DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
The amendments to the drawings, specification and claims filed on May 12, 2026 have been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-11 and 13-17 of this application are subject to examination. Claims 1, 6, 8 and 12 have been canceled.
Application Data Sheet
The corrected Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed on May 12, 2026 overcomes the prior defects in the ADS.
Claim Construction in Examination
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Examiner’s Claim Construction
The following claim limitations are construed by the examiner to aid in examination:
Claim Limitation:
locking mechanism (claims 3, 11 and 13)
Examiner’s Construction:
a key-operated device that includes tumblers engaged by a key and a drive member operated by the key, and equivalents of such a device
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claim does not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
The corresponding structure identified in the specification is lock mechanism 4, which includes a locking cam 16 that is turned by a key, and tumblers 28 (that are engaged by the key in a conventional manner).
The skilled artisan would appreciate that equivalents to such a lock mechanism include the locking mechanisms taught by Hsai, Jacques, Paré, Tsai ‘698, Tsai ‘973, Villalon, Jr. and Wyers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
GROUND 1: Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which cause the claimed invention to achieve the desired results.
Claim 13 recites “a plurality of supports extending outward relative to said lock assembly, each of said plurality of supports extending in spaced relation from adjacent ones of said plurality of supports” (ll. 7-9). The specification describes the shell 2 as having vertical ribs/fins 43 extending between (i) upper horizontal support 44, central horizontal support 45 and lower horizontal support 46, and (ii) central support 47 and lower horizontal support 46. The original disclosure fails to provide support for each of the supports 44, 45, 46, 47 extending in spaced relation from adjacent ones of the supports 44, 45, 46, 47. As shown in Fig. 8, the upper horizontal support 44 is only adjacent to one (not plural “ones”) of the other supports 45, 46, 47. The same is true of the lower horizontal support 46. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites “each of said plurality of supports extends generally transverse to a longitudinal axis in which said lock assembly extends.” The specification describes the shell 2 as having vertical ribs/fins 43 extending between (i) upper horizontal support 44, central horizontal support 45 and lower horizontal support 46, and (ii) central support 47 and lower horizontal support 46. The disclosure of “vertical” and “horizontal” members, requires the supports 44, 45, 46, 47 to be perpendicular (oriented at 90° relative) to the ribs/fins 43. The original disclosure fails to mention a longitudinal axis in which the lock assembly extends. Further, the original disclosure fails to provide support for each of the supports 44, 45, 46, 47 extending generally transverse to a longitudinal axis in which the lock assembly extends. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites “a majority of said plurality of supports extends generally transverse to each of said plurality of fins.” The specification describes the shell 2 as having vertical ribs/fins 43 extending between (i) upper horizontal support 44, central horizontal support 45 and lower horizontal support 46, and (ii) central support 47 and lower horizontal support 46. The disclosure of “vertical” and “horizontal” members, requires the supports 44, 45, 46, 47 to be perpendicular (oriented at 90° relative) to the ribs/fins 43. The original disclosure fails to provide support for a majority of (but not necessarily all of) the supports 44, 45, 46, 47 extending generally transverse to each of the ribs/fins 43. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites “a majority of said plurality of fins form respective right angles with each of said upper support, said central support, and said lower support.” The specification describes the shell 2 as having vertical ribs/fins 43 extending between (i) upper horizontal support 44, central horizontal support 45 and lower horizontal support 46, and (ii) central support 47 and lower horizontal support 46. The disclosure of “vertical” and “horizontal” members, requires the supports 44, 45, 46, 47 to be perpendicular (oriented at 90° relative) to the ribs/fins 43. However, the original disclosure fails to provide support for a majority of (but not necessarily all of) the ribs/fins 43 being at right angles relative to the supports 44, 45, 46, 47. In addition, the original disclosure fails to provide support for the ribs/fins 43 forming respective right angles with each of the supports 44, 45, 46, 47. As shown in Fig. 8, a shorter one of the ribs/fins 43 forms respective right angles with the supports 46, 47, but it does not form respective right angles with the supports 44, 45. Further, a longer one of the ribs/fins 43 forms respective right angles with the supports 45, 46, but it does not form a respective right angle with the support 44, and it does not appear to form a respective right angle with the support 47. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
For these reasons, claims 13-17 recite new matter.
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.
GROUND 2: Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “further comprising one or more seals to prevent ingress of moisture into said lock assembly.” This recitation defines the function of the one or more seals, but fails to define any structural relationship between the one or more seals and the structure recited in independent claim 1. Absent any definition of the location of the seals or the manner in which they are incorporated into the lock assembly, the claim allows for any and every conceivable possibility. As a result, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is unclear what subject matter is encompassed by the claim, and what is excluded therefrom.
In claim 3, the term “said lock mechanism” (l. 7) lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether this term is intended to refer back to “a lock assembly” (l. 2) or “a locking mechanism” (l. 2).
As explained more fully in GROUND 1, the specification fails to provide sufficient support for the subject matter of claims 13-17. Since the claimed subject matter fails to conform to the description of the invention in the original disclosure, the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is unclear what subject matter is encompassed by the claims, and what is excluded therefrom.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Bernstrom”
US Patent No. 6,070,441
“Cato et al.”
US Patent No. 11,766,905 B2
“Gustafson”
US Patent No. 8,151,605 B1
“Harper”
US Publication No. 2016/0059648 A1
“Hsai”
US Publication No. 2007/0069501 A1
“Jacques”
US Publication No. 2006/0163842 A1
“Paré”
US Patent No. 7,040,646 B2
“Richter”
US Design Patent No. D350,054 S
“Tsai ‘698”
US Publication No. 2020/0023698 A1
“Tsai ‘973”
US Publication No. 2017/0100973 A1
“Villalon, Jr.”
US Patent No. 5,752,398
“Wyers”
US Publication No. 2006/0236730 A1
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
As shown in the annotated figures below, Richter discloses a trailer hitch lock that comprises: (a) a lock assembly that is disposed in a vertically-oriented, central chamber located within (b) a shell comprising a plurality of fins that radially extend away from said lock assembly by a distance, wherein the shell surrounds said lock assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
236
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
252
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tsai ‘698 includes prior art Fig. 1, which shows essentially the same structure as Fig. 1 of Richter. Tsai ‘698 explains that the trailer lock 1 comprises a shell (body) 11 that includes (i) a lock barrel portion 13 for locking and unlocking operation via a key 14, and (ii) a fitting portion 12 with a groove (rabbet) 121 shaped to receive and engage a trailer hitch receiver coupling (see coupling 5 shown in Fig. 6 of Tsai ‘698). See ¶ 0002. Thus, Tsai ‘698 makes it clear that the shell of Richter includes a cylinder (barrel) that defines a vertically-oriented, central chamber receiving a lock assembly, with the shell being shaped to receive and engage a trailer hitch receiver coupling.
Tsai ‘698 teaches a preferred embodiment of a trailer hitch lock comprising (a) a lock assembly that includes a latch set 4 operably movable vertically from a first unlocked position into a second locked position, wherein the latch set 4 is disposed in a vertically-oriented, central chamber located within (b) a shell 2 that surrounds the lock assembly and includes a structure 21 shaped to receive and engage a trailer hitch receiver coupling 5. As shown in Fig. 2, the shell 2 includes fins or gussets that radially extend away from the latch set 4 by a distance.
Jacques teaches a trailer hitch lock 10 comprising a shell (body) 16 having a retention groove 18 shaped to receive and engage a flange (lip) 14 of a trailer hitch receiver coupling 12. See Figs. 1-7; ¶¶ 0030-0031. In the embodiment of Figs. 8-9, a lock assembly is disposed in a vertically-oriented, central chamber located within the shell 16, with the lock assembly including a lock cylinder 20 operated by a key 20 to drive a lock pin 30 to move vertically (translate) from a first unlocked position (Fig. 8) into a second locked position (Fig. 9). See ¶¶ 0039-0041.
Wyers teaches a trailer hitch lock 10 comprising a lock assembly including a lock core 32 operated by a key 34 to drive a lock pin 60 for selectively locking a movable lock body 22 relative to a shell (body) 20. See Figs. 1-11c; ¶¶ 0035-0048. Wyers further teaches a first seal in the form of a protective cap 36 around a movable part of the lock core 32, a second seal in the form of an O-ring 54 between relatively movable parts of the lock body 22 and the shell 20, and a third seal in the form of a protective sleeve 106 around the relatively movable parts of the lock body 22 and the shell 20, with the seals preventing ingress of unwanted contaminate. See Figs. 2-6 and 11a-11c; ¶¶ 0037-0038, 0043, 0049.
Harper teaches a trailer hitch lock comprising a lock assembly including a lock cylinder 36 operated by a key 33 to drive an actuating pin 44 to in turn drive a translatable lock pin 34 between unlocked and locked positions. See Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0008-0012. Harper further teaches a first seal in the form of an O-ring 62 around the movable actuating pin 44, and a second seal in the form of an O-ring 62 around the movable lock pin 34, with the seals preventing water and other substances from interfering with the operation of the lock assembly. See Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0012.
Gustafson is concerned with the provision of a trailer hitch lock that is extremely durable, extremely tough to defeat, and positioned so as to not be exposed to burglary tools. See col. 1, ll. 19-48. Gustafson further teaches that trailer hitch lock can be made of (i) solid machined aluminum and hardened steel with substantial thickness such that it is very difficult to cut through, (ii) stainless steel, (iii) metal alloys, (iv) cast aluminum, and (v) cast metal alloy material. See col. 2, ll. 15-23; col. 3, ll. 61-64.
Paré teaches is concerned with the provision of a trailer hitch lock that is difficult to defeat using bolt cutters and the like. See col. 1, ll. 12-41. Paré teaches that the trailer hitch lock can be made of stainless steel, and coated aluminum. See col. 2, ll. 28-34. Paré further teaches an embodiment in which a main body 390 defines a vertically-oriented, central chamber, and a shell 398 surrounds the main body 390. See Fig. 11; col. 4, ll. 49-58. As shown in Fig. 11, the shell 398 includes a plurality of fins that radially extend away from the main body 390. Twelve fins are shown in Fig. 11, yielding a radial fin-to-fin distribution angle of about 30° (360° ÷ 12).
Tsai ‘973 teaches a trailer hitch lock comprising (a) a lock assembly that includes a latch 37 operably movable vertically from a first unlocked position into a second locked position, wherein the latch 37is disposed in a vertically-oriented, central chamber located within (b) a shell 31, 32, 33 that surrounds the lock assembly and includes a structure 31 shaped to receive and engage a trailer hitch receiver coupling 4. As shown in Fig. 3, the shell portion 32 includes fins or ribs that radially extend away from the latch 37 by a distance.
Hsai teaches a trailer hitch lock with a lock assembly 41 disposed in a vertically-oriented, central chamber of a shell 40 that is shaped to receive and engage a trailer hitch receiver coupling 5.
Bernstrom teaches a trailer hitch lock comprising a shell portion 31 having reinforcement fins 40 that provide limited access and security to locks 43, 44.
Villalon, Jr. teaches a trailer hitch lock 3 comprising a shell having at least one fin (gusset) 11 extending from a cylinder 6 that receives a lock assembly 7.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on May 12, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 11,766,905 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 608.01(o). Specifically, the specification fails to describe:
The freely rotating ring as having a central hole “circumscribed by a sidewall, said sidewall tapering such that a pair of diametrically opposed line segments extending along said sidewall converge at a central axis in which said lock assembly extends, said pair of line segments forming an angle with the range of 75°-100°” (claim 3).
The locking ring set screws as extending radially outward “into a recess of” the shell (claim 7).
The shell as comprising a plurality of supports “extending outward relative to said lock assembly, each of said plurality of supports extending in spaced relation from adjacent ones of said plurality of supports; and a plurality of fins extending outward relative to said locking assembly, each of said plurality of fins extending in spaced relation from adjacent ones of said plurality of fins and between adjacent ones of said plurality of supports” (claim 13).
“each of said plurality of supports extends generally transverse to a longitudinal axis in which said lock assembly extends” (claim 14).
“a majority of said plurality of supports extends generally transverse to each of said plurality of fins” (claim 15).
“a majority of said plurality of fins form respective right angles with each of said upper support, said central support, and said lower support” (claim 17).
The specification is also objected to because:
In amended ¶ 0001, “January 1, 2022” (2nd line) should read “January 6, 2022”.
In amended ¶ 0001, “and claims” (5th line) should read “which claims”. See the corrected ADS filed on May 12, 2026.
In amended ¶ 0034, the plural term “the tapering sidewalls” (9th line) is inconsistent with and contradicts the singular term “a tapered sidewall 71” (3rd to 4th line) and the singular term “the sidewall 71” (6th line).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach a trailer hitch lock, as defined in claim 11, wherein said shell is made of a hardened steel core coupler sandwiched between a top shell piece and a bottom shell piece that are joined together around the core coupler.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10 and 13-17 recite allowable claimed subject matter (lines 6-12 of claim 3; lines 7-13 of claim 13 aside from new matter). These claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form while overcoming all objections and rejections set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 12, 2026 have been considered. Applicant argues that prior objections and rejections have been overcome. The examiner agrees to the extent that those objections and rejections have been withdrawn. With respect to the objection under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the specification makes no mention of the recess required by claim 7, and the specification does not describe the claimed recess using other similar terminology. Further, applicant’s amendments necessitated new objections and rejections that are not addressed by applicant’s arguments.
Final Action
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).
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this application should be directed:
By Patent Center1: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 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).
Prosecution Insights