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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, Species I (claims 1-6, 12-18, 24) in the reply filed on 7/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious search or examination burden exists as all five species are embodiments of a single saddle assembly for a vehicle jack. Applicant states that the species differ only in the type of saddle fastener, cutout, or alignment feature, and that the prior art pertinent to one species would be pertinent to the others. Applicant further states that claim 25 (independent method claim of Invention II) considers substantially the same structural elements as each of the independent apparatus claims 1 and 13. This is not found persuasive because as Applicant mentions, the species differ in the type of saddle faster, cutout, or alignment feature which would require different prior arts to teach them. One prior art pertinent to one species might not be pertinent to the others. Also, Invention I can be used without an alignment recess and without steps of removing the vehicle interface adapter from the stowed configuration and positioning the vehicle interface adapter within the alignment recess into the deployed configuration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
It is noted that elected claims 6 and 18 recite “a plurality of notches”. However, “a plurality of notches” does not read on the elected Species, rather it reads on one of non-elected Species (fig11-13). Therefore, claims 6 and 18 have been withdrawn from further examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to engage rib-shaped lift point” in line 2 should be corrected as --to engage a rib-shaped lift point--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12: Claim 12 recites “it is positively seated” on the last line. However, the term, “it” and “positively” make the scope of the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, upon reviewing other parts of the claim and the specification, “it is positively seated” is interpreted as --[[it]]the vehicle interface adapter is [[positively]] seated thereon--.
Claim 24: Claim 24 recites “it is positively seated” on the last line. However, the term, “it” and “positively” make the scope of the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, upon reviewing other parts of the claim and the specification, “it is positively seated” is interpreted as --[[it]]the vehicle interface adapter is [[positively]] seated thereon--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 13, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schallock (2,568,827).
Regarding claim 1¸ as seen in fig 1, Schallock (‘827) discloses a saddle assembly D (fig3, col.3 lines34-38) for a vehicle jack J (col.2 line54, fig1) comprising: a saddle body 27 (fig3, col.3 lines39-40), the saddle body 27 including a saddle face (an upper end surface); a vehicle interface adapter 28,29 (fig3, col.3 lines39-40,44); and a releasable adapter engagement mechanism 33,34,35 (col.3 lines63-70), wherein the releasable adapter engagement mechanism 33,34,45 is operable to secure the vehicle interface adapter 28,29 in a stowed configuration (fully retracted configuration) and a deployed configuration (fully extended configuration).
Regarding claim 4¸ Schallock discloses the saddle assembly of claim 1, wherein the deployed configuration (fig1) comprises positioning the vehicle interface adapter 28,29 on the saddle face, such that the vehicle interface adapter 28,29 is operable to engage a lift point 24 of a vehicle (col.3 lines44-46, fig1).
Regarding claim 5¸ Schallock discloses the saddle assembly of claim 4, wherein the vehicle interface adapter 28,29 comprises a channel (col.3 line46, “a V-shaped socket or recess”, fig3) operable to engage the lift point 24 of the vehicle, wherein the lift point 24 of the vehicle is a pinch seam.
Regarding claim 13¸ Schallock discloses a vehicle jack J (fig1) comprising: a body 10 (col.3 lines3-4); a lifting arm 11 (col.3 line7) pivotally connected to the body 10 operable to move between an upper extended position and a lower retracted position (col.3 lines4-7); a mounting bracket 13 (col.3 line11) pivotally connected to an end of the lifting arm 11 (figs1,3, col.3 lines7-9); and a jack saddle assembly D (col.3 lines34-37) fastened to the mounting bracket 13 (fig3); wherein the jack saddle assembly D comprises: a saddle body 27 (fig3, col.3 lines39-40), the saddle body 27 including a saddle face (an upper end surface); a vehicle interface adapter 28,29 (fig3, col.3 lines39-40,44); and a releasable adapter engagement mechanism 33,34,35 (col.3 lines63-70), wherein the releasable adapter engagement mechanism 33,34,45 is operable to secure the vehicle interface adapter 28,29 in a stowed configuration (fully retracted configuration) and a deployed configuration (fully extended configuration).
Regarding claim 16¸ Schallock discloses the vehicle jack of claim 13, wherein the deployed configuration (fig1) comprises positioning the vehicle interface adapter 28,29 on the saddle face, such that the vehicle interface adapter 28,29 is operable to engage a vehicle (col.3 lines44-46, fig1).
Regarding claim 17, Schallock discloses the vehicle jack of claim 16, wherein the vehicle interface adapter 28,29 comprises a channel (col.3 line46, “a V-shaped socket or recess”, fig3) operable to engage a rib-shaped lift point 24 on the vehicle (col.3 lines44-46, fig1).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schallock (2,568,827) in view of McGraw et al (US 2025/0002309 A1).
Regarding claim 2¸ Schallock discloses the saddle assembly of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose that the saddle body further comprises an adapter cavity and the stowed configuration comprises substantially positioning the vehicle interface adapter within the adapter cavity. Instead, Schallock discloses that the vehicle interface adapter 28,29 comprises a cavity (an inner passage where the saddle body 27 is inserted within, fig3) and the stowed configuration comprises substantially positioning the saddle body 27 within the cavity (fig3). It has been held that mere reversal of essential working parts is an obvious modification (MPEP 2144.04 VI. A.). McGraw et al (‘309) also teaches a use of an adapter cavity 59a (para[0042], figs4,7) on a saddle body 50 (para[0041]) where a vehicle interface adapter 60 (para[0042], figs4,7) is positioned therewithin in a stowed configuration (fig7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schallock to have an adapter cavity on a saddle body, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, and as also taught by McGraw et al.
Regarding claim 14¸ Schallock discloses the vehicle jack of claim 13, however, does not explicitly disclose that the saddle body further comprises an adapter cavity and the stowed configuration comprises substantially positioning the vehicle interface adapter within the adapter cavity. Instead, Schallock discloses that the vehicle interface adapter 28,29 comprises a cavity (an inner passage where the saddle body 27 is inserted within, fig3) and the stowed configuration comprises substantially positioning the saddle body 27 within the cavity (fig3). It has been held that mere reversal of essential working parts is an obvious modification (MPEP 2144.04 VI. A.). McGraw et al (‘309) also teaches a use of an adapter cavity 59a (para[0042], figs4,7) on a saddle body 50 (para[0041]) where a vehicle interface adapter 60 (para[0042], figs4,7) is positioned therewithin in a stowed configuration (fig7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schallock to have an adapter cavity on a saddle body, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, and as also taught by McGraw et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 15 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.
Claims 12 and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The subject matter of the claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of claims 3 and 5 not found was that the vehicle interface adapter is substantially co-planar with the saddle face in the stowed configuration; in combination with the limitations set forth in claims 3 and 5 and their intervening claims of the instant invention respectively.
None of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Graham (2,029,022) teaches a similar jack saddle assembly / a vehicle jack comprising the jack saddle assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm 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, 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights