Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 27th, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are pending in the application.
The amendments to Claims 6 and 18 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of the claims. Examiner additionally notes that the §112(b) rejection of Claim 15 was a typographical error and was intended to apply to Claim 16, as 16 shares the “35 tons” limitation with Claim 6, which prompted the rejection. Because Applicant has cancelled Claims 6 and 16, the §112(b) rejections of the same are moot, and the §112(b) rejection of Claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-11, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,898,399 to Adams in view of US Patent 3,815,939 to Pettay, and in further view of US Patent 10,059,245 to Goedken et al., hereinafter Goedken.
Regarding Claim 1, Adams teaches a trailer system comprising;
a first trailer (14, Fig, 1) comprising;
a first front section (area of trailer proximal to “hinge axis” 21, Fig. 1) configured to couple to a truck (through having a fifth-wheel receiver, Fig. 1);
a first storage section (area of trailer between 21 and 15, Fig. 1); and
a first back section (area of trailer proximal to 15, Fig. 1) and a first dolly (18, Fig. 2, Para. (2))
the first dolly (18) comprising
a first plurality of axles (58, Figs. 2-3, Para. (5)); and
a first hitch (“hitch means” 30, Figs. 2-3, Para. (3));
a second trailer (16, Fig. 1) comprising;
a second front section (area of trailer proximal to 22, Fig. 1)
configured to couple to the first hitch (15, configuration depicted in Fig. 1);
a second storage section (area of trailer between 22 and 17, Fig. 1)
a second back section (area of trailer proximal to 17, Fig. 1) and a second dolly (20. Fig. 1, Para. (2))
the second dolly (20) comprising
a second plurality of axles (identical duplicate of first dolly axles 58, Figs. 2-3, Para. (3));
a second hitch (23); and
a third trailer (19) comprising;
a third front section (area of trailer proximal to 23, Fig. 1) configured to couple to the second hitch (13); and
a third storage section (area of trailer between 23 and unlabeled rear section, Fig. 1);
Adams does not teach that the trailers comprise a connector system, reinforced component, a tow hook configured to receive a member of a dolly, or that the trailers are configured to hold granular material.
In the same field of endeavor of road trains/multiple trailer linkages, Pettay teaches a trailer with a connector system comprising:
a first reinforced component (“transverse beam” 166, Fig. 10, Para. (15)) coupled to a first chassis (chassis of “leading trailer” 14, Fig. 1, Para. (2)) of the first trailer (14); wherein the first reinforced component (166) increases the rigidity of the chassis (inherent in being a cross-member of the trailer frame); and
a first tow hook (“hook” 40, additionally including “pins” 100, Fig. 10, Para. (4)) coupled to the first reinforced component (166, connection depicted in Fig. 10) wherein the first tow hook (40) is configured to receive a first member (“tongue portion” 32, Fig. 7, Para. (4)) of a first dolly (18, Fig. 2, equivalent to Adams – 18).
Note: For brevity, the detailed one-to-one mapping for the second and third, as recited in further dependent Claim 10, reinforced component, chassis, tow hook, and configuration of these elements as claimed is not presented, with an understanding that it follows the same considerations presented above, i.e. identical in structure and function to the first mapped elements. Additionally see MPEP § 2144(VI)(B) and In re Harza 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) regarding duplication of parts.
Pettay further teaches that the first reinforced component (166) further comprises a box structure (168, Fig. 10, Para. (15)) to further extend the first tow hook (portion of hook including 100) from the first chassis (via 166, disposition depicted in Fig. 10, Para. (15)).
Pettay further teaches that the box structure comprises:
rearward metal beams (vertical beams comprising both sides of 168, Fig. 10) coupled to the first chassis (via 166, coupling depicted in Fig. 10) and extending in a rearward direction (extension from 166 depicted in Fig. 10, Para. (15)); and
a metal beam (either horizontal beam above or below 100 and between 168, Fig. 10) coupled between the rearward metal beams (168) and is coupled to the steel plate (166, coupling depicted in Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dollies and three-trailer system of Adams with the tow hook and rear reinforced component of the trailer of Pettay, yielding predictable results. The dolly of Adams implies the use of tow hooks while not explicitly disclosing them, while Pettay discloses both an analogous dolly, tow hooks, and their attachment structure to the trailer. One ordinarily skilled in the art would have recognized the obviousness and predictability of combining Adams with Pettay because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and would have recognized that the hooks of Pettay advantageously provide the ability to hold the dolly in a fixed horizontal position relative to the leading trailer (Pettay – (2)).
Adams/Pettay does not teach wherein any of the first, second, or third storage sections are configured to hold granular material, or that the trailers comprise a hopper system configured to release the granular material from a bottom portion of the first trailer, or other associated hopper structure.
In the same field of endeavor of fifth-wheel trailers, Goedken teaches a trailer (1, Fig. 8, Abstract, analogous to Adams – 14) configured to hold granular material (“fracking sand”, Paras. (4-5)), and
wherein the first trailer (1) comprises a hopper system (8, Figs. 1-7, Para. (11)) configured to release the granular material from a bottom portion (bottom-up perspective of 8 depicted in Fig. 1, also the area of “lower subframe” 24, Fig. 2) of the first trailer (1), the hopper system comprising a hopper control mechanism (assembly including “motor” 3, Fig. 2, Paras. (12-13)) operable to selectively open and close the hopper system (Para. (13)), the hopper control mechanism comprising a metal plate (“door” 4, Fig. 2, Paras. (12-13)) movable to selectively cover an aperture (“door opening” 61, Fig. 8, Para. (17)) through a bottom of the hopper system (“lower subframe” 24), and a ratchet system (“track” 10, and “drive sprockets” 11, Fig. 2, Paras. (12-13)) operable to move the metal plate (4) between an open position that allows the granular material to flow out of the hopper system and a closed position that prevents the granular material from flowing out of the hopper system (process described in Paras. (15-19)).
Goedken further teaches that the granular material is sand (Title, Abstract, Paras. (4-5)).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the trailer, dolly, and tow hook system of Adams/Pettay with the fracking sand/proppant/granular material storage structure of Goedken, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that trailer frames may be readily modified to accept different structures on top of them, and that the proppant delivery system could be used on the base frame of Adams, yielding predictable results, and that the aluminum trailer body as combined with the steel trailer frame of Adams/Pettay would allow the fracking sand trailer to be light but durable. (Goedken – Advantage section).
Regarding Claim 5, Adams/Pettay/Goedken above already teaches that the first trailer (Adams – 14), the second trailer (16), and the third trailer (19) comprise the same gross vehicle weight rating (as being duplicative and identical in structure, again see MPEP § 2144(VI)(B)).
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “wherein at least one of the first trailer, the second trailer, and the third trailer comprises a different gross vehicle weight rating than the remaining trailers” is unpatentable over Adams/Pettay/Goedken because it has been held that changes in size/proportion are unpatentable over prior art as established by In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), “mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” (531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). The trailers of the Adams/Pettay/Goedken combination are identical, so altering their GVWRs relative to each other merely constitutes scaling, as no other structure is recited to accomplish this change.
Regarding Claim 8, Adams/Pettay/Goedken above already teaches that the granular material is sand (Goedken – Title, Abstract, Paras. (4-5)).
Regarding Claim 9, Adams/Pettay/Goedken above already teaches wherein the second trailer and the third trailer (identical first, second, and third Adams/Pettay/Goedken trailers as modified above) each comprise an additional hopper system (Goedken – 8, Figs. 1-7, Para. (11)) configured to release the granular material from an additional bottom portion (24) of a respective one of the first trailer, the second trailer, and the third trailer (Paras. (11-16)).
Regarding Claim 10, Adams/Pettay/Goedken already teaches that the third trailer comprises a connector system, reinforced component, and tow hook, as each trailer of the Adams/Pettay/Goedken combination is identical. See MPEP § 2144(VI)(B).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Adams modified by Pettay, and Goedken above already includes all the limitations of the claim, including a first trailer (Adams – 14, Fig, 1) comprising:
a first front section (area of trailer proximal to “hinge axis” 21, Fig. 1) configured to
couple to a truck (through having a fifth-wheel receiver, Fig. 1);
a first storage section (area of trailer between 21 and 15, Fig. 1) configured to hold granular material (Goedken – (as fracking sand, Paras. (4-5)); and
a first back section (area of trailer proximal to 15, Fig. 1) comprising a first connector system comprising:
first reinforced component (Pettay – “transverse beam” 166, Fig. 10, Para. (15)) coupled to a first chassis (chassis of “leading trailer” 14, Fig. 1, Para. (2)) of the first trailer (14); wherein the first reinforced component (166) increases the rigidity of the chassis (inherent in being a cross-member of the trailer frame); and
a first tow hook (“hook” 40, additionally including “pins” 100, Fig. 10, Para. (4)) coupled to the first reinforced component (166, connection depicted in Fig. 10) wherein the first tow hook (40) is configured to couple to a second trailer (via dolly 18, Fig. 2, equivalent to Adams – 18); and
wherein the first trailer (1) comprises a hopper system (8, Figs. 1-7, Para. (11)) configured to release the granular material from a bottom portion (bottom-up perspective of 8 depicted in Fig. 1, also the area of “lower subframe” 24, Fig. 2) of the first trailer (1), the hopper system comprising a hopper control mechanism (assembly including “motor” 3, Fig. 2, Paras. (12-13)) operable to selectively open and close the hopper system (Para. (13)), the hopper control mechanism comprising a metal plate (“door” 4, Fig. 2, Paras. (12-13)) movable to selectively cover an aperture (“door opening” 61, Fig. 8, Para. (17)) through a bottom of the hopper system (“lower subframe” 24), and a ratchet system (“track” 10, and “drive sprockets” 11, Fig. 2, Paras. (12-13)) operable to move the metal plate (4) between an open position that allows the granular material to flow out of the hopper system and a closed position that prevents the granular material from flowing out of the hopper system (process described in Paras. (15-19)).
Similar to the rejection of Claim 1 above, the one-to-one mapping for the identical duplicate second trailer (which is also configured to receive a third trailer), and with an understanding that the limitations follow the same considerations presented above, i.e., identical in structure and function to the first mapped elements, is not recited here for the sake of brevity.
Regarding Claim 15, Adams/Pettay/Goedken above already teaches that the first trailer (Adams – 14), the second trailer (16), and the third trailer (19) comprise the same gross vehicle weight rating (as being duplicative and identical in structure, again see MPEP § 2144(VI)(B)).
Regarding Claim 17, similarly to the rejection of Claim 7 above, the limitation “wherein the first trailer and the second trailer comprise different gross vehicle weight ratings” is unpatentable over Adams/Pettay/Goedken because it has been held that changes in size/proportion are unpatentable over prior art as established by In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), “mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” (531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). The trailers of the Adams/Pettay/Goedken combination are identical, so altering their GVWRs relative to each other merely constitutes scaling, as no other structure is recited to accomplish this change.
Regarding Claim 18, Goedken as modified into Adams/Pettay above already teaches wherein the second trailer (identical first and second Adams/Pettay/Goedken trailers as modified above) comprises an additional hopper system (Goedken – 8, Figs. 1-7, Para. (11)) configured to release the granular material from an additional bottom portion (24) of the second trailer (Paras. (11-16)).
Regarding Claim 19, Adams/Pettay/Goedken already teaches an identical first trailer including all the limitations of a third (and omitted second) trailer, including:
a third trailer (Adams – 14, Fig, 1) comprising:
a third front section (area of trailer proximal to “hinge axis” 21, Fig. 1) configured to couple to the second tow hook (through having a fifth-wheel receiver, Fig. 1);
a third storage section (area of trailer between 21 and 15, Fig. 1) configured to hold granular material (Goedken – as fracking sand, Paras. (4-5)); and
a third back section (area of trailer proximal to 15, Fig. 1) comprising a first connector system comprising:
third reinforced component (Pettay – “transverse beam” 166, Fig. 10, Para. (15)) coupled to a third chassis (chassis of “leading trailer” 14, Fig. 1, Para. (2)) of the first trailer (14); wherein the third reinforced component (166) increases the rigidity of the chassis (inherent in being a cross-member of the trailer frame); and
a third tow hook (“hook” 40, additionally including “pins” 100, Fig. 10, Para. (4)) coupled to the third reinforced component (166, connection depicted in Fig. 10) wherein the third tow hook (40) is configured to receive a third member (“tongue portion” 32, Fig. 7, Para. (4)) of a third dolly (18, Fig. 2, equivalent to Adams – 18).
Claims 2-4, 12-14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams, Pettay, and Goedken, in further view of US Patent 9,908,493 to Kiefer.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Adams, Pettay, and Goedken already teaches the trailer system of Claim 1, but does not teach that the reinforced component (Pettay – 166) explicitly comprises a steel plate.
In the same field of endeavor of semi-trailers, Kiefer teaches an analogous reinforced component comprising a plate (“bumper” 28, Fig. 1, Para. (30)) made from steel (Para. (38)).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the reinforced component of Pettay as combined with Adams and Goedken, with steel, as taught by Kiefer, yielding predictable results. Steel is a ubiquitous material for the frame and bumper structures of semi-trailers due to its low cost, desirable mechanical properties, and ease of working and welding.
Regarding Claim 3, Pettay as modified into Adams and further into Goedken and Kiefer above already teaches that the first reinforced component (Pettay – 166) further comprises a box structure (168, Fig. 10, Para. (15)) to further extend the first tow hook (portion of hook including 100) from the first chassis (via 166, disposition depicted in Fig. 10, Para. (15)).
Regarding Claim 4, Pettay as modified into Adams and further into Goedken and Kiefer above already teaches that the box structure comprises:
rearward metal beams (Pettay – vertical beams comprising both sides of 168, Fig. 10) coupled to the first chassis (via 166, coupling depicted in Fig. 10) and extending in a rearward direction (extension from 166 depicted in Fig. 10, Para. (15)); and
a metal beam (either horizontal beam above or below 100 and between 168, Fig. 10) coupled between the rearward metal beams (168) and is coupled to the steel plate (166, coupling depicted in Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 12, Kiefer as modified into Adams/Pettay/Goedken already teaches that the first reinforced component (“bumper” 28, Fig. 1, Para. (30), analogous to Pettay – 166) comprises a steel plate (Para. (38)).
Regarding Claim 13, Pettay as modified into Adams and further into Goedken and Kiefer above already teaches that the first reinforced component (Pettay – 166) further comprises a box structure (168, Fig. 10, Para. (15)) to further extend the first tow hook (portion of hook including 100) from the first chassis (via 166, disposition depicted in Fig. 10, Para. (15)).
Regarding Claim 14, Pettay as modified into Adams and further into Goedken and Kiefer above already teaches that the box structure comprises:
rearward metal beams (Pettay – vertical beams comprising both sides of 168, Fig. 10) coupled to the first chassis (via 166, coupling depicted in Fig. 10) and extending in a rearward direction (extension from 166 depicted in Fig. 10, Para. (15)); and
a metal beam (either horizontal beam above or below 100 and between 168, Fig. 10) coupled between the rearward metal beams (168) and is coupled to the steel plate (166, coupling depicted in Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 20, Adams/Pettay/Goedken/Kiefer already teaches all the limitations of Claim 20, including a trailer for transporting a granular material, comprising:
a front section (Adams – area of trailer proximal to “hinge axis” 21, Fig. 1) configured to
couple to a truck (through having a fifth-wheel receiver, Fig. 1);
a storage section (area of trailer between 21 and 15, Fig. 1) configured to hold granular material (Goedken – (as fracking sand, Paras. (4-5)); and
a back section (area of trailer proximal to 15, Fig. 1) comprising a connector system comprising:
a reinforced component (Pettay – “transverse beam” 166, Fig. 10, Para. (15)) coupled to a chassis (chassis of “leading trailer” 14, Fig. 1, Para. (2)) of the trailer (14); wherein the reinforced component (166) increases the rigidity of the chassis (inherent in being a cross-member of the trailer frame); and wherein the reinforced component comprises:
a steel plate (166, Fig. 10, made of steel as taught by Kiefer); and
a box structure (168, Fig. 10, Para. (15)) comprising;
rearward metal beams (vertical beams comprising both sides of 168, Fig. 10) coupled to the first chassis (via 166, coupling depicted in Fig. 10) and extending in a rearward direction (extension from 166 depicted in Fig. 10, Para. (15)); and
a metal beam (either horizontal beam above or below 100 and between 168, Fig. 10) coupled between the rearward metal beams (168) and is coupled to the steel plate (166, coupling depicted in Fig. 10) to extend a tow hook (portion of hook including 100) from the chassis (via 166, disposition depicted in Fig. 10, Para. (15)); and
the tow hook (40 and 100. Fig. 10) coupled to the reinforced component (166), wherein the tow hook is configured to couple to a second trailer (coupling depicted in Fig. 10); and
a hopper system (Goedken – 8, Figs. 1-7, Para. (11)) configured to release the granular material from a bottom portion (bottom-up perspective of 8 depicted in Fig. 1, also the area of “lower subframe” 24, Fig. 2) of the first trailer (1), the hopper system comprising a hopper control mechanism (assembly including “motor” 3, Fig. 2, Paras. (12-13)) operable to selectively open and close the hopper system (Para. (13)), the hopper control mechanism comprising a metal plate (“door” 4, Fig. 2, Paras. (12-13)) movable to selectively cover an aperture (“door opening” 61, Fig. 8, Para. (17)) through a bottom of the hopper system (“lower subframe” 24), and a ratchet system (“track” 10, and “drive sprockets” 11, Fig. 2, Paras. (12-13)) operable to move the metal plate (4) between an open position that allows the granular material to flow out of the hopper system and a closed position that prevents the granular material from flowing out of the hopper system (process described in Paras. (15-19)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, beginning on Page 10 of Remarks, with respect to Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Goedken fails to teach a ratcheting mechanism for the slidable hopper door as recited in independent Claims 1, 11, and 20, Examiner notes that Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the use of a generic ratcheting mechanism to achieve the function of selectively opening and closing a horizontal sliding door. It is also not understood how a ratcheting mechanism may be used for such selective two-way operation without the explicit recitation of a pawl (or other locking mechanism) release, as ratchets are understood in the art to allow for exclusively one-way motion/rotation absent the actuation of a locking release mechanism. If Applicant intended to convey that the claimed invention includes the characteristic incremental discrete positioning of a ratchet, Goedken teaches that the spacing of roller chain elements of the chain track 10 and the gears of the drive sprockets 11 dictates incremental opening positions of the door 4 (Para. (13)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mitchell James Price/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights