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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 7/20/2026 are entered.
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 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) 1-10, 13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeDuc et al. (US 6701913 B1; hereinafter LeDuc) in view of Spera (US 20100294819 A1) and Anyan et al. (US 20150224837 A1; hereinafter Anyan).
Regarding claim 1, LeDuc teaches a reversible swing-arm system (FIG. 1, apparatus 100) comprising: a swing arm (FIG. 3, primary swing arm 340) that pivots at a first end (FIG. 3, the rightmost end of the primary swing arm 340) and includes one or more accessory mounting points (FIG. 3, the pedestal 376) toward a second end (FIG. 3, the rightmost end of the primary swing arm 340); a hitch arm (FIG. 3, support arm 322) couplable with a hitch receiver (FIG. 1, trailer hitch 102) of a vehicle (FIG. 1, vehicle 104) in at least two orientations (FIG. 3, the support arm 322 may be installed right side up or upside down); wherein the hitch arm includes: a hitch end (FIG. 3, the left end of support arm 322 that includes hitch insertion member 302) couplable with the hitch receiver (FIG. 3); a hinge end (FIG. 3, the right end of support arm 322 that includes second end 330) coupled with a hinge mechanism (FIG. 3, primary hinge assembly 350); an elbow (FIG. 3, the elbow at the first end 328 of the support arm 322) located between the hitch end and the hinge end (FIG. 3); and the hinge mechanism (FIG. 3, primary hinge assembly 350) coupled with the swing arm and allowing the swing arm to pivot about an axis (FIG. 3, the axis about which the primary hinge assembly 350 pivots) of rotation formed by the hinge mechanism.
LeDuc fails to teach a separation point between the elbow and the hinge end of the hitch arm, the the hitch arm being separable into two sections at the separation point, the two sections of the hitch arm being coupleable at the separation point in the at least two orientations, allowing the hitch arm to extend to one or more of a left side and a right side of the vehicle when the hitch arm is coupled with the vehicle.
However, Spera teaches a separation point between the elbow and the hinge end of the hitch arm (FIG. 6, the separation point between the accessory receiver box 16 and the accessory insert tube 42 lies between an elbow (i.e., the turn in the assembly at the box 16) and a hinge point (i.e., the hinging bike attachements above)), the the hitch arm being separable into two sections at the separation point (FIG. 6).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of LeDuc by making it so the support arm 322 may be split in two, as taught by Spera, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified LeDuc with these aforementioned teachings of Spera with the motivation of making the assembly more easily storable.
Spera fails to teach the two sections of the hitch arm being coupleable at the separation point in the at least two orientations, allowing the hitch arm to extend to one or more of a left side and a right side of the vehicle when the hitch arm is coupled with the vehicle.
However, Anyan teaches the two sections of the hitch arm being coupleable at the separation point in the at least two orientations, allowing the hitch arm to extend to one or more of a left side and a right side of the vehicle when the hitch arm is coupled with the vehicle (FIGS. 6A and 6B, the hitch adapter apparatus may be installed in two configurations).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of LeDuc by making it so the assembly may be installed in one of two mirrored configurations, as taught by Anyan, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified LeDuc with these aforementioned teachings of Anyan with the motivation of allowing a user to mount a grill in one of two different configurations based on which is preferable (e.g., based on the user’s handedness).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, and Anyan teaches that the swing arm includes: a riser (LeDuc, FIG. 3, outside pedestal gusset 398) at the second end, the riser extending vertically upward when the reversible swing-arm system is mounted to the vehicle in each of the at least two orientations (Anyan, if installed in either configuration, the primary swing arm may still be installed to point upward).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, and Anyan teaches that the swing arm includes: the one or more accessory mounting points integrated with the swing arm, the one or more accessory mounting points allowing one or more accessories to be mounted to the swing arm in addition to a device coupled with the swing arm at the riser (FIG. 3, the pedestal 376 allows the cooking device 348 or another device to be installed).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, and Anyan teaches that the swing arm includes a hinge coupling portion (FIG. 3, bottom hinge plate 358) at the first end, the hinge coupling portion pivoting about a post (FIG. 3, primary hinge bar 366) integrated in the hinge mechanism and extending upward from the hitch arm when the reversible swing-arm system is mounted to the vehicle in each of the at least two orientations (Anyan, if installed in either configuration, the primary swing arm may still be installed to point upward).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, and Anyan teaches that the hitch arm inserts into the hitch receiver of the vehicle at a first end of the hitch arm and detatchably couples with the hinge mechanism at a second end of the hitch arm (LeDuc, FIG. 3, the support arm 322 attaches to the hitch and the hinge at different respective ends).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, and Anyan teaches that the elbow of the hitch arm statically maintains the hitch arm in a substantially L-shaped configuration (LeDuc, FIG. 3, the support arm 322 is L-shaped).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, and Anyan teaches that the hitch arm includes: a sleeve (LeDuc, FIG. 3, the material surrounding primary hinge hole 334) at an end of the hitch arm into which a portion of the hinge mechanism inserts.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, and Anyan teaches that the hinge mechanism includes a first hole (LeDuc, FIG. 3, central hole 354); the sleeve includes a second hole (LeDuc, FIG. 3, the primary hinge hole 334); and the reversible swing-arm system includes a security bolt (LeDuc, FIG. 3, primary hinge bar 366) simultaneously extending through the first hole and the second hole to secure the hinge mechanism to the sleeve.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, and Anyan teaches that the sleeve includes a first mounting plate (LeDuc, FIG. 3, the top plate surrounding the primary hinge hole 334) oriented in a substantially perpendicular direction to a length of the sleeve, the first mounting plate detachably coupling with a second mounting plate (LeDuc, FIG. 3, top hinge plate 352) of the hinge mechanism.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, and Anyan teaches that the hitch arm includes a tube with a bend forming the elbow (LeDuc, FIG. 3, the corner of the support arm 322 is made of a tube that forms an elbow), the hitch arm including a first end that inserts into the hitch receiver of the vehicle and a second end that is detachably coupleable with the hinge mechanism (LeDuc, FIG. 3, the support arm 322 fits into the hitch at one end and the hinge at the other end); the hinge mechanism is coupled with the swing arm in each of the at least two orientations in a configuration that causes a coupling mechanism of the hinge mechanism to be located vertically lower than the swing arm (LeDuc, FIG. 3, the primary hinge assembly 350 extends about the primary swing arm 340 and therefore underneath it); and the coupling mechanism is coupled with the second end of the hitch arm in each of the at least two orientations (the hinge is connected to the hitch arm in both configurations).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, and Anyan teaches that the hitch arm includes a tube with a bend forming the elbow (LeDuc, FIG. 3, the corner of the support arm 322 is made of a tube that forms an elbow), the hitch arm including a first end that inserts into the hitch receiver of the vehicle and a second end that is detachably coupleable with the hinge mechanism (LeDuc, FIG. 3, the support arm 322 fits into the hitch at one end and the hinge at the other end).
Regarding claim 16, LeDuc teaches a hitch-mountable system (FIG. 1, apparatus 100) comprising: a swing-arm system including: a swing arm (FIG. 3, primary swing arm 340) that pivots at a first end (FIG. 3, the rightmost end of the primary swing arm 340) and includes one or more accessory mounting points (FIG. 3, the pedestal 376) toward a second end (FIG. 3, the rightmost end of the primary swing arm 340); a hitch arm (FIG. 3, support arm 322) couplable with a hitch receiver (FIG. 1, trailer hitch 102) of a vehicle (FIG. 1, vehicle 104)in at least two orientations (FIG. 3, the support arm 322 may be installed right side up or upside down), wherein the hitch arm includes: a hitch end (FIG. 3, the left end of support arm 322 that includes hitch insertion member 302) couplable with the hitch receiver (FIG. 3); a hinge end (FIG. 3, the right end of support arm 322 that includes second end 330) coupled with a hinge mechanism (FIG. 3, primary hinge assembly 350); an elbow (FIG. 3, the elbow at the first end 328 of the support arm 322) located between the hitch end and the hinge end (FIG. 3); and the hinge mechanism (FIG. 3, primary hinge assembly 350) coupled with the swing arm and allowing the swing arm to pivot about an axis of rotation (FIG. 3, the axis about which the primary hinge assembly 350 pivots) formed by the hinge mechanism; and one or more accessories coupled with the swing-arm system at the one or more accessory mounting points, the one or more accessories including one or more of a storage container, a grill (FIG. 3, cooking device 348), a camp kitchen, and a horizontal platform forming a table.
LeDuc fails to teach a separation point between the elbow and the hinge end of the hitch arm, the the hitch arm being separable into two sections at the separation point, the two sections of the hitch arm being coupleable at the separation point in the at least two orientations, allowing the hitch arm to extend to one or more of a left side and a right side of the vehicle when the hitch arm is coupled with the vehicle.
However, Spera teaches a separation point between the elbow and the hinge end of the hitch arm (FIG. 6, the separation point between the accessory receiver box 16 and the accessory insert tube 42 lies between an elbow (i.e., the turn in the assembly at the box 16) and a hinge point (i.e., the hinging bike attachements above)), the the hitch arm being separable into two sections at the separation point (FIG. 6).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of LeDuc by making it so the support arm 322 may be split in two, as taught by Spera, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified LeDuc with these aforementioned teachings of Spera with the motivation of making the assembly more easily storable.
Spera fails to teach the two sections of the hitch arm being coupleable at the separation point in the at least two orientations, allowing the hitch arm to extend to one or more of a left side and a right side of the vehicle when the hitch arm is coupled with the vehicle.
However, Anyan teaches the two sections of the hitch arm being coupleable at the separation point in the at least two orientations, allowing the hitch arm to extend to one or more of a left side and a right side of the vehicle when the hitch arm is coupled with the vehicle (FIGS. 6A and 6B, the hitch adapter apparatus may be installed in two configurations).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of LeDuc by making it so the assembly may be installed in one of two mirrored configurations, as taught by Anyan, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified LeDuc with these aforementioned teachings of Anyan with the motivation of allowing a user to mount a grill in one of two different configurations based on which is preferable (e.g., based on the user’s handedness).
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L LeDuc, Spera, and Anyan as applied to claims 1-10, 13, and 16-20 above, and further in view of Peterson et al. (US 5683157 A; hereinafter Peterson).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, and Anyan to teach a storage container coupled with a vertical riser of the swing arm, the storage container including a case and a lid (FIG. 3, the main box 12 and the sink 14, which acts as a lid).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of LeDuc by making it so the grill is replaced by the multi-purpose assembly of Peterson, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified LeDuc with these aforementioned teachings of Peterson with the motivation of allowing a user to wash items, store food, and a number of other things in addition to cooking.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, Anyan, and peterson teaches an accessory module inserted into the case of the storage container, the accessory module including a burner (“In this position kitchen 10 is fully functional to support a common two-burner stove”) and a sink basin (FIG. 3, sink 14).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, and Anyan teaches a vertical riser (LeDuc, FIG. 3, column 384) of the swing arm, the one or more accessory mounting points including the vertical riser.
The combination of LeDuc and Anyan fails to teach a platform, one or more side tables slidably coupled with the platform, the one or more side tables sliding under the platform in a storage position and sliding horizontally out from under the platform in a deployed position.
However, Peterson teaches a platform (FIG. 3, table 18); one or more side tables slidably coupled with the platform, the one or more side tables sliding under the platform in a storage position and sliding horizontally out from under the platform in a deployed position (FIG. 3, the tray 56, which may slide out).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of LeDuc by making it so the grill is replaced by the multi-purpose assembly of Peterson, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified LeDuc with these aforementioned teachings of Peterson with the motivation of allowing a user to wash items, store food, and a number of other things in addition to cooking.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of LeDuc, Spera, Anyan, and Peterson teaches that the one or more side tables include an integrated gas burner (“In this position kitchen 10 is fully functional to support a common two-burner stove”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights