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 § 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mushynski, et. al. (US Publication No. 2019/0263607 A1, hereinafter “Mushynski”).
Mushynski teaches a manual vehicle restraining hook system (Abstract), comprising: a hook mounted to a main shaft (Fig. 2, hook-shaped barrier 18) such that the hook and the main shaft rotate around a common axis (Figs. 1-3, showing rotational movement of barrier 18); a main spring operably connected to the main shaft (Fig. 20, spring 124), wherein the main spring is configured to rotate the main shaft and hook (Fig. 20, spring 124); and a latch assembly operably connected to the main shaft (Fig. 20, stop member 62), wherein actuation of the latch assembly to a first configuration prevents rotation of the main shaft and hook (Paragraph 0054), wherein actuation of the latch assembly to a second configuration allows rotation of the main shaft and hook (Paragraph 0054).
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mushynski (US Publication No. 2019/0263607 A1), in view of Smith et. al. (US Publication No. 2021/0053407 A1, hereinafter “Smith”).
Mushynski teaches the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Mushynski does not teach a spring adjustment attached to one end of the main spring assembly. However, Smith teaches a spring adjustment attached to one end of the main spring assembly (Figs. 52A and 52B, the four-bar linkage system 5240 can adjust the tension in the spring, thereby compensating for potential weakening of the spring over time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle restraint disclosed by Mushynski by using the spring adjustment disclosed by Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to keep the components held in tension by the spring at a consistent distance, as suggested by Smith (Paragraph 0351).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mushynski (US Publication No. 2019/0263607 A1), in view of Oswald (US Patent No. 10,442,077 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Mushynski teaches the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Mushynski does not teach a release actuator, wherein the release actuator comprises a shaft extending between a handle and a release interface. However, Oswald teaches a release actuator, wherein the release actuator comprises a shaft extending between a handle and a release interface (Col. 2, lines 61-67; and Col. 3, lines 1-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle restraint disclosed by Mushynski by using the release actuator disclosed by Oswald. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to release the trailer, as suggested by Oswald (Col. 2, lines 61-67; and Col. 3, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 17, Mushynski, in view of Oswald, teaches the limitations of claim 16, as noted above. Mushynski does not teach wherein the release interface is configured to interact with a latch release in the latch assembly. However, Oswald teaches wherein the release interface is configured to interact with a latch release in the latch assembly (Col. 2, lines 61-67; and Col. 3, lines 1-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle restraint disclosed by Mushynski by using the release interface disclosed by Oswald. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to release the trailer, as suggested by Oswald (Col. 2, lines 61-67; and Col. 3, lines 1-9).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mushynski (US Publication No. 2019/0263607 A1), in view of Reindle (US Patent No. 7,603,744 B2).
Mushynski teaches the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Mushynski does not teach a sensor assembly comprising at least one switch trigger, a switch sensor, and at least one indicator signal, wherein the at least one switch trigger is mounted to the latch assembly such that when the latch assembly is in a first position, the at least one switch trigger contacts the switch sensor to actuate the at least one indicator signal. However, Reindle teaches a sensor assembly comprising at least one switch trigger (Col. 18, lines 41-63), a switch sensor (latching pushbutton switch 442), and at least one indicator signal (indicator 448), wherein the at least one switch trigger is mounted to the latch assembly such that when the latch assembly is in a first position, the at least one switch trigger contacts the switch sensor to actuate the at least one indicator signal (Col. 18, lines 41-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle restraint disclosed by Mushynski by using the switch trigger disclosed by Oswald. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to turn the power on and off, as suggested by Reindle (Col. 18, lines 41-63).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mushynski (US Publication No. 2019/0263607 A1), in view of Brisco et. al. (US Patent No. 8,186,189 B2, hereinafter “Brisco”).
Mushynski teaches the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Mushynski does not teach a housing covering a portion of the latch assembly. However, Brisco teaches a housing covering a portion of the latch assembly (column 3, lines 56-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle restraint disclosed by Mushynski by using the housing disclosed by Brisco. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to protect the latch, as suggested by Brisco (column 3, lines 56-60).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-14, and 20 are allowed.
Regarding claim 2, there is no prior art alone or in combination that teaches the ‘latch assembly including a latch release slidably and rotatably extending through an aperture in a latch plate; a latch linkage fixedly connected to the latch release; a latch pin rotatably connected to latch linkage and extending out from under the latch plate; and a latch pin spring extending between the latch plate and the latch linkage, wherein the latch pin spring biases the latch pin to an extended position’ in combination with the rest of claim language.
Claims 3-14 are allowed by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, there is no prior art alone or in combination that teaches wherein at least part of the latch assembly extends through the brush seal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6371714 has a gas spring 56 that rotates the hook. The specification suggests that a torsional spring could be substituted for the gas spring (col 4, line 22).
US 6113337 teaches a similar vehicle restraint.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER PAUL GIOMMI whose telephone number is (571)270-3361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571)272-6911. 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.
/Alexander P. Giommi/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3651
7/30/2026
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
