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 March 23rd, 2026 has been entered. Amended claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, 14-15, 17-20, and new claims 21-25, are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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.
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, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Doyle, II et al., hereinafter Doyle – US Pub. 2018/0208106 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Doyle in view of Teppe – US Pub. 2003/0159545, note additional evidence from Arellano Agular – US Pub. 2022/0063978.
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) mounted to an underside of the hitch receiver (configuration of 160 and 200 depicted in Figs. 3-5, [0002]); and
the hitch plate includes a slot (hole of either of loops 160) sized and shaped (sized in relation to a standard pickup truck hitch receiver, and slot-shaped, depicted in Figs. 3-4) to establish both a trailer chain placement feature and a bottle opener feature (as the hole of 160 is shaped as a slot with round ends, to accommodate safety chains at the round ends and act as a bottle opening prying device on either straight edge, Figs. 3-4. Note that the claim scope is presently understood as not extending to features of unclaimed or undefined chains, only the capability of the slot to accommodate a chain.) within the hitch plate.
Therefore, Doyle anticipates the claimed invention.
Additionally, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the limitation “…sized and shaped to establish both a trailer chain placement feature and a bottle opener feature…” conveys characteristics that are not sufficiently detailed by Doyle, then Teppe teaches a bottle opener (“bottle opening head” 3, Figs. 1-2, [0013]) mounted to a ring assembly (via flat plate section of “handle” 4, Fig. 2, [0003], [0011]). Teppo’s bottle opener is disclosed as advantageously providing a support element (17, with lower edge “bearing border” 18) located between the handle (4) and a catching member (19, with inner “catching border” 20), forming a slot (16) and providing a fulcrum for prying a bottle cap from a bottle (additionally noting that this is the general structure of certain types of bottle openers, [0002]).
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 bottle opener feature (3) is established by the lower lip and the upper lip (configuration of elements in Figs. 1 and 2, [0013-0014]).
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 further teaches wherein the hitch plate (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 a 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 7, Doyle further teaches that the trailer chain placement feature is established by a first portion of the slot (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, see above), and the bottle opener feature is established by a second, different portion of the slot (e.g., either the center portion or the forward-most portion of the slot 160).
Therefore, Doyle anticipates the claimed invention.
Additionally, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the phrase “portion of the
slot” in Claim 7 is intended to convey substantial structural differences between elements in the slot that
are distinct from the slots of Doyle, the vehicle trailer hitch system of Doyle as modified by Teppe above already includes two distinct portions of the slot, the lower and upper lips (interpreted here as the “second portion” 19 and 20, 17 and 18 respectively) and the lateral sides (interpreted here as the “first portion” 21 and 22), which do not interface with a bottle cap during the opening procedure. Therefore, the hitch of Doyle/Teppe already includes a slot where a trailer chain placement feature (the lateral sides, exemplarily depicted as 22 in Figs. 1-2 when replacing the first (rightmost) slot of Doyle) is established by a distinct portion of the slot from the bottle opener feature (lower and upper lips 19 and 20, 17 and 18).
Regarding Claim 8, Doyle/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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4-6, 11, 14-15, 17-18, 20-23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Teppe.
Regarding Claim 4, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already 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).
Regarding Claim 5, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already teaches that the bottle opener feature (3) is established by the lower lip and the upper lip (configuration of elements in Figs. 1 and 2, [0013-0014]).
Regarding Claim 6, Doyle as modified by Teppe above already 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]).
Regarding Claim 11, Doyle additionally teaches a vehicle (100, Fig. 1, [0002]), and as modified by Teppe above, already teaches a trailer hitch system (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 (100, [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 in the rejections of Claims 1-10 and 11 above already teaches all limitations, 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, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Salter et al., hereinafter Salter – US Pub. 2016/0001700, alternatively over Doyle as modified by Teppe, and further in view of Salter.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19 (same limitations, different dependency), Doyle or Doyle as modified by Teppe teach the vehicle trailer hitch system of Claims 1 and the vehicle of 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 Dellock et al., hereinafter Dellock – US Patent 9,604,576, alternatively over Doyle as modified by Teppe, in further view of 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the ability of generic trailer hitch safety chain loop to function as a bottle opener (Page 7, Paragraph 3), it is noted that the new reference, Doyle, has chain loops substantially similar in size shape to the slot in a ubiquitous flat bottle opener, and critically, with no difference in height between the two prying/fulcrum lips (e.g., ASIN B0BW8HMT9Q, 2 Pcs V Rod Bottle Opener Bartender, Pour Spout Removers Double Ended Flat Metal Bar Speed Key Opener Multifunction Stainless Steel Dog Bone Wine Bottle Opener for Bartenders Home Kitchen, sold by Silverdew on Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BW8HMT9Q?th=1, first available 02/20/2023, retrieved 5/1/2026). Therefore, Doyle, while silent on bottle opener functionality, inherently represents a bottle opener because it can open a bottle, in light of this extrinsic evidence. See MPEP § 2131.01 III.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the Fabiano/Brown, or in an anticipatory case, Doyle/Teppe, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Arellano Agular is again referenced here, specifically (Abstract and [0002]), noting that an integrated bottle opener feature whose primary function is as a separate vehicle component unrelated to bottle opening (a wedge assembly for the rear tailgate closure mechanism in Arellano Agular), included at the rear of a vehicle, provides more convenience and facilitates a more enjoyable experience for users during outdoor activities near the vehicle such as camping and tailgating. There would have been motivation to combine Doyle/Teppe for this reason, and for the reason that Doyle already inherently functions as a bottle opener, to which the addition of Teppe may also be seen as an obvious improvement to a base device. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
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 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
Prosecution Insights