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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (1) regarding claim 1 “(i)f the examiner refers to the coupling mounting member and side plates as the trailer arm, then the coupling mounting member and side plates would need to show retracting orientally, in this case there is solely elevated movement”; and (2) “(i)f the examiner refers to the coupling mounting member and side plates as the trailer arm, then the coupling mounting member and side plates would need to show axial orientation, in this case there is solely elevated movement”.
In response to (1), as examiner notes below “orientation” is defined as “one's position in relation to true north, to points on the compass, or to a specific place or object.” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/orientation. Applicant’s amendment of the trailer arm retracting “orientationally” towards the trailer frame is interpreted as the trailer arm being in the same orientation/position while being retracted, which Davis (GB 2462482 A) shows in an extended position (in fig. 4) and then the trailer arm (5, 7) retracts (fig. 3) in a position closer to trailer frame (19) while the trailer arm (5, 7) is “oriented” in the same position.
In response to (2), applicant’s argument that no showing of axial orientation is made because there is solely elevated movement makes no sense. An axial orientation is a singular position. “Axial” is defined as “situated around, in the direction of, on, or along an axis”. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axial. Orientation has been defined previously, as the position in relation to another object. Claim 13 states “the arm support assembly having a pivotable trailer arm; the arm support assembly providing the trailer arm with an axial orientation”. The trailer arm in Davis (GB 2462482 A) discloses an arm support assembly (16B) having a pivotable trailer arm (5, 7) and the arm support assembly (16B) providing the trailer arm (5, 7) with an axial orientation (see fig. 1 showing the trailer arm is situated around, in the direction of, on, or along an axis of the arm support assembly).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the trailer arm retracting orientationally towards the trailer frame” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 includes the new limitation (filed in the response 04/16/2025) of “the trailer arm retracting orientationally towards the trailer frame.” As an initial matter, the phrase “orientation” and its derivatives are not found in the originally filed specification. Also, applicant has made no attempt to describe where the basis for this amendment is in the specification or the drawings. “Orientation” is defined as “one's position in relation to true north, to points on the compass, or to a specific place or object.” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/orientation. In this case, the applicant describes a first extended position (paragraph 36; figs 1-2) where the trailer arm (102) extends horizontally away from the trailer frame (10). Applicant describes a second retracted position (fig. 6) where the trailer arm (102) is rotated to a vertical position in relation to the trailer frame (10). Examiner is taking the position that the claimed language “retracting orientationally” is an attempt to claim the trailer arm staying in the same orientation/position in relation to the trailer frame during retraction. Therefore, the ‘orientation’ of the trailer arm (102) in relation to the trailer frame changes during retraction and therefore there is no support for the amendment of “the trailer arm retracting orientationally towards the trailer frame.” Further, examiner notes that applicant states no less than 60 times in the specification that the “applicant’s design is not the exclusive embodiment”. If this amendment is referring to an undisclosed embodiment, there would also be new matter issues.
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 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, 3-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (GB 2462482 A), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claim 1, Davis discloses a trailer tongue system comprising: a trailer frame (18, 19); a trailer connection arm assembly having a trailer arm (5, 7); an arm support assembly (15A) fastened to the trailer frame (fig. 6) and coupled between (figs. 1, 6) a body (figs. 1, 6) of the trailer arm (5, 7); the arm support assembly (15A) rotatable along an axis (compare figs. 3-4) of the trailer frame (18, 19) permitting movement of the trailer arm (5, 7); the trailer arm (5, 7) retracting orientationally towards the trailer frame (18, 19) (the trailer frame is being defined as (18) and (19). Element 19 is “inclined cantilever support arm 19 extends upwardly and forwardly from the middle of the torsion box 18 and is formed by the spaced apart cross-braced shaped plates 19A, 19B and which arm 19 carries an excavator bucket rest plate 20 at its upper end.” (Page 7, lines 28-29, page 8, lines 1-2.) A vehicle frame is generally described as “the main supporting structure of a motor vehicle to which all other components are attached”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_frame. Element 19 is an extension of the trailer frame that supports the bucket rest plate (20). (Figs. 1-4, Page 7, lines 28-29, page 8, lines 1-2.) Going from the low setting (fig. 3) to the high setting (fig. 4), the trailer arm (5, 7) retracts orientationally towards the trailer frame (18, 19) (the trailer arm (5, 7) moves closer to the trailer frame (18, 19) since the trailer frame element (19) “extends upwardly and forwardly from the middle of the torsion box”. (emphasis added; page 7, lines 28-29, page 8, lines 1-2.)). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
With respect to claim 3, Davis discloses the arm support assembly further includes an upper support arm (22). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
With respect to claim 4, Davis discloses the arm support assembly further includes a lower support arm (16C). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
With respect to claim 5, Davis discloses the lower support arm (16C) is coupled between (fig. 1) the body of the trailer arm (5, 7). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
With respect to claim 6, Davis discloses the lower support arm (16C) is attached (through 16A, 18, 19) to the upper support arm (22). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
With respect to claim 7, Davis discloses the upper support arm (22) is fastened (at 22A) to the frame (18, 19). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
With respect to claim 8, Davis discloses the arm support assembly further includes a hydraulic support system (21, 21’, 23). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
With respect to claim 9, Davis discloses the hydraulic support system includes a hydraulic piston, an upper hydraulic support structure and a lower hydraulic support structure (upper and lower supports of piston/cylinder 21 or 21’ described in page 8-9, 11). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
With respect to claim 13, Davis discloses a trailer tongue system comprising: a trailer frame (18, 19) having a set of frame side support members (18A, 19) connected to a frame top covering (fig. 12), the set of frame side support members are plate like (figs. 1-2) and include two sets of arm support assembly connectors (16D each side), a set of hydraulic piston support connectors (mounting area of plates of 19 at 22A), and a set of trailer arm connectors (19A, 19B); an arm support assembly (16B) coupled to each arm support assembly connector, the arm support assembly having a pivotable trailer arm (5, 7); the arm support assembly (16B) providing the trailer arm (5, 7) with an axial orientation (see fig. 1; also Examiner notes that the claim only requires that the arm support assembly has an axial orientation (i.e. a singular axial orientation). Applicant’s argument of “Davis appears to disclose in the figures and specifically in figure 5, the members 5 have a singular orientation while elevating between a low position to a high position” is correct. However, the limitation of “providing the trailer arm with an axial orientation” is a singular orientation, not plural orientations. Davis discloses the arm support assembly (15A) provides the trailer arm (5, 7) with an axial orientation). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
With respect to claim 14, Davis discloses the arm support assembly further includes a hydraulic support system (21, 21’, 23). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
With respect to claim 15, Davis discloses the hydraulic support system includes a hydraulic piston, an upper hydraulic support structure and a lower hydraulic support structure (upper and lower supports of piston/cylinder 21 or 21’ described in page 8-9, 11). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
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 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.
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Black (US 2,385,253).
With respect to claim 2, Davis is silent regarding the trailer arm is V-shaped. Black teaches of the trailer arm (15) is V-shaped. (Figs. 1-3, page 2.) It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the trailer arm of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claims 10-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Frosch et al. (US 10,308,087).
With respect to claim 10, Davis is silent regarding the hydraulic piston (21 or 21’) is located within the trailer frame. Frosch et al. teaches of a hydraulic piston (43) is located within the trailer frame (10). (Figs. 1A-1F, cols. 4-5.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Frosch et al. into the invention of Davis with a reasonable expectation of success in order to appropriately raise and lower the coupling assembly. (Col. 5, lines 20-25.) In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the hydraulic piston located within the trailer frame, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With respect to claim 11, Davis, as modified, discloses the hydraulic piston (21 or 21’) is connected to the lower support arm (16C). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
With respect to claim 12, Davis, as modified, discloses the hydraulic piston (21 or 21’) is connected to the frame (18, 19). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
With respect to claim 16, Davis is silent regarding the hydraulic piston (21 or 21’) is located within the trailer frame. Frosch et al. teaches of a hydraulic piston (43) is located within the trailer frame (10). (Figs. 1A-1F, cols. 4-5.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Frosch et al. into the invention of Davis with a reasonable expectation of success in order to appropriately raise and lower the coupling assembly. (Col. 5, lines 20-25.) In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the hydraulic piston located within the trailer frame, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With respect to claim 17, Davis, as modified, discloses the hydraulic piston (21 or 21’) is connected to the arm support assembly (5, 7). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
With respect to claim 18, Davis, as modified, discloses the hydraulic piston (21 or 21’) is connected to the frame (18, 19). (Figs. 1-14, pages 4-12.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. 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.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614