DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l). The drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
The drawings do not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Figs. 1-3 pictures or computer generated pictures which appear to be multi-generation copies.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(m). The drawings are improperly shaded. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
In Figs. 8-10, 15, 16-20, and 22A-22B, elements 129 and 215 appear to be improperly shaded. Although it may be acceptable for the shading of element 129 to indicate a certain material, the shading of Fig. 20 is not understood (i.e. is the entire shaded area the elastic band?).
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is a single run-on sentence (i.e. not in narrative form or clear) which appears to paraphrase the independent claim.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “a guide slot which retreats from an internal center portion of the space module to an opposite side of the driving module” in lines 8-9. This recitation is indefinite as it is unclear what is actually being claimed because the words used are not being used for their normal meaning. It appears that this recitation, in the claim, is a direct translation of a foreign language document and as such the phrase can indeed have a specific technical meaning which is clearly lost in translation. It would be clearer and definite if the language was more in line with the English language (i.e. such as “a guide slot which extends from an internal center portion of the space module in a direction away from the driving module”).
Dependent claims 2-20 do not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claim 1 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
It should be noted that no art rejections are currently being made. However, should any amendments made to overcome the above rejections and objections materially change the examiner’s understanding of the claimed invention, the examiner reserves the right to withdraw the finding of allowable subject matter and apply future art rejections.
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 connections between a motor vehicle and a trailer which the motor vehicle moves (such as a receiver hitch on the motor vehicle and a trailer tongue on the trailer) including the structure and operation as well as connecting and locking features are very well known in the art. Typically these hitches are referred to as a ball hitch with a mating trailer tongue, a fifth wheel attachment, and/or various hook arrangements. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Fromberg (US 4711461), Siegel (US 10065465), Xin et al. (US 20220363328), Baker (US 20240166003), Velke (US 6000705), Bergstrom et al. (US 20160207418), Neff et al. (US 6129411), Redden (US 20220281272), Tibbetts (US 20260021704), Bertalon (US 10632802), Siezka et al. (US 20250050694), and James (US 12534140). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a joint structure of a vehicle body, a driving module, a space module joined to a rear end portion of the driving module, a fixation bar disposed at the rear end portion of the driving module, a guide member disposed at a center portion of the fixation bar, protruding to the space module. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically combined structure and steps regarding the positional and operational relationships between the driving module and the space module. Specifically, the detailed structural limitations together with the operation and positional relationships between the guide member, the guide slot, the extension slot, the extension pins, and the operation of the motor when combined with the independent claims are not disclosed or suggested. It could be argued that as various vehicle connection structures (including motors) is generally known, such could just be combined and re-configured to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites specific structure and positional and operational relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known systems/structure/operations. Further, the claimed systems, structures, and operational relationships are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning system as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
7/15/2026
Prosecution Insights