DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is a final Office Action for serial number 18/662,426, Wall Mounted Hitch, filed on May 13, 2024.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 3, 4-5, 9-16, 17-19, 20, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 9,387,739 to Bubuska et al. (Bubuska) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,114,736 to Stodola et al. (Stodola).
Bubuska ‘739 discloses a wall mounted hitch (Figs 4A-6) comprising a support bracket (20) mountable to a wall of a structure; a hitch receiver (50) configured to receive a shank of a hitch accessory, the hitch receiver having a proximal end and a distal end defining a receiving opening, the hitch receiver rotatable between a use position and a storage position (Figs. 4A-4B), a hinge pin (30) pivotally coupling the hitch receiver to the support bracket for rotation of the hitch receiver between the use position and the storage position, wherein the hinge pin is disposed between the proximal end and the distal end of the hitch receiver; wherein the hitch receiver comprises an offset (plate) at the proximal end that the hitch receiver can be rotated about the hinge pin and stored within the support bracket. Bubuska ‘739 fails to disclose exactly that the support bracket comprising a base plate and two side plates define a receiving space to accommodate the hitch receiver in the storage position and wherein the hitch receiver is held in the storage position by a friction fit at the hinge pin between the hitch receiver and the spaced side plates. Nevertheless, Stodola ‘736 discloses wherein the support bracket (Figs. 3-4) comprising a base plate (40) and two side plates (44) define a receiving space to accommodate the hitch receiver in the storage position and wherein the hitch receiver is held in the storage position by a friction fit at the hinge pin (when the hinge pin is tightened) between the hitch receiver and the spaced side plates. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support bracket of Bubuska ‘739 with the support bracket to include the receiving space because one would have a motivation to provide an alternative pivotal mounted hitch so that the receiving space accommodate the hitch receiver in the storage position as taught by Stodola ‘736.
Regarding claim 2, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 discloses a first through hole formed in the hitch receiver and a second through hole formed in the support bracket wherein the hinge pin is received by the first and second through holes.
Regarding claim 3, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 fails to disclose washers surrounding the hinge pin and disposed between the first through hole and the second through hole. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify hinge pin of Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 to include the washers because one would have a motivation to provide ease movement, since applicant has not disclosed that the washers solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the washers.
Regarding claim 4, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736discloses wherein the hitch receiver comprises a hollow tubular member defining a receiving volume and having a receiving opening at the distal end thereof with the proximal end at a first end of the hollow tubular member and the distal end at a second end of the hollow tubular member opposite the first end.
Regarding claim 5, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736discloses wherein the hitch receiver comprises four side walls defining a square cross section of the hollow tubular member.
Regarding claim 9, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 discloses wherein the hinge pin extends orthogonally between the side plates of the support bracket and the distal end of the hitch receiver is rotatable up and into the receiving space of the support bracket.
Regarding claim 10, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736, Bubuska ‘739 discloses wherein the base plate comprises a plurality of mounting holes that receive mounting fasteners (40).
Regarding claim 11, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 disclose wherein the base plate comprises a top edge and a bottom edge, and a distance between the top edge and the bottom edge of the base plate is greater than a length of the hitch receiver in the storage position.
Regarding claims 12-13, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 do not disclose a stiffening rib on the front surface of the base plate and rib is at a location coincident with an upper surface of a bottom wall of the hitch receiver in the use position. Nevertheless, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 discloses wherein the base plate has strength without a rib. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base plate of Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 to include the stiffening rib because one would have been an obvious matter of design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that the stiffening rib solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well without the rib.
Regarding claim 14, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 discloses wherein the hitch receiver (50) comprises a top wall opposing the bottom wall, and the top wall has a proximal edge disposed distally of a proximal edge of the bottom wall to form the offset.
Regarding claim 15, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 discloses wherein the support bracket comprises at least one lock securing aperture (below #30 in Fig. 4A) in at least one of the side plates.
Regarding claim 16, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 discloses wherein in the use position, the hitch receiver is substantially perpendicular to the support bracket and in the storage position, the hitch receiver is substantially parallel to the support bracket (Figs 4a-4b).
Regarding claim 17, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 discloses wherein the hitch receiver comprises a top wall and a bottom wall, and wherein the offset comprises an offset between a proximal edge of the top wall and a proximal edge of the bottom wall (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 18, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 discloses wherein the proximal edge of the top wall is disposed distally of the proximal edge of the bottom wall.
Regarding claim 19, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 discloses wherein the hitch receiver comprises side walls joining the top wall and the bottom wall, wherein the side walls comprise angled proximal edges (edges).
Regarding claim 20, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 fails to disclose wherein an operating load of at least 300 pounds. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounted hinge of Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 to support a load of at least 300 pounds because one would have a motivation to provide a structure load of 300 pounds would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 21-22, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 discloses wherein the storage position comprises an over- center position (see Figs. 2-4 – Stodola ‘736). However, Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 fails to disclose wherein the distal end of the hitch receiver is angled back toward the base plate in which the distal end of the hitch receiver is angled back toward the base plate to maintain the hitch receiver in the storage position. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hitch receiver of Bubuska ‘739 in view of Stodola ‘736 to include the angled back since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovery basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 9-20, and newly claims 21-22 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
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 TODD M. EPPS whose telephone number is (571) 272-8282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am - 5pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/TODD M EPPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 February 27, 2026