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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10, 14-15, and 17-21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-10 should start with “The leveling jack”
Claims 14-15 should start with “The method”
Claims 17-21 should start with “The leveling jack”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9-10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lehman (US 20190023237 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lehman discloses a leveling jack (jacks 106, figs.1-17) comprising: a cylinder assembly (cylinder 302, fig.3) including a leveling cylinder (cylinder 302, fig.3) that is displaceable between a retracted position and an extended position (leveling jack 106 and cylinder 302 are extended and retracted, figs.1-6); a footpad (foot pad attached to threaded end 304 on jacks 106, figs.1-6, paragraph [0065]) coupled with the leveling cylinder for displacement with the leveling cylinder; a mounting bracket (bracket 204, figs,3-4) coupled with the cylinder assembly and including mounting legs (two parallel legs of u-bracket 204, figs.3-5) having apertures (apertures for bolts 224 and 208, figs.2-5) therein; and a connecting bracket (brackets 214 and 206, figs.2-6) securable to a structure (frame rail 202 of vehicle 100, figs.1-6) to be leveled, wherein the connecting bracket is coupled with the mounting bracket via a connector (bolts 208 and 216, figs.2-6) through the apertures in the mounting bracket.
Regarding claim 9, Lehman discloses comprising two of the connecting brackets (brackets 206 and 214, figs.2-6) securable to the structure to be leveled, wherein the mounting legs of the mounting bracket are positionable between the two connecting brackets (bracket 204 is between brackets 206 and 214, figs.2-6), the leveling jack further comprising an elongated bolt (bolts 208 and 216, figs.2-6) inserted through the two connecting brackets and the mounting legs.
Regarding claim 10, Lehman discloses comprising three of the elongated bolts inserted through the two connecting brackets and the mounting legs (bolts 208 and 216, figs.2-6).
Regarding claim 16, Lehman discloses a leveling jack (jacks 106, figs.1-17) comprising: a cylinder housing (cylinder 302, fig.3) including a leveling cylinder (cylinder 302, figs.1-17) that is displaceable between a retracted position and an extended position (leveling jack 106 and cylinder 302 are extended and retracted, figs.1-6), the cylinder housing having integral top and bottom subassemblies (figs.1-6), wherein the top subassembly contains a retract passage for the leveling cylinder (side opposite the bracket 204 as seen in figure 3 has passages, figs.3-4), and wherein the bottom subassembly includes integrated vertical legs with mounting apertures (two parallel legs of u-bracket 204 with apertures for bolts 224 and 208, figs.2-5, figs,3-4); and a footpad (foot pad attached to threaded end 304 on jacks 106, figs.1-6, paragraph [0065]) coupled with the leveling cylinder for displacement with the leveling cylinder.
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) 2 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehman (US 20190023237 A1) in view of Geates (US 20150054271 A1) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claims 2 and 21, Lehman discloses the leveling jack of claims 1, 16, and the leveling jack is hydraulic, but fails to disclose an extend port and a retract port.
However, Geates discloses wherein the cylinder assembly comprises an extend port and a retract port positioned on the cylinder assembly (ports on cylinders 24A-C to extend and retract as seen in figures 1-3). Geates fails to disclose the ports are on a lower portion of the cylinder housing, but In reJapikse discloses the prior art except with regard to the position of the ports were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the ports would not have modified the operation of the device.
Lehman and Geates are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of leveling jacks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehman with the ports of Geates with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing the hydraulic jack to be extended and retracted via the ports and fluid.
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehman (US 20190023237 A1) in view of Schwindaman (US 20110024706 A1) and Moore (US 20190292029 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Lehman discloses foot pads (figs.1-6) attached via threaded end (304, fig.3, paragraph [0065]) to leveling cylinder from a bottom, but fails to disclose bushing.
However, Schwindaman discloses wherein the footpad is coupled with the leveling cylinder from a bottom via a bolt (plate 28 coupled leveling cylinder 14 via bolt from a bottom as seen in figures 1-2). Moore discloses a bushing on a threaded shaft (bushings 31 and 71a-75a, fig.5b and 10B).
Lehman and Schwindaman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of leveling jacks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehman with the fastening arrangement of the footpad of Schwindaman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing the footpad to be easily removed and securely fastened via the bolt.
Lehman and Moore are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lifting devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehman with the bushing of Moore with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of helping absorb shock and vibrations.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehman (US 20190023237 A1) in view of Schwindaman (US 20110024706 A1) and Moore (US 20190292029 A1), and in further view of Ferris (US 20240174500 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Lehman in combination with Schwindaman and Moore disclose the leveling jack of claims 3 and 17, but fail to disclose a footpad cover.
However, Ferris discloses further comprising a footpad cover (landing pad 10, figs.1-4) securable on a top of the footpad (landing pad 10 is securable on foot 100, figs.1-3).
Lehman and Ferris are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle support. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehman with the footpad cover of Ferris with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of
Regarding claim 5, Lehman in combination with Schwindaman, Moore, and Ferris; Ferris discloses wherein the footpad cover is plastic (landing pad 10 made from a variety of materials, paragraph [0052], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the landing pad from plastic as plastic is durable and lightweight).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehman (US 20190023237 A1) in view of Seo (KR 101903563 B1).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Lehman disclose the leveling jack of claims 1 and 16 but fails to disclose a housing cover with lighting elements.
However, Seo discloses further comprising a housing cover (cover 320, fig.2) securable to the cylinder assembly (cylinder S, figs1-2), the housing cover housing lighting elements (light emitting unit 200, fig.2).
Lehman and Seo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of leveling jacks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehman with the cover and lighting elements of Seo with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements to yield predictable results of providing light around the vehicle of Lehman for safety.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Lehman in combination with Seo, Seo discloses wherein the housing cover is shaped in complement to an outer perimeter of the cylinder assembly (cover 320 is shaped around and complement the cylinder S and plate 720, figs.1-3).
Claim(s) 8 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehman (US 20190023237 A1) in view of Hanser (US 4165861 A).
Regarding claim 8, Lehman discloses the leveling jack of claim 1 and the connecting bracket is mounted to the structure to be leveled (brackets 206 and 214 are mounted to the frame 102 of vehicle 100, figs.2-6), but fails to disclose wherein the connecting bracket is welded to the structure to be leveled.
However, Hanser discloses mounting brackets (22, figs.1-5) are welded to the structure (bracket 22 is welded to bottom portion 16 of the vehicle 10, figs.2-5, column 4, lines 35-43).
Lehman and Hanser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of leveling jack systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehman with the technique of welding brackets to frame of Hanser with a reasonable expectation of success because welding is a well-known technique used to fasten brackets to frames for a more secure mounting than bolting as welding creates greater strength and load capacity.
Regarding claim 11, Lehman discloses a structure (vehicle 100, fig.1) to be leveled on a surface comprising: a frame (frame 102 with frame rails 202, figs.1-6) including a plurality of leveling jacks of claim 1 (106, fig.1) mounted around the structure (fig.1). Lehman fails to disclose leveling jacks mounted in four corners.
However, Hanser discloses leveling jacks mounted in four corners of the structure (motorhome 10 with frame 16 has leveling devices 20 mounted in four corners as seen in figure 1).
Lehman and Hanser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of leveling jack systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehman with the leveling devices in four corners of the frame of Hanser with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of providing more support points of contact providing extra stability, control, safety, and having more leveling jacks makes the load for each jack lighter and allows the system to lift heavier loads.
Regarding claim 12, Lehman discloses a leveling system for a recreational vehicle or trailer (leveling system for vehicle 100, fig.1), the recreational vehicle or trailer including a chassis (frame 102 with frame rails 202, figs.1-6) with the leveling system comprising a plurality of the leveling jack of claim 1 (106, fig.1). Lehman fails to disclose leveling jacks mounted in four corners.
However, Hanser discloses leveling jacks mounted in four corners of the structure (motorhome 10 with frame 16 has leveling devices 20 mounted in four corners as seen in figure 1).
Lehman and Hanser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of leveling jack systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehman with the leveling devices in four corners of the frame of Hanser with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of providing more support points of contact providing extra stability, control, safety, and having more leveling jacks makes the load for each jack lighter and allows the system to lift heavier loads.
Regarding claim 13, Lehman discloses a method of installing a leveling system in a recreational vehicle or trailer using the leveling jack of claim 1 (installing leveling system with jacks 106 on vehicle 100, figs.1-6), the method comprising: (a) mounting he connecting bracket to the recreational vehicle or trailer (brackets 206 and 214 are mounted to frame 102, figs.2-6); and (b) securing the leveling jack to the connecting bracket (jacks 106 are secured to connecting brackets 206 and 214 through bracket 204 and bolts 208 and 216, figs.2-6). Lehman fails to disclose the connecting brackets welded to the vehicle.
However, Hanser discloses mounting brackets (22, figs.1-5) are welded to the structure (bracket 22 is welded to bottom portion 16 of the vehicle 10, figs.2-5, column 4, lines 35-43).
Lehman and Hanser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of leveling jack systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehman with the technique of welding brackets to frame of Hanser with a reasonable expectation of success because welding is a well-known technique used to fasten brackets to frames for a more secure mounting than bolting as welding creates greater strength and load capacity.
Regarding claim 14, Lehman in combination with Hanser, Hanser discloses leveling jacks mounted in four corners of the structure via welding (motorhome 10 with frame 16 has leveling devices 20 mounted in four corners as seen in figure 1, brackets 22 are welded to bottom portion 16 of the vehicle 10, figs.2-5, column 4, lines 35-43).
Lehman and Hanser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of leveling jack systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehman with the leveling devices in four corners of the frame of Hanser with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of providing more support points of contact providing extra stability, control, safety, and having more leveling jacks makes the load for each jack lighter and allows the system to lift heavier loads.
Regarding claim 15, Lehman in combination with Hanser, Lehman discloses wherein each of the connecting brackets includes two parts (brackets 206 and 214, figs.2-6), and wherein step (b) is practiced by positioning the mounting legs of the mounting bracket between the two parts (bracket 204 is between the brackets 206 and 214, figs.2-6) of each of the mounting brackets, and inserting an elongated bolt (bolts 208 and 216, figs.2-6) through the two parts of each of the connecting brackets and the mounting legs of each of the mounting brackets.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights