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 Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: the Examiner notes that line 1 should claim “wherein the tub component further comprises one or more”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 7,137,764) in view of Stanley (US 10,668,952).
In re claims 1 and 17, Johnson discloses a trailer/system (1) comprising: a flatbed base (30) comprising: at least two wheels (as shown in Figure 3); a trailer tongue (100); a plurality of attachment channels (12), wherein each attachment channel in the plurality of attachment channels has an opening with a cross-section adapted to a particular coupling geometry (as shown in Figure 4C); and a detachable tower component (44) comprising: a horizontal bridge support; and at least one upright support leg (as shown in Figures 5C), wherein the at least one upright support leg comprises a tower coupling (90), wherein the tower coupling has the particular coupling geometry and is to securely and removably couple the tower component to one or more of the plurality of attachment channels to couple the tower component to the flatbed base (as shown in Figure 1); where other components/gear can likewise be attached to the flatbed using straps having couplings with the particular coupling geometry (as shown in Figure 7C), but does not specifically disclose a detachable tub component comprising a set of tub couplings on a bottom surface of the detachable tub component, wherein tub couplings in the set of tub couplings have the particular coupling geometry and at least a subset of the set of tub couplings are configured to securely and removably couple the tub component to one or more of the plurality of attachment channels to couple the tub component to the flatbed base.
Stanley, however, does disclose a flatbed trailer with a detachable tub component (260) connected to the trailer via spaced-apart support bars (262, 264) as shown in Figures 2 and 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trailer of Johnson such that it comprised the attachable tub of Stanley to advantageously provide the user a way to haul any desired material/gear. As Johnson requires all components to be attached to the flatbed via the same anchors (20), it would have further been obvious to provide such anchors on the bottom surface of the tub component to securely and removably couple the tub component to one or more of the plurality of attachment channels to couple the tub component to the flatbed base.
In re claim 2, Johnson further discloses wherein the flatbed base (30) comprises a flatbed (10) positioned between the at least two wheels, and the plurality of attachment channels are attached to the flatbed (via tiles 10).
In re claim 3, Johnson further discloses wherein the plurality of attachments channels are mounted to be flush or below a top surface of the flatbed (as shown in Figure 3).
In re claim 4, Johnson further discloses wherein the plurality of attachment channels comprise a first attachment channel (far right channel that frame accessory 44 is mounted in Figure 7C) adjacent to a first edge of the flatbed, a second attachment channel (far left channel that frame accessory 44 is mounted in Figure 7C) parallel to the first attachment channel and adjacent to a second edge of the flatbed, and a third attachment channel (any of the channels in between the upright frame members) parallel to and between the first and second attachment channels.
In re claim 13, Johnson further discloses wherein the set of tub couplings or the tower coupling comprise a compression fitting (element 33 is spring loaded to be compressed in receptacle 12; see column 4, lines 12-32).
In re claim 15, Johnson further discloses wherein the flatbed base comprises a fender positioned above one of the two or more wheels (as shown in Figure 3), but does not specifically disclose being configured to bear the weight of a human user. As a fender is inherently stable enough to handle the wind and debris while travelling, they are inherently configured to bear some undisclosed amount of weight. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the fender to bear the weight of a human user, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (amount or weight to bear) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 18, Johnson further discloses comprising a set of accessories (40, 49, 42, 44, 46, 48, etc), wherein each accessory in the set of accessories comprises a respective coupling (90) with the particular coupling geometry adapted to allow the accessory to be securely and removably coupled to one of the plurality of attachment channels as shown in Figures 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 5F, and 7A).
In re claim 19, Johnson further discloses wherein the set of accessories comprises at least one of a tent component, a stove component, a container component, or a rack component (motorcycle wheel rack 49).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Stanley in view of Floe (US 6,733219).
In re claim 14, Johnson and Stanley disclose the trailer of Claim 13, but do not disclose wherein the compression fitting comprises a nut and a bolt, and the bolt has the particular coupling geometry. Floe, however, does disclose a flatbed trailer having channels (162, 52 as shown in Figure 14) wherein the compression fitting comprises a nut (262) and a bolt (260), and the bolt has the particular coupling geometry (270 as shown in Figures 15 and 16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flatbed of Johnson and Stanley such that it comprised the channels and compression fittings of Floe to advantageously provide further adjustability in the lengthwise direction of the trailer to be able to secure components at any point.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the tub component further comprises one or more attachment channels mounted to one or more surfaces of the tub component, wherein the one or more attachment channels mounted to the tub component have openings with cross-sections adapted to the particular coupling geometry” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach wherein the attachable tub component further has channels matching the particular coupling geometry.
Claims 9-12 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the tower component comprises one or more attachment channels mounted to one or more surfaces of the horizontal bridge support or the at least one upright support leg of the tower component, and the one or more attachment channels mounted to the tower component have openings with cross-sections adapted to the particular coupling geometry” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach wherein the attachable tower component further has channels matching the particular coupling geometry.
Claim 16 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the fender comprises one or more component attachment means” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a fender designed to be use as a component attachment point.
Claim 20 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein at least one of the tower component or the tub component comprises an additional attachment channel with an opening with a cross-section adapted to the particular coupling geometry and adapted to couple to the couplings of the set of accessories” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach wherein at least one of the attachable tower or tub components further have channels matching the particular coupling geometry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach trailers of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights