DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
This Office action is responsive to applicant’s response filed on March 20, 2026. The response included replacement drawing sheets, a substitute specification and claim amendments, which have been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 1-13 and 15-17 of this application are subject to examination. Claim 14 has been canceled.
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:
a traction transmission device for transmitting a traction force
Examiner’s Construction:
a traction bar, and art-recognized equivalents of such a pivot connection
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “means” 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 a traction bar 50.
Claim Limitation:
“connecting means” that functions to connect second ends in such a way that relative pivoting movement is enabled between the second ends in a state of use (claims 1 and 2)
Examiner’s Construction:
a pivot connection including at least one pin received in a hole in one end of a first member and received in a hole in one end of a second member such that the ends of the first and second members can pivot relative to one another, and art-recognized equivalents of such a pivot connection
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “means” 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 pins 554a that connect the first portion 52 and the second portion 53, with the pins 554a forming a lateral axis 542 with a through hole 541 in the second portion 53, and with the first and second portions 52, 53 rotating on the lateral axis 542 if vibrations occur during use. As shown in the drawings, the pins 554a extend through respective holes in one end of the first portion 52 and are received in the through hole 541 extending through one end of the second portion 53 such that relative pivoting movement is enabled between the connected ends of the first and second portions.
Claim Limitation:
state of use (claim 1)
Examiner’s Construction:
a state in which the traction transmission device is used in such a way that a cargo/child trailer can be pulled by the traction transmission device
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “state of use” is defined on page 3 of the specification. Thus, applicant has served as their own lexicographer.
Claim Limitation:
“damping device” that functions to damp the relative pivoting movement between the second ends (claim 1)
Examiner’s Construction:
a damper that operates during relative pivoting movement of the second ends to damp the movement, wherein the damper is one of an elastomer body, several elastomer bodies, a leaf spring, a compression spring, two compression springs, an elastomer in a slot, and a torsion spring, and art-recognized equivalents of such a damper
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “device” 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 an elastic damper that is in the form of or defined by:
A monolithic elastomer body 553 (Figs. 2-8) or several elastomer bodies (not shown).
A leaf spring (Fig. 9).
Two compression springs (Fig. 10) or one compression spring (not shown).
An elastomer provided in a slot-like recess (Fig. 11).
A torsion spring (Fig. 12).
Claim Limitation:
assigned to (claim 1)
Examiner’s Construction:
at least co-causes or at least co-defines
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “assigned to” is defined on page 5 of the specification. Thus, applicant has served as their own lexicographer.
Claim Limitation:
“guide device” within which a damping device is arranged and an engagement means is movable (claim 10)
Examiner’s Construction:
a guiding structure having a round recess, an oval recess, or an arc-shaped slot within which an engagement means is guided while movement of the engagement means is dampened by a damping device, and art-recognized equivalents of such a guide
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “device” 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 specification explains (but the claims do not require) that the “guide device” functions to limit movement of the engagement means. The corresponding structure identified in the specification is a structure:
With a round inner cross-section, or an oval inner cross-section, or a slot-like, arc-shaped inner cross-section.
Defining/having a recess within which an engagement means is guided by engaging in the recess while movement of the engagement means is dampened by the damping device.
Claim Limitation:
“engagement means” that functions to move within the guide device, with the damping device arranged between the guide device and the engagement means (claim 10)
Examiner’s Construction:
a round cylinder (cylinder with circular bases), an oval cylinder (elliptical cylinder with oval/elliptic bases), or a pin that extends through a guide device and moves within the guide device so as to transmit forces to a damping device as a result of relative pivoting movement, and art-recognized equivalents of such an engagement structure
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “means” 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:
A structure designed in its geometry as an oval or round cylinder, which connects to pins 554b extending through respective holes in the second end of the first portion 52, and which is guided to move inside the guide device so as to transmit forces to the damping device as a result of the relative pivoting movement of the second ends.
A pin extending continuously through a recess in the guide device, and which is guided to move inside the guide device so as to transmit forces to the damping device as a result of the relative pivoting movement of the second ends.
Objection to Amendment – New Matter
The instant application is the national stage of International Application No. PCT/EP2022/053587. Thus, the “original disclosure” is the disclosure of International Application No. PCT/EP2022/053587 as filed on February 15, 2022.
The amendment filed on March 20, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the original disclosure. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The substitute specification filed on March 20, 2026 amends the brief description of Fig. 6 to read “a side view of the traction transmission device according to an enlarged view of the embodiment of Fig. 4, which includes a connection means that is an elastic element”. See p. 14 of the marked-up copy. This constitutes new matter because:
Fig. 6 shows an alternative embodiment to that of Fig. 4. The original disclosure describes Fig. 6 as showing an elastic element configured as a round cylinder (which differs from the elastic element of Fig. 4). There is no support in the original disclosure for Fig. 6 being an enlarged view of the embodiment of Fig. 4.
There is no support in the original disclosure for a connection means that is an elastic element. Instead, the damping device is disclosed as an elastic element.
The substitute specification filed on March 20, 2026 amends the description of Fig. 3 to define element 542 as an “axle”. See p. 16 of the marked-up copy. Element 542 is not a structural axle in Fig. 3. Rather, it is clearly shown as an axis, as originally described in the specification.
The substitute specification filed on March 20, 2026 amends the description of Fig. 6 to read “(enlarged view of Fig. 4)”. See p. 16 of the marked-up copy. This constitutes new matter for the reasons explained above.
The substitute specification filed on March 20, 2026 amends the description of Fig. 10 to read “An engagement means 4552 in the form of a pin extends through a guide device and moves within the guide device so as to transmit forces to springs located on opposite sides of the pin”. See p. 16 of the marked-up copy. This constitutes new matter because the original disclosure does not describe the engagement means as being in the form of a pin. Even if Fig. 10 is presumed to show a pin, it fails to establish that the engagement means (or pin) extends through a guide device and moves within the guide device. Further, there is no support in the original disclosure for springs located on opposite sides of an engagement means in the form of a pin.
The substitute specification filed on March 20, 2026 amends the identification of element 542 to read “(lateral) axle”. See p. 18 of the marked-up copy. This constitutes new matter for the reasons explained above.
The amendments to claims 3, 5 and 10 introduce new matter for the reasons given in GROUND 1 below.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 3, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. 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.
As explained above, the “original disclosure” is the disclosure of International Application No. PCT/EP2022/053587 as filed on February 15, 2022.
Claim 3 has been amended to recite “the connecting means comprises a first connection means comprising a connecting joint which enables relative movement and/or a second connecting means comprising a guide device which limits the relative movement” (ll. 4-6). The original disclosure provides support for a connecting device 54, 55 comprising (or in the form of) a joint. The original disclosure identifies the components of the connecting device as a first connecting device/means 54 and a second connecting device 55. While the overall connecting device 54, 55 is disclosed as comprising a joint, there is no support in the original disclosure for the first connection means 54 (alone) comprising a connecting joint.
Claim 5 has been amended to recite “wherein the connection means comprises first connection means comprising a connecting joint and a second connecting means comprising a guide device” (ll. 4-6). This constitutes new matter for the reasons explained above.
Claim 10 has been amended to recite “the guide device has a recess…and an engagement means which is movable within the recess” (ll. 4-6). There is no support in the original disclosure for the guide device having the engagement means. According to the original disclosure, the engagement means is movable in the guide device, the engagement means extends through the guide device, and the guide device is on one section while the engagement means is on the other section.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-13 and 15-17 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 1 recites “A traction transmission device for transmitting a traction force of a traction device, comprising a traction harness for a running person or a trailer coupling of a vehicle to a child trailer” (ll. 1-3). However, the drawings fail to illustrate an embodiment in which the traction bar transmits a traction force of a trailer coupling. Further, the specification fails to describe how the traction bar and the trailer coupling are structured and interconnected in order to cause the traction bar to transmit a traction force to the trailer coupling. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a first portion having a first end and a second end, a second portion having a first end and a second end, wherein one of the first ends is connected or connectable to the child trailer and another of the first ends is connected or connectable to the traction device” (ll. 4-7). However, the drawings fail to illustrate an embodiment in which a first end of one of the traction bar portions is connected to a child trailer. Further, the specification fails to describe how the traction bar and the child trailer are structured and interconnected in order to connect a first end of one of the traction bar portions to the child trailer. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the traction transmission device is foldable in the region of the connecting means” (ll. 11). The specification states that the traction bar can be rotatably mounted in the area of at least one of the connecting means so that it can be folded up, thereby making it collapsible. However, the specification fails to describe any embodiment having this folding feature. No explanation is given as to how the connecting means would have to be modified in order to incorporate folding structure, and no explanation is given as to how the folding structure would be structured or interrelated to the other components. Such a foldable construction is not illustrated in the drawings. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites “the connecting means comprises a first connection means comprising a connecting joint which enables relative movement and/or a second connecting means comprising a guide device which limits the relative movement to a predetermined range of movement, wherein the damping device is associated with the first or the second connecting means or both the first and the second connecting means” (ll. 4-8). The specification describes a connecting device 54, 55 comprising (or in the form of) a joint. The specification identifies the components of the connecting device as a first connecting device/means 54 and a second connecting device 55, with the first connecting means 54 enabling relative movement, and with the second connecting means 55 limiting the relative movement. However, the specification fails to explain how the device can be structured to function with only the first connecting means 54 “or” the second connecting means 55, as claimed. There is no disclosed embodiment that is capable of functioning in the manner disclosed and claimed while being limited to only one of the disclosed first and second connecting means. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the first end of the first or second portion is detachably connected or connectable to the traction device or the child trailer”. However, the drawings fail to illustrate an embodiment in which a first end of one of the traction bar portions is connected to a child trailer. Further, the specification fails to describe how the traction bar and the child trailer are structured and interconnected in order to connect a first end of one of the traction bar portions to the child trailer in a detachable fashion. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “the connection means comprises first connection means comprising a connecting joint and a second connecting means comprising a guide device for connecting first and second portions, one of the two portions being part of the traction transmission device or the traction device, and the other of the two portions being part of the traction transmission device or the child trailer” (ll. 5-8). However, the drawings fail to illustrate an embodiment in which one of the traction bar portions is part of a traction device (identified in the claims as a traction harness or a trailer coupling) and one of the traction bar portions is part of a child trailer. Further, the specification fails to describe how the traction bar portions are structured and interrelated in the case that one portion is part of a traction device and another portion is part of a child trailer. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “wherein said first connecting means allows relative pivoting of said two portions with respect to each other and the second connecting means limits and/or damps said relative pivoting to a predetermined range of movement” (ll. 8-11). The specification describes a connecting device 54, 55 comprising (or in the form of) a joint. The specification identifies the components of the connecting device as a first connecting device/means 54 and a second connecting device 55, with the first connecting means 54 enabling relative movement, and with the second connecting means 55 limiting the relative movement. However, the specification fails to explain how the device can be structured with both the first and second connecting means while functioning to only limit the relative movement “or” only damp the relative movement, as claimed. There is no disclosed embodiment that is capable of functioning in the manner disclosed and claimed while being limited to only one of the disclosed limiting and damping functions. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites “first and second portions define at least 60%, of the length of the traction transmission device, in particular traction bar, in a state connected by the connecting means”. The specification describes a traction bar made up of first and second portions. There is no explanation of how these first and second portions can define as little as 60% of the length of the traction bar. That is, there is no explanation of what structure would define the other 40% of the length of the traction bar. No embodiment is described in the specification or shown in the drawings in which the traction bar has some additional structure defining up to 40% of its length. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “the damping device comprises at least one spring device comprising or formed by: an elastic element, the elastic element including at least partially of an elastomer, and/or at least one helical spring and/or at least one leaf spring and/or at least one rotational spring.” The specification describes embodiments in which the damping device comprises a monolithic elastomer body, but fails to describe an embodiment in which the damping device is only partially made of an elastomer. The specification describes an embodiment in which the damping device comprises two compression springs, but fails to describe an embodiment in which the damping device comprises only one helical spring. The specification describes an embodiment in which the damping device comprises one leaf spring, but fails to describe an embodiment in which the damping device comprises more than one leaf spring. The specification mentions the possibility of an embodiment in which the damping device comprises a torsion spring, but this embodiment in not described in any detail and such a torsion spring is not illustrated in the drawings. It is unclear how such a torsion spring would be incorporated into the overall structure or how it would interact with the other components. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites “the guide device has a recess, in particular with an inner cross section which is round, oval and/or arcuate at least in portions, and an engagement means which is movable within the recess, in particular with an outer cross section which is round or oval at least in portions, wherein at least one damping device, in particular comprising an elastic element, is arranged at least in portions between the guide device and the engagement means.” The specification describes embodiments in which the guide device has a round, oval or arcuate inner cross-section, but fails to describe an embodiment in which the guide device only has such an inner cross-section “in portions”. No explanation is given as to how such a guide device would be structured. The specification describes embodiments in which the engagement means has a round or oval outer cross-section, but fails to describe an embodiment in which the engagement means has such an outer cross-section “in portions”. No explanation is given as to how such an engagement means would be structured. The specification describes embodiments in which the damping device is arranged between the guide device and the engagement means, but fails to describe an embodiment in which the damping device is only arranged in this fashion “in portions”. No explanation is given as to how such a damping device would be structured, or how it would be interrelated with the guide device and the engagement means. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the traction transmission device and/or its first and/or second portion runs/run straight, at least in portions”. This recitation encompasses a construction in which both traction bar portions are completely straight. However, there is no disclosed embodiment in which the traction bar portions are completely straight. No explanation is given as to how such an embodiment would be structured. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the traction transmission device and/or its first and/or second portion runs/run in a curved manner at least in portions.” This recitation encompasses a construction in which both traction bar portions are completely curved (having no straight portions). However, there is no disclosed embodiment in which the traction bar portions are completely curved. No explanation is given as to how such an embodiment would be structured. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the damping device is adjustable and/or deactivatable with regard to its damping properties or is partially replaceable.” The specification mentions the possibility of using a damping device that is adjustable and/or deactivatable, and states that a spring hardness of the damping device can be varied or a suspension can be bypassed (and thus deactivated). However, the specification fails to describe any embodiment that includes a damping device that is capable of having its spring hardness varied or its suspension bypassed. There is no explanation of how such a damping device would be structured. Such a damping device is not illustrated in the drawings. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites “a traction transmission device, according to claim 1 and i) a traction harness and/or a vehicle or at least its trailer coupling, wherein the traction harness or the vehicle or, respectively, its trailer coupling is configured to be releasably or non-releasably connected to the traction transmission device, or ii) a child trailer, wherein the child trailer is releasably or non-releasably connected to the traction transmission device.” Claim 17 recites “wherein in case i) the traction harness or the vehicle or its trailer coupling is releasably or non-releasably connected to the traction transmission device and/or in case ii) the child trailer is releasably or non-releasably connected to the traction transmission device.” However, the drawings fail to illustrate an embodiment in which a vehicle or its trailer coupling is releasably or non-releasably connected to the traction bar, or an embodiment in which a child trailer is releasably or non-releasably connected to the traction bar. Further, the specification fails to describe how the claimed releasably or non-releasable connections (to a vehicle or its trailer coupling, and to a child trailer) are structured and interrelated to the traction bar portions. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
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 3: Claims 1-13 and 15-17 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.
As explained more fully in GROUND 2, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claims 1, 3-6, 9-13, 16 and 17 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Absent such supporting disclosure, the scope of claims 1, 3-6, 9-13, 16 and 17 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “for transmitting a traction force of a traction device, comprising a traction harness for a running person or a trailer coupling of a vehicle to a child trailer” (ll. 1-3). This recitation is indefinite because it fails to clearly define what element the recited traction force is transmitted to. This recitation is also indefinite because it inaccurately characterizes the recited traction device as being “a trailer coupling of a vehicle to a child trailer”. There is no disclosure of such “a trailer coupling of a vehicle to a child trailer”. Rather, the specification describes a traction bar that is intended to connect to a child trailer.
Claim 1 recites “wherein one of the first ends is connected or connectable to the child trailer” (l. 6). The specification fails to explain what the difference is between “connected…to the child trailer” and “connectable to the child trailer”. It is impossible to ascertain the difference between these claim limitations.
Claim 1 recites “and another of the first ends is connected or connectable to the traction device” (ll. 6-7). The specification fails to explain what the difference is between “connected…to the traction device” and “connectable to the traction device”. It is impossible to ascertain the difference between these claim limitations.
The claims contain numerous instances of the alternative expression “and/or”. See claims 3, 5, 6, 9-13, 16 and 17. This renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the claims should be interpreted as requiring both the “and” combinations and the “or” alternatives, or whether the claims should be interpreted as only requiring the “or” alternatives.
In claim 3, the recitation “the connecting means comprises a first connection means…and/or a second connecting means” (ll. 4-5) is indefinite because it is inconsistent with and/or contradicts prior claim 1. Claim 1 introduces “a connecting means”, with the article “a” indicating that a single element is recited. However, claim 3 defines this single element has comprising first and second elements.
In claim 3, the recitation “which enables relative movement” (ll. 4-5) is indefinite because it is unclear whether or not this refers to the same relative movement previously introduced in claim 1.
In claim 3, the term “the relative movement” (l. 6) is indefinite because it is unclear whether this refers to the relative movement introduced in claim 1, the relative movement introduced in claim 3, or both.
In claim 3, the term “the first…connecting means” (l. 7 and ll. 7-8) lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 3, the alternative limitation “the damping device is associated with the first or the second connecting means or both the first and the second connecting means” is indefinite because the specification provides no explanation as to how the damping device can be associated with only one of the disclosed first and second connecting means, or how the damping device can be associated with only the disclosed first connecting means. Given the lack of correspondence with the description of the invention in the specification, the claim appears to be inaccurate, and its scope is unclear.
In claim 4, the recitation “wherein first end of the first or second portion” (ll. 3-4) is indefinite because it is unclear whether or not this refers to one of the first ends introduced in claim 1, or a different first end. This implication that there is some different first end is inaccurate and confusing.
Claim 4 recites “…is detachably connected or connectable to the traction device or the child trailer” (l. 7). The specification fails to explain what the difference is between “detachably connected…to the traction device or the child trailer” and “detachably…connectable to the traction device or the child trailer”. It is impossible to ascertain the difference between these claim limitations.
In claim 5, the term “the connection means” (ll. 3-4) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites “one of the two portions being part of the traction transmission device or the traction device” (ll. 6-7). This recitation is indefinite because both of the portions previously introduced in claim 1 are part of the traction bar (traction transmission device). Neither is part of the traction device (i.e., traction harness or trailer coupling) introduced in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “and the other of the two portions being part of the traction transmission device or the child trailer” (ll. 7-8). This recitation is indefinite because both of the portions previously introduced in claim 1 are part of the traction bar (traction transmission device). Neither is part of the child trailer.
In claim 5, the term “said first connecting means” (ll. 8-9) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is indefinite because the recitation “limits and/or damps” (l. 10) is broader than claim 1, which explicitly requires a damping device to damp relative movement. A dependent claim that broadens the scope of its independent claim is indefinite.
The recitation “in particular…” in claim 6 (l. 9), claim 10 (ll. 4-5, 6 and 8) appears to set forth optional limitations. A broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) is indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Such recitations render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the apparently optional limitations are to be considered as required limitations, or ignored as unrequired limitations.
In claim 6, the recitation “first and second portions” (l. 8) is indefinite because it is unclear whether or not this refers to the first and second portions introduced in claim 1, or different first and second portions. The implication that there are some different first and second portions is inaccurate and confusing.
In claim 7, the recitation “first and second portions” (l. 4) is indefinite because it is unclear whether or not this refers to the first and second portions introduced in claim 1, or different first and second portions. The implication that there are some different first and second portions is inaccurate and confusing.
In claim 7, the recitation “configured to be moved relative to one another exclusively by means of the relative movement” (ll. 5-6) is indefinite because it is inaccurate to characterize relative movement as being “by means of” relative movement. The means of the movement is not the movement itself. Rather, the means of the movement is the pivotal connection that enables the movement.
In claim 8, the recitation “first and second portions” (l. 4) is indefinite because it is unclear whether or not this refers to the first and second portions introduced in claim 1, or different first and second portions. The implication that there are some different first and second portions is inaccurate and confusing.
In claim 8, the recitation “first and second portions are pivotable relative to one another about a rigid axle at least substantially horizontal in the state of use” (ll. 4-5) is indefinite because it is unclear what is being defined as being “at least substantially horizontal”. Does this refer to the first and second portions, or to the rigid axis?
Claim 9 recites “at least one spring device comprising or formed by: an elastic element” (ll. 4-5). The specification fails to explain what the difference is between “at least one spring device comprising…an elastic element” and “at least one spring device…formed by: an elastic element”. It is impossible to ascertain the difference between these claim limitations.
In claim 10, the terms “inner cross section” (l. 5) and “outer cross section” (l. 7) are indefinite. It is unclear how a cross-section can be characterized as either “inner” or “outer”. This is confusing and appears to be inaccurate.
Claim 10 introduces “at least one damping device” (ll. 4-5). It is unclear how this damping device relates to the damping device introduced in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “…portion runs/run straight, at least in portions” (ll. 4-5). The use of the alternative expression “runs/run” is confusing. Further, the specification fails to explain what the difference is between “runs/run straight” and “runs/run straight…in portions”. It is impossible to ascertain the difference between these claim limitations.
Claim 12 recites “…portion runs/run in a curved manner at least in portions” (ll. 4-5). The use of the alternative expression “runs/run” is confusing. Further, the specification fails to explain what the difference is between “runs/run in a curved manner” and “runs/run in a curved manner…in portions”. It is impossible to ascertain the difference between these claim limitations.
In claim 13, the recitation “is partially replaceable” is indefinite because it is unclear how a damping device can be only “partially” replaceable. The specification fails to explain the manner in which a damping device could be only “partially” replaceable.
In claim 15, the recitation “first and second portions” (l. 4) is indefinite because it is unclear whether or not this refers to the first and second portions introduced in claim 1, or different first and second portions. The implication that there are some different first and second portions is inaccurate and confusing.
In claim 15, the recitation “a status of use” (l. 4) is indefinite because it is unclear whether or not this refers to the state of use introduced in claim 1, or a different state of use. The implication that there is some different state of use is inaccurate and confusing.
Claim 16 recites “…releasably or non-releasably connected to the traction transmission device” (ll. 4-5 and 6-7). The specification fails to explain what the difference is between “releasably…connected to the traction transmission device” and “non-releasably connected to the traction transmission device”. It is impossible to ascertain the scope of these claim limitations.
The preamble of claim 17 states that the claim is directed to “A method of preparing a system”. However, the claim fails to set forth any method steps of “preparing a system”. Since no such method is defined, the claim is indefinite.
In claim 17, the recitation “in case i)” (ll. 1-2) is indefinite because no such “case” is previously defined.
In claim 17, the recitation “in case ii)” (l. 3) is indefinite because no such “case” is previously defined.
Claim 17 recites “…releasably or non-releasably connected to the traction transmission device” (ll. 2-3 and 3-4). The specification fails to explain what the difference is between “releasably…connected to the traction transmission device” and “non-releasably connected to the traction transmission device”. It is impossible to ascertain the scope of these claim limitations.
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):
“Diehl”
US Patent No. 5,265,891
“Fast”
US Patent No. 7,093,845 B1
“Helgeson”
US Patent No. 2,797,934
“Johnson ‘043”
US Patent No. 3,328,043
“Johnson ‘270”
US Publication No. 2017/0267270 A1
“Kelling”
US Patent No. 11,584,419 B2
“Koshutin”
US Patent No. 9,365,224 B1
“Lennon et al.”
US Patent No. 6,431,570 B1
“Lovell et al.”
US Patent No. 4,351,542
“Moulton”
US Patent No. 3,414,294
“Muonro”
US Patent No. 4,773,668
“Rehme”
US Patent No. 7,377,536 B2
“Schradin”
DE Publication No. 20 2014 007 028 U1 (with translation)
“Varieur”
US Patent No. 5,062,651
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
GROUND 4: Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Varieur.
With respect to claims 1, 2 and 7, Varieur discloses a traction bar for transmitting a traction force from a traction harness 56 to a child trailer 10. The traction bar comprises a first portion 42 having a first end connected to the child trailer 10, and a second portion 48 having a first end connected to the traction harness 56, with respective second ends of the first and second portions 42, 48 being connected by a flexible cable/cord/member 50 that enables relative pivoting movement between the second ends in a state of use of the traction bar such that the first and second portions 42, 48 move relative to one another exclusively by relative pivoting movement. See Figs. 1-2; col. 2, ll. 43-48; col. 3, ll. 24-37; col. 3, l. 63 to col. 4, l. 23.
With respect to claim 1, the traction bar is connected to the child trailer 10 so as to be foldable. See Fig. 3; col. 3, ll. 24-47.
With respect to claims 1 and 3, the flexible cable/cord/member 50 constitutes a damping device that (i) co-causes or co-defines a connecting joint between the first and second portions 42, 48, and (ii) suppresses (damps) the relative pivoting movement between the first and second portions 42, 48. See Fig. 2; col. 3, l. 63 to col. 4, l. 20.
With respect to claim 4, the first end of the second portion 48 is detachably connected to the traction harness 56 by a threaded fitting 54. See Fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 5-13 (which refers to the same kind of threaded fitting described at col. 3, l. 67 to col. 4, l. 4).
With respect to claim 9, the flexible cable/cord/member 50 constitutes a leaf spring, as broadly claimed. See Fig. 2.
With respect to claims 11 and 12, the first portion 42 is partially straight and partially curved, and the second portion 48 is straight. See Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 15, the first and second portions 42, 48 can be pivoted, in the state of use, relative to one another by a maximum angle 58, which in the preferred embodiment is ±10°. See Fig. 2; col. 4, ll. 14-20. This disclosed range of movement falls within the claimed maximum of 45°.
With respect to claims 16 and 17, the traction harness 56 is releasably connected to the first end of the second portion 48 by the threaded fitting (see explanation above), and the child trailer 10 is non-releasably connected to the first end of the first portion 42. See Figs. 1 and 3 and the citations provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
GROUND 5: Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Varieur.
See the discussion of Varieur in GROUND 4.
With respect to claim 6, a first or second portion length of at least 15 cm is within the general parameters that can be gleaned from Varieur. The skilled artisan would appreciate that it would be desirable for at least one of the first and second portions to be at least 15 cm in order to accommodate the height of an average user and provide the desired spacing between the user and the child trailer. Further, a mere change in length is generally recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 6, a first portion length of at least 0.5 to at most 2 times the second portion length is within the general parameters that can be gleaned from Varieur. The skilled artisan would appreciate that it would be desirable for a first portion length to be at least 0.5 to at most 2 times the second portion length in order to provide the traction bar with the desired geometry, produce the desired spacing between the user and the child trailer, and accomplish the desired degree of relative pivotal movement while maintaining the comfort and convenience of the user. Further, a mere change in relative length is generally recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 6, Varieur teaches first and second portions that define at least 60% of the length of the traction bar.
With respect to claim 15, Varieur teaches that the first and second portions 42, 48 can be pivoted, in the state of use, relative to one another by a maximum angle 58, which in the preferred embodiment is ±10°. See Fig. 2; col. 4, ll. 14-20. Given these prior art parameters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a maximum range of 45° in order to maximize the benefit achieved by the relative pivotal movement while maintaining the comfort and convenience of the user. Further, a mere change in angle is generally recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
GROUND 6: Claims 1-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koshutin in view of Varieur and Diehl.
With respect to claims 1-3 and 7, Koshutin discloses a traction bar for transmitting a traction force from a traction harness 9 to a trailer (see Fig. 1). The traction bar comprises: a first portion 2 having a first end connected to the trailer (see Fig. 1); a second portion 7 having a first end connected to the traction harness 9; a pivotal connection/joint 6 connecting respective second ends of the first and second portions 2, 7 so as to enable relative pivoting movement between the second ends in a state of use of the traction bar such that the first and second portions 2, 7 move relative to one another exclusively by relative pivoting movement; and a damping device 10, 11 including a damper (shock absorber) 11 assigned to the pivotal connection/joint 6 such that the damping device 10, 11 limits/damps the relative pivoting movement between the first and second portion 2, 7. See Figs. 1, 7-9, 15 and 47; col. 1, ll. 66-67; col. 2, ll. 22-24; col. 3, ll. 15-20; col. 4, ll. 6-11 and 24-35; col. 5, ll. 8-13, 19-39, 57-60 and 64-67; col. 6, ll. 21-36. Fig. 23 shows one example of the damper 11 (numbered as element 20 in Fig. 23). See col. 2, ll. 22-24; col. 6, ll. 21-36. Figs. 48-49 show another example of the damping device. See col. 3, ll. 21-25 and 51-62. Figs. 19-20 show an embodiment in which the first end of the second portion 7 is connected to a trailer coupling on a bicycle. See col. 2, ll. 15-16; col. 6, ll. 57-59; col. 8, ll. 26-33.
With respect to claim 1, Koshutin’s traction bar is connected to the trailer so as to be foldable. See Fig. 2; col. 2, l. 1; col. 3, ll. 16-18.
Koshutin fails to teach that the trailer is a child trailer.
As explained in detail in GROUND 4, Varieur teaches a traction bar for transmitting a traction force from a traction harness 56 to a child trailer 10.
Diehl also teaches a traction bar for transmitting a traction force from a traction harness 36-38 to a child trailer 11, 12, with the traction bar including a first portion 31 coupled to a second portion (see Fig. 6) by a pivotal connection/joint 35, and having a helical spring 39 that limits the relative pivotal movement. See Figs. 1, 3-4 and 6; col. 3, ll. 4-13 and 46-64.
From the teachings of Varieur and Diehl, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Koshutin by constructing the trailer as a child trailer because this increases the functionality of the trailer by enabling it to be used to transport a child.
With respect to claim 4, Koshutin discloses that the first end of second portion 7 can be detachably connected to the traction harness 9. See Figs. 13-15; col. 2, ll. 11-12; col. 5, ll. 56-60.
With respect to claim 5, Koshutin’s pivotal connection/joint 6 constitutes a first joint for enabling the relative pivoting movement. The damping device 10, 11 is connected to the first and second portions 2, 7 at second joints so as to limit/damp the relative pivoting movement.
With respect to claim 6, a first or second portion length of at least 15 cm is within the general parameters that can be gleaned from Koshutin. The skilled artisan would appreciate that it would be desirable for at least one of the first and second portions to be at least 15 cm in order to accommodate the height of an average user and provide the desired spacing between the user and the trailer. Further, a mere change in length is generally recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 6, a first portion length of at least 0.5 to at most 2 times the second portion length is within the general parameters that can be gleaned from Koshutin. The skilled artisan would appreciate that it would be desirable for a first portion length to be at least 0.5 to at most 2 times the second portion length in order to provide the traction bar with the desired geometry, produce the desired spacing between the user and the trailer, and accomplish the desired degree of relative pivotal movement while maintaining the comfort and convenience of the user. Further, a mere change in relative length is generally recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 6, Koshutin teaches first and second portions that define at least 60% of the length of the traction bar.
With respect to claim 8, Koshutin’s pivotal connection/joint 6 defines pivotal movement about a substantially horizontal axis.
With respect to claim 9, the damper shown in Fig. 23 of Koshutin includes a helical spring. Diehl also teaches the use of a helical spring 39.
With respect to claim 10, Koshutin’s damping device 10, 11 includes a guide device with a round inner cross-section that telescopically receives an engagement means with a round outer cross-section so as to guide movement of the damping device, and with an elastic spring installed between the telescopic guide device and engagement means. See Fig. 23; col. 4, ll. 24-35; col. 6, ll. 21-36.
With respect to claim 11, Koshutin’s first and second portions 2, 7 are straight. See Figs. 1, 7-9, 15 and 47.
With respect to claim 12, Koshutin fails to teach that the first or second portion 2, 7 is at least partially curved. Both Varieur and Diehl teach a first portion that is at least partially curved. The substitution of a partially curved portion for a straight portion is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art when, as here, the substitution yields only a predictable result. Further, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the partially curved portion provides for a desirable overall geometry while minimizing the number of distinct joints.
With respect to claim 13, Koshutin teaches a damping device that is adjustable. See col. 3, ll. 51-62.
With respect to claim 15, a maximum pivoting angle of 45° is within the general parameters that can be gleaned from Koshutin. Given the prior art parameters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a maximum range of 45° in order to maximize the benefit achieved by the relative pivotal movement while maintaining the comfort and convenience of the user. Further, a mere change in angle is generally recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Koshutin’s traction harness 9 is releasably connected to the first end of the second portion 7 (see explanation above), and the trailer is non-releasably connected to the first end of the first portion 2. See Fig. 1 and the citations provided above.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Johnson ‘270 discloses a traction bar for transmitting a traction force from a traction harness 104 to a child trailer 102. The traction bar comprises a first portion 114b having a first end connected to the child trailer 102, and a second portion 110 having a first end connected to the traction harness 104, with respective second ends of the first and second portions 114b, 110 being connected by a connecting member 112 in a manner that enables relative pivoting movement between the second ends in a state of use of the traction bar such that the first and second portions 114b, 110 move relative to one another exclusively by relative pivoting movement. See Figs. 1-3; ¶¶ 0022-0024, 0027-0031. In the embodiment of Figs. 5-6, the relative pivoting movement is (i) enabled by a pivotal connection/joint 214 between the second end 200 of the first portion 114b and a second end of an alternative first portion 212, and (ii) limited by a helical spring 230 or other elastic member. See ¶¶ 0036-0043.
Schradin teaches a traction bar 12 connected to a support plate 7 by a pivotal connection 8, and a damper 10 that damps relative pivotal movement of the traction bar 12 about the pivotal connection 8.
Kelling teaches a trailer coupling 88 connected to a traction harness frame 42 by pivotal linkages 38a, 38b, and dampers 78a, 78b that damp relative pivotal movement.
Lennon et al. teaches a bicycle trailer including a damper 26 assigned to a pivotal connection (including pivot shaft 114) for damping relative pivotal movement.
Lovell et al. teaches a trailer coupling including elastic pads 26 for damping relative pivotal movement of a coupling element 6.
Muonro teaches a trailer coupling including a resilient block 32 for damping relative pivotal movement of the trailer coupling.
Rehme teaches a trailer coupling including rubber springs 174, 176 for damping relative pivotal movement of a coupling element 58.
Helgeson teaches a trailer coupling including a helical spring 32 for damping relative pivotal movement of coupling portions 11, 12.
Fast teaches a trailer coupling including a damper 42 for damping relative pivotal movement of coupling elements 22, 32.
Moulton teaches a trailer coupling including a damper 58 for damping relative pivotal movement of coupling elements 10, 12.
Johnson ‘043 teaches a traction bar portion 20 that is detachably connected to a traction harness 31.
Specification Objections
The amended abstract filed on March 20, 2026 is objected to because it is written in the format of a claim and includes legal phraseology (“means”). The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The substitute specification filed on March 20, 2026 is objected to because:
At p. 15, l. 26, “elastic element 553” is inconsistent with the previous identification of element 553 as a “damping device” (p. 15, l. 22). Such inconsistency in terminology creates confusion as to the exact nature of the invention.
At p. 16, ll. 3-4, “The pins 554a form a (lateral…) axle 542” is inaccurate and confusing. Element 542 is not illustrated in Fig. 3 as being a structural “axle”. Rather, it is shown as an axis. Further, the two pins 554a are separate elements; they do not define a singular “axle”.
At p. 16, l. 6, “the first and second portions 52, 53 rotate on the (lateral) axle 542” is inaccurate and confusing for the reasons given above.
At p. 16, l. 24, “compression spring (not shown)” is inaccurate because Fig. 10 illustrates at least one spring. Note that the original version of the paragraph later describes Fig. 10 as showing “two springs”.
At p. 16, l. 25, “guide device” should read “guide device 4551”.
At p. 17, l. 6, “a torsion or torsion spring” is confusing and inaccurate. The term “torsion” is not a conventional alternative to a “torsion spring”.
Drawing Objections
The replacement drawing sheets filed on March 20, 2026 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed below must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
A traction transmission device that transmits a traction force of a trailer coupling (claim 1).
A first end of one of the traction transmission device portions is connected to a child trailer (claim 1).
A traction bar that is foldable in the region of the connecting means (claim 1).
An embodiment limited to only one of the disclosed first and second connecting means (claim 3).
An embodiment in which the damping device is only associated with the first connecting means (claim 3).
A first end of one of the traction transmission device portions is detachably connected to a child trailer (claim 4).
An embodiment in which one of the traction transmission device portions is part of a traction device (identified in the claims as a traction harness or a trailer coupling) and one of the traction bar portions is part of a child trailer (claim 5).
Am embodiment in which the traction transmission device first and second portions define only 60% of its length, i.e., the traction transmission device has some additional structure defining up to 40% of its length (claim 6).
An embodiment in which the damping device is only partially made of an elastomer (claim 9).
An embodiment in which the damping device comprises only one helical spring (claim 9).
An embodiment in which the damping device comprises more than one leaf spring (claim 9).
An embodiment in which the damping device comprises a rotational spring (claim 9). While Fig. 12 is described as showing an embodiment with a torsion spring, no torsion spring is shown in Fig. 12.
A guide device having a round, oval or arcuate inner cross-section only “in portions” (claim 10).
An engagement means having a round or oval outer cross-section only “in portions” (claim 10).
A damping device arranged between the guide device and the engagement means only “in portions” (claim 10).
An embodiment in which the traction bar portions are completely straight (claim 11).
An embodiment in which the traction bar portions are completely curved (claim 12).
A damping device that is adjustable and/or deactivatable with regard to its damping properties or is partially replaceable (claim 13).
An embodiment in which a vehicle or its trailer coupling is releasably or non-releasably connected to the traction bar (claims 16 and 17).
An embodiment in which a child trailer is releasably or non-releasably connected to the traction bar (claims 16 and 17)
The replacement drawing sheets filed on March 20, 2026 are also objected to because:
Fig. 6 shows a different embodiment than Figs. 1-5. However, Fig. 6 improperly uses the same reference numbers to label the structurally different components of this alternative embodiment. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. In particular, note that element 553 in Fig. 6 is not the same as element 553 in Figs. 2-5.
Fig. 7 shows a different embodiment than Figs. 1-5. However, Fig. 7 improperly uses the same reference numbers to label the structurally different components of this alternative embodiment. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. In particular, note that element 553 in Fig. 7 is not the same as element 553 in Figs. 2-5.
Fig. 9 shows a different embodiment than Figs. 1-5. However, Fig. 9 improperly uses the same reference numbers to label the structurally different components of this alternative embodiment. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. In particular, note that 552 in Fig. 9 is not the same as element 552 Figs. 2-5.
Fig. 9 shows a different embodiment than Fig. 8. However, Fig. 9 improperly uses the same reference numbers to label the structurally different components of this alternative embodiment. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. In particular, note that 255 in Fig. 9 are not the same as 255 in Fig. 8.
Fig. 11 shows a different embodiment than Figs. 1-5. However, Fig. 11 improperly uses the same reference numbers to label the structurally different components of this alternative embodiment. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. In particular, note that 552 in Fig. 11 is not the same as element 552 in Figs. 2-5.
Fig. 12 shows a different embodiment than Figs. 1-5. However, Fig. 12 improperly uses the same reference numbers to label the structurally different components of this alternative embodiment. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. In particular, note that elements 552 in Fig. 12 is not the same as element 552 in Figs. 2-5.
In Fig. 12, the same element is labeled by both reference number 754 and reference number 7553. While Fig. 12 is described as showing an embodiment with a torsion spring 7553, no torsion spring is shown in Fig. 12. Only the first connecting device 754 is shown.
Fig. 13 shows black box 50 without appropriate descriptive text. Nothing about the illustrated structure can be gleaned from the drawings when black boxes are used without descriptive text.
Fig. 13 uses a black box to represent a traction harness 56. This does not constitute a proper showing of a traction harness since none of the distinctive characteristics of the traction harness are actually shown in the figure.
Fig. 13 uses a black box to represent a child trailer 2. This does not constitute a proper showing of a child trailer since none of the distinctive characteristics of the child trailer are actually shown in the figure.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 20, 2026 have been considered. Many of applicant’s arguments are not germane to the specific objections and rejections set forth above, which were necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
With respect to GROUND 2 and the drawing objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a), applicant argues that Fig. 13 shows the complete system structure. This argument fails because no actual structure is shown in Fig. 13. Mechanical structure cannot be accurately depicted using only black boxes connected by lines. Such a graphical depiction does not illustrate the manner in which the invention is structured. 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. 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.
With respect to GROUND 2, applicant argues that the skilled person would know how to construct the claimed embodiments. This argument, which pertains to the separate enablement requirement, is not persuasive with respect to the rejection based upon lack of adequate written description.
With respect to GROUND 2, applicant argues that the tethering element 51 could account for up to 40% of the overall length. This argument is not persuasive because the tethering element 51 is neither shown nor described as having such a significant length.
With respect to GROUND 2, applicant argues that the specification contemplates the claimed features, such as one helical spring and more than one leaf spring. However, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions.
With respect to GROUND 2, applicant argues that WO 2018/148826 A1 shows a foldable traction bar. This argument fails because the disclosure of WO 2018/148826 A1 is not incorporated by reference, and because applicant’s specification does not disclose that the inventive traction bar is foldable in the manner taught by WO 2018/148826 A1.
With respect to GROUND 3, applicant argues that indefinite claim language has been removed. This is not persuasive because not all instances of the indefinite claim language has been removed.
With respect to GROUND 3, applicant argues that the claims are definite. This is not persuasive for the reasons detailed in GROUND 3.
With respect to GROUND 4, applicant argues that Varieur fails to teach a damping device assigned to the connecting means in order to damp the relative movement. Applicant’s argument fails because it is based on an overly narrow reading of the very broad “assigned to” limitation.
Applicant argues that Johnson ‘270 fails to teach all of the elements of amended claim 1. This argument is persuasive so the rejection based on Johnson ‘270 is withdrawn.
With respect to GROUND 5, applicant argues that the rejection fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The examiner disagrees for the reasons given in GROUND 5.
With respect to GROUND 6, applicant argues applicant argues that Koshutin fails to teach a damping device assigned to the connecting means in order to damp the relative movement. Applicant’s argument fails because it is based on an overly narrow reading of the very broad “assigned to” limitation.
Applicant’s desire for an interview is noted. Applicant’s representative can contact the examiner to schedule an interview.
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 Mail2 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).
2 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights