Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peverler 6099016 in view Schmucker et al 2009/0194751 A1.
Peveler discloses the claimed invention except for a force measuring element.
1. (Currently Amended) A support jack comprising;a support foot 54 [[(60)]] and a force measuring element [[(10)]], wherein the support jack has an outer tube 20 [[(20)]] and an inner tube 22 [[(30)]] movably mounted therein, and the support foot [[(60)]] is pivotably secured to the inner tube [[(30)]] by wherein the force measuring element [[(10)]] is attached to the foot receiving element [[(40)]].
2. (Currently Amended) The support jack according to claim 1, wherein a force is determined by This is the natural function of a strain gauge displacement.
14. (Currently Amended) The support jack according to claim 1,wherein the force measuring element [[(10)]] is a strain gauge application 35 [[(12)]].
15. (Currently Amended) The support jack according to claim 14, 35 [[(12)]] is applied to an upper and/or lower side
Schmucker et al disclose a support jack having a force measuring element 35 which determines the force and weight of a workpiece and it would have been obvious to place the force measuring element of the base on the base by modifiying the Peverler device which allows the device to measure the force and weight to the yield the predictable result of measuring weight. KSR
Claim(s) 3-4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Peverler 6099016 as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Alguera Gallego et al 6513783.
The modified Peverler discloses the claimed invention except two bearing pins.
Alguera Gallego et al disclose a support jack having a foot including two bearings projecting outward which show an alternative holder for a rotating foot and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention filed to have modified the Modified Peverler device by providing a substitute alternative structure for holding the foot yielding the predictable result having holder with two bearing.KSR
PNG
media_image1.png
690
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
691
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13, 16, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims are allowed because of the combination of limitations found in the claims and configuration and components that are required in the combination of limitations. The isolation of limitations would NOT portray accurately the patentability of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that the claims are in condition for allowance.
The arguments state and claim more than is present in the claims.
None of this language is in the claim. ‘it can be determined whether a trailer to be uncoupled is safely parked and, particularly in the case of a semi-trailer, the support jacks have firm contact with the ground. In addition to this qualitative determination, there is also a quantitative determination of the load acting on the support jack. This makes it possible to determine the total weight of the trailer by recording the axial loads and thereby determine potential overloading or uneven load distribution”
These functions do not appear in the claim.
Does not appear in claim. “it can be determined whether a trailer to be uncoupled is safely parked and, particularly in the case of a semi-trailer, the support jacks have firm contact with the ground.”
Does not appear in claim. “ In addition to this qualitative determination, there is also a quantitative determination of the load acting on the support jack.”
Does not appear in claim. “This makes it possible to determine the total weight of the trailer by recording the axial loads and thereby determine potential overloading or uneven load distribution”
The claims do not have the limitations being argued by the applicant. Therefore what ever the prior art lacks the applicant does not have. The issue is structure being claimed is shown by the prior art and without a the structure cited in the remarks very little has to be shown to meet a force measuring element. The arguments are more narrow than the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE D WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4499. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6;30-4;30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN KELLER can be reached at 571-272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LEE D. WILSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
Ldw
/LEE D WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights