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 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.
Claim 4 is 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.
In claim 4, applicant claims the travel distance decreases when the stop rod is moved in both a first axial direction and a second axial direction. It appears that this recitation should be that the travel distance increases when the stop rod moves in one of the directions.
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, 7-8, 11-14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by EP4257462 to Koseoglu.
Regarding claim 1, Koseoglu teaches a fifth wheel system (Figure 1) comprising: a fifth wheel 1 configured to couple to a kingpin of a towed trailer, the fifth wheel including: a jaw 5 configured to engage the kingpin; a wedge 6 movable from an unlocked position (Figure 4) to a locked position (Figure 6) to urge the jaw into engagement with the kingpin; a stop rod 7 that sets a travel distance the wedge moves between the unlocked position and the locked position; an actuator 10 that adjusts position of the stop rod to thereby adjust the travel distance.
Regarding claim 2, the stop rod of Koseoglu extends along an axis and the actuator 10 axially moves the stop rod (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, the actuator 10 axially translates the stop rod 7.
Regarding claim 4, the actuator 10 moves the stop rod 7 in a first axial direction to decrease the travel distance and a second axial direction to increase the travel distance.
Regarding claim 7, Koseoglu teaches a control system (control circuit 9) that controls the actuator to move the stop rod.
Regarding claim 8, the control system is configured to count adjustments to the travel distance (the actuator moves the adjusting member 1.5 turns, so it is configured to measure or count the number of turns; see para [0016]).
Regarding claim 11, Koseoglu teaches a fifth wheel system (Figure 1, for example) comprising: a fifth wheel 1 configured to couple to a kingpin of a towed trailer, the fifth wheel including: a jaw 5 configured to engage the kingpin; a wedge 6 movable from an unlocked position to a locked position to urge the jaw into engagement with the kingpin; a stop rod 7 that engages the wedge in the locked position; an actuator 10 that adjusts position of the stop rod to thereby adjust the locked position of the wedge.
Regarding claim 12, the stop rod 7 extends along an axis and the actuator 10 axially moves the stop rod (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, the actuator 10 axially translates the stop rod (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, the fifth wheel 1 includes a throat (see Figure 1) through which the kingpin is received, and wherein the actuator 10 moves the stop rod 7 in a first axial direction to move the locked position toward the throat and a second axial direction to move the locked position away from the throat.
Regarding claim 17, a control system (control circuit 9) controls the actuator 10 to move the stop rod 7.
Regarding claim 18, Koseoglu teaches that the control system is configured to count adjustments to the locked position (the actuator moves the adjusting member 1.5 turns, so it is configured to measure or count the number of turns; see para [0016]).
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) 5, 6, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koseoglu in view of CN 113353163 (CN’163).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 15, and 16, Koseoglu teaches all of the claimed elements except for a bracket that links the actuator to the stop rod and a pivotal connection between the fifth wheel frame and the actuator.
CN’163 shows a fifth wheel locking device having an actuator 1 for controlling part of the locking mechanism. The actuator is pivotally connected to the fifth wheel at first axis 17 and connected to a control arm 2 by a bracket.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the actuator of Koseoglu pivotally and connect it to the stop rod by a bracket, in view of CN’163, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow flexibility in positioning the actuator on the fifth wheel.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koseoglu.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Koseoglu teaches the control system is configured to generate an alert (an indicator located on the sensor or anywhere visible to the user) regarding the whether the fifth wheel is locked and the operating status of the electronic board , PCB (see para [0026), but it does not specify that this is in response to when number of adjustments to the travel distance is greater than a predetermined number. However, the actuator is configured to turn the actuator a specific number of turns (para [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to signal the user if actuator over-extends the stop bar in order to alert the user to a potentially dangerous position of the stop bar.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Koseoglu teaches that the adjusting member can be operated by the operator or automatically (para [0016]). It is not clear that the control system interfaces with an operator input device which is configured to receive an input to adjust position of the stop rod, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a user interface so the user can initiate engagement of the actuator in order to adjust the position of the stop rod as preferred by the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fontaine ‘328 and Laarman teach adjustable stop rids.
Fontaine ‘484 and Alguera teach actuator controlled fifth wheel elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights