 and 18) is laterally outward of the lower lip (19 and 20, disposition depicted in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 17, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already teaches that the integrated bottle opener feature (Teppe – 4 and 3, as integrated into Doyle) is configured such that the lower lip (Teppe – 19 and 20) functions to engage the bottle cap and the upper lip (17 and 18) functions as a fulcrum for exerting a force for removing the bottle cap from the bottle ([0012-0014]).
Regarding Claim 18, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already teaches that the hitch plate (Teppe – 4 including 3, as replacing Doyle – 160 and mounted on underside of 215, symmetrically) is mounted to a hitch receiver (200) of the trailer hitch system (assembly of aforementioned elements).
Regarding Claim 20, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already teaches that the hitch plate (Teppe – 4 and 3, as replacing Doyle – 160 and mounted on underside of 215, symmetrically) establishes a trailer chain placement feature (as modified with rationale in the § 103 rejection of Claim 7 above).
Regarding Claim 21, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already teaches that the hitch plate (Teppe – 4 and 3, as replacing Doyle – 160 and mounted on underside of 215, symmetrically) is mounted to an underside of a hitch receiver of the trailer hitch system (as Doyle – 160 is already mounted on underside of 215, Fig. 3, its direct replacement from Teppe retains that position).
Regarding Claim 22, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already teaches that the hitch plate (Teppe – 4 and 3) is mounted to the underside of the hitch receiver (mounted on underside of Doyle – 215, symmetrically) such that the bottle is insertable upwardly from below the hitch receiver (Doyle – 215) and the hitch plate into the slot for engagement with the lower lip and the upper lip (Teppe – [0012-0014], describing the bottle opening process, where the upper lip 17 and 18 acts as a fulcrum and the lower lip 19 and 20 act as the prying edge, lifting the bottle cap with motion of the opener or, as can be readily understood, the bottle may move on an inward swing path as the opener is held stationary to pry the bottle cap open.).
Regarding Claim 23, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already teaches that a rearmost portion of the slot (Teppe – 22, as oriented exemplarily in Fig. 2 when replacing first (rightmost) slot of Doyle -– 160) is configured to receive a trailer safety chain hook while a forward portion (forward relative to 22 in the above configuration) of the slot comprising a lower lip (19 and 20) and an upper lip (17 and 18) of the hitch plate remains usable as the bottle opener feature (as the gap between 22 and the engaging lips is wide enough to accommodate a chain hook, Teppe – Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 25, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already teaches all limitations of the claim, including a vehicle trailer hitch system, comprising:
a hitch receiver (Doyle – 200 additionally comprising 215); and
a hitch plate mounted to the hitch receiver (Teppe – 4 and 3, as replacing Doyle – 160 and mounted on underside of 215, symmetrically), the hitch plate defining an elongated slot (Teppe – “opening head” 3 and all constituent elements) having a first lateral edge bounded by a lower lip (Teppe – 19 and 20) and a second lateral edge bounded by an upper lip (Teppe – 17 and 18), the lower lip and the upper lip being vertically offset from one another (configuration of elements depicted in Teppe – Fig. 1) and laterally offset relative to a mid-section of the hitch plate (all elements offset, in this instance, to the right, from Teppe – 4, Fig. 2),
wherein a first, rearmost portion of the elongated slot (Teppe – 22, as oriented exemplarily in Fig. 1 when replacing first (rightmost) slot of Doyle -– 160) is configured to receive a safety chain hook as a trailer chain placement feature (as in the rationale of the rejection of Claim 7 above, which recites an identical limitation), and a second, different portion of the elongated slot presents the lower lip (Teppe – 19 and 20) and the upper lip (17 and 18) as cooperating bottle opener elements ([0013-0014]) such that, when a bottle cap of a bottle is engaged with one of the lower lip or the upper lip and the bottle is moved along an inward swing path (Teppe – [0012-0014], describing the bottle opening process, where the upper lip 17 and 18 acts as a fulcrum and the lower lip 19 and 20 act as the prying edge, lifting the bottle cap with motion of the opener or, as can be readily understood, the bottle may move on an inward swing path as the opener is held stationary to pry the bottle cap open.) toward a centerline of the hitch receiver (In the configuration of Teppe – 4 and 3, Fig. 2, as mounted and replacing first (rightmost) slot of Doyle -– 160, a bottle would engage with 3 and swing clockwise (i.e., towards the center of the vehicle which is to the right of 3)), the other of the lower lip or upper lip functions as a fulcrum to pry the bottle cap from the bottle (Teppe – [0012-0014]).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Teppe, and in further view of U.S. Pub. 2016/0001700 A1 to Salter et al., hereinafter Salter.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19 (same limitations, different dependency), Doyle as modified by Teppe teaches the vehicle trailer hitch system of first parent Claim 1 and the vehicle of second parent Claim 11, but does not teach a control module programmed to command a lighting system to generate a light effect on the hitch plate.
Salter, in the same field of endeavor of trailer hitch accessories, teaches a control module (178) programmed to command a lighting system (58, [0005]) to generate a lighting effect (72, [0030]) for illuminating at least a portion of the hitch plate ([0030[), wherein the control module is programmed to command the lighting system to generate the lighting effect in response to receiving a signal from a sensor system (“proximity sensors” 56, [0057]) indicating that an authorized user is within a threshold distance ([0058]) of the vehicle trailer hitch system.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of external vehicle parts and accessories, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the trailer hitch assembly of Doyle or Doyle as modified by Teppe, with the external vehicle lighting assembly of Salter, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would have appreciated the use of external approach/welcome lighting on an external assembly that users would regularly interact with during outdoor social gatherings to improve safety and visibility around the vehicle in low-light conditions.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Teppe, and in further view of U.S. Patent 9,604,576 to Dellock et al., hereinafter Dellock.
Regarding Claim 24, Doyle, or Doyle as modified by Teppe, already teach the trailer hitch system with a hitch plate of Claim 1, but does not teach that the hitch plate includes a protective coating of long persistence phosphor, visually marking the bottle opener feature.
In the same field of endeavor of exterior vehicle accessory lighting, Dellock teaches long-persistence phosphor coating (Paras. (15)-(17)) applied on a trailer hitch electrical connector (element 44, Para. (20)), for visually marking the connector during low-light conditions (Para. (23)).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the long-persistence illuminating phosphor for trailer hitch accessories of Dellock with the vehicle trailer hitch assembly of Doyle or Doyle/Teppe, applying it to specifically mark the bottle opener feature, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would appreciate using lighting techniques that do not require an external power source to mark small external parts near the trailer hitch that users regularly interact with to improve user experience and convenience.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Teppe, and in further view of U.S. Pub. 2022/0242180 A1 to Giaier et al., hereinafter Giaier.
Regarding Claim 26, Doyle in view of Teppe teaches the vehicle trailer hitch system as recited in Claim 25, but does not teach a protective coating for the lower and upper lips.
In the similar field of endeavor as trailer hitch assemblies Giaier teaches a hitch receiver tube (106, Figs. 1 and 4, [0019]) having a protective coating comprising a zinc-nickel alloy coating ([0022]) configured to limit wear and corrosion during an operable life of the hitch plate ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the protective zinc-nickel coating of Giaier to the trailer hitch/bottle opener (and specifically, the upper and lower lips) of Doyle/Teppe, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would appreciate the addition of the well-known protective qualities of zinc-nickel alloy coatings for trailer hitches in general (Giaier – [0003]) in addition to protection against the wear caused by prying open metal bottle caps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, § 102/ §103 Rejections, I., filed August 5th, 2026, with respect to the § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claim 1 in view of Doyle, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
In response to Applicant's first argument in REMARKS, § 102/ §103 Rejections, II. that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Furthermore, Applicant’s argument regarding the lack of motivation to alter Doyle’s hitch receiver chain loops into a structure analogous to Teppe’s catching border geometry is unpersuasive. The invention as claimed amounts to a simple alteration of well-known trailer hitch chain loop geometry, specifically, to establish an upper and lower lip lying in planes separated vertically by a distance versus the coplanar lips of Doyle. Referencing Paragraph 3 of Response to Arguments of the previous May 5th, 2026 Office Action, Examiner maintains the position that the rationale to minimally and simply modify the structure/geometry of rear vehicle components to achieve an integrated bottle opener function is sufficiently provided by Arellano Agular, despite the geometric differences of a wedge versus the open loop of the instant application, which also may address Applicant’s fourth argument in the section II.. The geometric and vehicle function difference is of no bearing to the generalized base motivation to provide an integrated bottle opener at the rear of a vehicle using existing vehicle structure/geometry.
The additional consideration of Silverdew bottle opener in Paragraph 2 of the previous Office Action, with its coplanar lips that closely resemble the well-known coplanar chain loop lips of Doyle, still provides even further motivation to integrate a bottle opener feature. While not used in this Office Action as a prima facie rationale for an obviousness rejection, MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 discusses changes in shape that render a claimed invention obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant, which has not been demonstrated in the instant application over the Silverdew opener geometry.
Regarding Applicant’s second argument in II., the present disclosure has not provided any information regarding the load-bearing capacity of the chain loops of the instant application, nor has it presented an argument that structural modifications thereof could present a failure mode, while also not providing a solution to this problem. While it is understood to those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the geometry of a load-bearing structural member will alter stress concentrations at points in the member’s geometry, it is also understood that preventing catastrophic failure of a safety component due to these loads would necessitate routine optimization of the member’s geometry via FMEA simulations or physical testing. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Also relevant to Applicant’s third argument in II., preventing the possible failure mode of chain snagging would necessitate routine optimization of geometry, all of which would still maintain the generalized shape of an upper and lower lip as taught by Teppe, whose figures are notably not drawn to scale.
In response to Applicant's fifth argument in II. against the non-separability of Teppe, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Despite the inability of Teppe to physically separate the handle from the catching member and support element, the configuration of an upper lip and lower lip on vertically offset planes is the teaching, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood methods of manufacturing a plate having structure analogous to Teppe in order to combine it with the trailer hitch of Doyle.
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, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
