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 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(s) 1-3,5-13 and 18-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanBuskirk (US 2006/0290102, Kirk from now on) in view of Irgens (US 2006/0279067).
Regarding claim 1, Kirk discloses a weight measuring hitch ball assembly, comprising:
a hitch ball (see figure 2) having a ball (203) and a lower portion (205);
a body portion (see shank where the hitch ball is mounted in figure 4) defining a hitch ball opening (opening for the hitch ball shaft, see figure 2) that slidably receives the lower portion of the hitch ball;
a load measurement device (211) operably associated with the body portion and the hitch ball to determine a magnitude of a force acting on the hitch ball (see figures 2 and Para. 0029);
Wherein Kirk does not show a retention coupling operable with the hitch ball and the body portion to secure the hitch ball to the body portion, the retention coupling having a retention protrusion and a retention wall defining at least a portion of a retention opening operable to receive at least a portion of the retention protrusion therein, wherein, with the retention protrusion extending into the retention opening, the retention wall provides a mechanical barrier to the retention protrusion that prevents removal of the hitch ball from the hitch ball opening, and wherein either the lower portion of the hitch ball, or the retention opening, is configured to facilitate slidable movement of the hitch ball within the hitch ball opening sufficient to determine the magnitude of the force acting on the hitch ball.
However, Irgens discloses a hitch ball (12) connection to a shank (40) comprising; a retention coupling (60,64, and different embodiments throughout the drawings showing different variations of the retention coupling, see figures 1 to 19 in Irgens) operable with the hitch ball and a body portion (shank) to secure the hitch ball to the body portion (see figures 1 and 2), the retention coupling having a retention protrusion (60) and a retention wall (64) defining at least a portion of a retention opening (the wall is an opening) operable to receive at least a portion of the retention protrusion therein, wherein, with the retention protrusion extending into the retention opening (see figure 2), the retention wall provides a mechanical barrier to the retention protrusion that prevents removal of the hitch ball from the hitch ball opening (as the retention wall does not allow for rotational movement).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kirk by adding a retention coupling to the connection of the hitch ball to the shank/body, in order to be able to further secure the hitch ball onto the shank/body portion, by not allowing rotation of the hitch ball in relation to the shank/body portion.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kirk and Irgens ends with; wherein the retention opening is associated with the hitch ball and the body portion, and the retention protrusion (60) is associated with the hitch ball or the body portion (see figure 2 in Irgens).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Kirk and Irgens do not show a threaded retention through opening, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to have threads on the retention opening in order to be able to thread the retention protrusion onto the retention opening, wherein have it be a through opening will help with trapped moisture.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kirk and Irgens ends with; a retention opening being formed in the shank/body portion (see figures 1 and 2 in Irgens).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kirk and Irgens ends with; wherein the retention protrusion extends into the retention opening and an end of the retention protrusion terminates within the retention opening (see figures 1 and 2 in Irgens).
Regarding claim 7, wherein Irgens shows that the retention opening terminates within the lower portion of the hitch ball (see figure 2), wherein the combination of Kirk and Irgens will also be similar to what is shown in figures 1 and 2 of Irgens (at least when using the retention opening and retention protrusion).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kirk and Irgens ends with; wherein the retention opening comprises a blind opening (as the opening could not be seen when the hitch ball is connected to the shank/body portion, see figure 2 in Irgens).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kirk and Irgens ends with; wherein the retention protrusion is oriented toward a center of the hitch ball (when seen as shown in figure 2 in Irgens, where it shows that the retention protrusion is laterally extending from away to the center of the center of the hitch ball).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kirk and Irgens ends with; wherein the retention opening extends about an outer periphery of the lower portion (see figure 2 in Irgens).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kirk and Irgens ends with; wherein the retention protrusion is oriented tangential to an outer periphery of the lower portion (see figure 14 in Irgens).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kirk and Irgens ends with; wherein the retention protrusion is a pin (see figures 1 and 2 in Irgens).
Regarding claim 18, Kirk further comprising a hitch portion (hitch receiver seen in figure 4, wherein the shank attaches to towing vehicle through the hitch receiver) removably coupleable to the body portion (which is the shank), the hitch portion being configured to interface with an attachment structure (chassis of the towing vehicle) associated with a tow vehicle to facilitate coupling the weight measuring hitch ball assembly to the tow vehicle, wherein, when the body portion (shank) and the hitch portion are coupled to one another, the retention protrusion is hidden from view (as the combination of Kirk and Irgens does not show the retention protrusion when assembled, see figure 2 in Irgens) and, when the body portion and the hitch portion are separated from one another, the retention protrusion is exposed to facilitate removal from the retention opening (see figure 1 in Irgens).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kirk and Irgens ends up being coupled to a towing vehicle.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kirk and Irgens ends up being connected to a towing vehicle, wherein the weight measuring hitch ball is used when a trailer is coupled to the hitch ball.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14-17 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.
Regarding claim 4, the art of record did not show that the “retention opening is formed in the lower portion of the hitch ball” as the retention opening is formed on the shank instead.
Regarding claim 14, the art of record did not include “a plurality of retention openings and a plurality of retention protrusions”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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.
/MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights