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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “adapter” in line 3 of para. [0014] is inconsistent with the spelling of “adaptor” in line 1 and other appearances in at least paras. [0015], [0016], and [0062]- [0064]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “adapter” in line 3 is inconsistent with the spelling of “adaptor” in line 2 and other appearances in claims 9, 10, and 17. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petrillo (“Front Bumpers…”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, (having similar limitations, differing as noted below- claim 1 being generally drawn to a vehicle comprising a hose manager and claim 11 being drawn directly to a hose manager), Petrillo teaches:
{a vehicle (Fire Truck “FT”, page 7, first figure- “Fig. 7.1”- Annotated; described in the associated caption), comprising: a set of ground-engaging members (Wheel “WLS”, Fig. 7.1 Annotated); a vehicle body (“VB”, Fig. 7.1 Annotated) supported by the set of ground-engaging members; and [claim 1 only]}
a hose manager (“HM”, Fig. 7.1 Annotated), {including [claim 1]/ comprising [claim 11]}:
a set of vehicle mounts (“VM”, Fig. 7.1 Annotated) constructed and arranged to mount to {the vehicle body (VB) [1]/ a vehicle (FT) [11]};
an elongated section (“ES”, Fig. 7.1 Annotated) defining a hose deflection surface (“HDS”, Fig. 7.1 Annotated); and
a set of intermediate sections (“IS”, Fig. 7.1 Annotated) constructed and arranged to be disposed between the elongated section (ES) and the set of vehicle mounts (VM), the set of intermediate sections (IS) being further constructed and arranged to laterally position the hose deflection surface (HDS) at a predefined distance from the {vehicle body (VB) [1]/ vehicle (FT) [11]} to deflect a hose (“HS”, Fig. 7.1 Annotated; also note Discharge “DSCHG”, Fig. 7.1 Annotated, configured to connect to a handline- i.e. hose, caption: page 7, first figure) away from {the set of ground-engaging members (WLS) [1]/ a lower portion of the vehicle (FT) [11]} while the hose (HS and/ or handline) is connected with the {vehicle body (VB) [1]/ vehicle (FT) [11]} (it is understood that Hose HS or a handline connected at Discharge DSCHG would run over the top of Hose Deflection Surface HDS such that it would be deflected away from the Wheels WLS/ lower portion of Fire Truck FT).
PNG
media_image1.png
681
994
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, the examiner notes that the clause “to deflect a hose away from the set of ground-engaging members / a lower portion of the vehicle” is considered to be intended use as it is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and – although fully considered – is not understood to affect the scope of the claim because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114. In this case the vehicle/ hose manager of Petrillo teaches all of the claimed structural limitations as discussed above and although such a purpose is not specifically taught, because a hose laying on top of the elongated section would be at least partially deflected away from the wheels of the vehicle, it is understood to be structurally capable of the claimed use.
Regarding Claim 7, Petrillo further teaches that the vehicle body (VB) includes a hose connection port (Discharge DSCHG) that connects with the hose to provide fluid transfer (Discharge DSCHG being configured to connect to a handline- i.e. hose, caption: page 7, first figure); and
wherein the set of intermediate sections (IS) is further constructed and arranged to position the hose deflection surface (HDS) to be lower than the hose connection port (Hose Deflection Surface HDS being lower than Hose HS and Discharge DSCHG, Fig. 7.1 Annotated) to support a bottom of the hose (HS or handline) while the hose is connected with the hose connection port (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above, noting that “supporting a bottom of the hose” is understood to be an intended used which is achieved in the same manner as “deflect[ing] a hose away from the set of ground-engaging members”).
Regarding Claim 18, Petrillo teaches a method of installing a hose manager (HM) on a vehicle (FT) (the bumpers being described as “custom”, Title, and “extensions”, page 2; it is understood that assembly to an existing vehicle is taught), the method comprising:
mounting a set of vehicle mounts (VM) to the vehicle;
after mounting the set of vehicle mounts (VM) to the vehicle (FT), disposing a set of intermediate sections (IS) between an elongated section (ES) and the set of vehicle mounts, the elongated section defining a hose deflection surface (HDS), the set of intermediate sections (IS) laterally positioning the hose deflection surface (HDS) at a predefined distance from the vehicle (FT) to deflect a hose (HS and/ or handline) away from a lower portion of the vehicle (FT) while the hose is connected with the vehicle (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above); and
coupling the set of intermediate sections (IS) and the set of vehicle mounts (VM) to maintain the hose deflection surface (HDS) at the predefined distance from the vehicle (a basic assembly and/ or construction process of the front bumper/ Hose Manager HM being understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrillo in view of DeClerck (US-5211351-A).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, (having different dependencies but similar limitations, differing as noted below), Petrillo does not teach selectively couplable mounting interfaces.
DeClerck teaches, in another hose handling device for a vehicle (Abstract), a set of vehicle mounts (Front 11 and Rear 12 Cradle Assemblies, Fig. 6) that defines a set of mounting interfaces (Bottom 16 and Top 17 Structures, Fig. 7) constructed and arranged to removably engage a set of intermediate sections (Side Rails 2, Fig. 8); and a hose manager (Hose Loader, unlabeled, Figs. 1-11) that further {includes [claim 2]/ comprises [claim 12]}: a locking mechanism (Pin Assembly 21, Fig. 10) constructed and arranged to selectively couple the set of intermediate sections (2) and the set of vehicle mounts (11 and 12) while the set of mounting interfaces (16 and 17) engages the set of intermediate sections (as illustrated in Figs. 10 and 11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Petrillo and DeClerck in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrillo’s vehicle/ hose manager to include selectively couplable mounting interfaces as suggested by DeClerck. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a user with the ability to selectively stow and deploy the hose manager that would beneficially make a more versatile assembly.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, (having different dependencies but similar limitations, differing as noted below), Petrillo further teaches that the set of intermediate sections (IS) includes:
a plurality of side sections (“SS1” and “SS2”, Fig. 7.1 Annotated) constructed and arranged to laterally extend from the elongated section (ES) to form a U-shaped add-on (the combination of the Side Sections SS1 and SS2 and the Elongated Section ES forming a U-shape, Fig. 7.1 Annotated), the plurality of side sections (SS1 and SS2) defining a respective plurality of end portions of the U-shaped add-on (the Side Sections SS, being the outermost Intermediate Sections IS, form end portions of the U-shape, Fig. 7.1 Annotated).
Petrillo does not specifically teach that the end portions are removably engageable with the vehicle mounts.
DeClerck teaches a plurality of end portions (Side Rails 2) being constructed and arranged to removably engage a set of vehicle mounts (Front 11 and Rear 12 Cradle Assemblies; see Figs. 7, 10, and 11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Petrillo and DeClerck in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrillo’s vehicle/ hose manager to include end portions that are removably engageable with the vehicle mounts as suggested by DeClerck. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a user with the ability to selectively remove and engage the hose manager that would beneficially make a more versatile assembly.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, (having different dependencies but similar limitations, differing as noted below), Petrillo does not teach a plurality of brackets to receive the plurality of end portions.
DeClerck teaches a plurality of brackets (Front 11 and Rear 12 Cradle Assemblies) constructed and arranged to couple with the vehicle (Fig. 6), the plurality of brackets (11 and 12) defining a plurality of mounting interfaces (Bottom 16 and Top 17 Structures) constructed and arranged to receive the plurality of end portions (2) of a U-shaped add-on (Bottom 16 and Top 17 Structures of Front 11 and Rear 12 Cradle Assemblies receiving Side Rails 2 as illustrated in Figs. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Petrillo and DeClerck in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrillo’s vehicle/ hose manager to include a plurality of brackets to receive the plurality of end portions as suggested by DeClerck. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing brackets to securely mount the hose manager to the vehicle that would beneficially make a more robust assembly.
Regarding Claim 6, Petrillo does not teach that the side sections are disposed between two ground-engaging members.
DeClerck teaches a plurality of side sections (Side Rails 2) constructed and arranged to be disposed between two ground-engaging members (Side Rails 2 being illustrated as disposed between a wheel, understood to be of a set of two wheels, Fig. 4) of a set of ground-engaging members to avoid debris thrown from the set of ground-engaging members while the vehicle is moving.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Petrillo and DeClerck in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrillo’s vehicle to dispose the side sections between two ground-engaging members as suggested by DeClerck. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of arranging the hose manager within the outline of the vehicle that would beneficially make a more compact assembly.
Further, the examiner notes that the clause “to avoid debris thrown…” is considered to be intended use as it is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and – although fully considered – is not understood to affect the scope of the claim because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114. In this case the vehicle of Petrillo, as modified by DeClerck, teaches all of the claimed structural limitations as discussed above and, because the hose manager of DeClerck is narrower than the wheels and positioned between them, it is understood to be structurally capable of avoiding the debris thrown from its wheels. It is also noted that the hose manager of Petrillo, being mounted to the front of the vehicle, would also avoid debris thrown from its wheels.
Claims 5 and 15are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrillo and DeClerck ,in view of Wikipedia (“Gusset plate”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, (having different dependencies but similar limitations, differing as noted below), Petrillo further teaches that the set of intermediate sections (IS) further includes a middle section (MS) constructed and arranged to laterally extend from the elongated section (ES) between a first side section (SS1) and a second side section (SS2) of the plurality of side sections (as illustrated in Fig. 7.1 Annotated).
Petrillo does not teach gussets.
Wikipedia teaches, in a related article about gussets (Title), that gussets are used in various structures to connect various structural elements (page 1, first paragraph, and section: “Uses”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Petrillo, DeClerck, and Wikipedia in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrillo’s vehicle/ hose manager to include gussets as suggested by Wikipedia. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing strengthening elements to the hose manager that would beneficially make a more robust assembly.
Claims 8-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrillo in view of etrailer (“Hands-On with the Blue Ox...”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, (having different dependencies but similar limitations, differing as noted below), Petrillo does not teach an adaptor.
etrailer, in a related apparatus for a vehicle hitch receiver (Title), teaches an adaptor (“ADTR”, Time 0:06 Annotated) defining a first mounting interface (“M1”, Time 0:06 Annotated) constructed and arranged to be inserted into a receiver (transcript, para. 2 teaches the adaptor sliding into a hitch receiver) defined by the {vehicle body [claim 8]/ vehicle [claim 16]} (the hitch receiver being understood to be a part of a vehicle/ vehicle body), the adapter (ADTR) further defining a second mounting interface (“M2”, Time 0:06 Annotated).
The adaptor (ADTR) of etrailer is constructed and arranged such that the receiver defined by the vehicle body is disposed at a first height (understood as the height of M1, Time 0:06 Annotated); and the second mounting interface (M2) is positioned at a second height that is different from the first height (Second Mounting Interface M2 being disposed at a different height than First Mounting Interface M1, Time 0:06 Annotated) when the first mounting interface is inserted into the receiver (note: these teaching relate to claim 10 as discussed below).
PNG
media_image2.png
835
1476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Petrillo and etrailer in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrillo’s vehicle/ hose manager to include an adaptor as suggested by etrailer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a means of attachment to a common vehicle receptacle that would beneficially make an assembly that is usable with a wide variety of existing vehicles.
Regarding Claims 9 and 17, (having different dependencies but similar limitations, differing as noted below), Petrillo, in the cited vehicle (FT of Fig. 7.1)/ hose manager (HM of Fig. 7.1), does not teach a winch, but teaches including one in a bumper (page 6, para. 2 teaches including a winch in a front bumper).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Petrillo and etrailer in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrillo’s vehicle/ hose manager to include a winch. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a means of vehicle extraction that would beneficially make a more versatile apparatus.
Regarding Claim 10, Petrillo, as modified by etrailer, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 8 above for the teachings of etrailer and motivation to combine them with the vehicle of Petrillo).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights