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 § 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.
Claims 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “a motor vehicle” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it lacks clear antecedent basis in light of the motor vehicle introduced in the preamble. Is the recited “a motor vehicle” in line 3 a separate/additional motor vehicle, or did applicant intend to refer back to the motor vehicle in the preamble? For the sake of compact prosecution, they are interpreted as being the same motor vehicle.
Claim 16 is rejected as being dependent on claim 15, which is rejected under 112(b).
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “a trailer” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it lacks clear antecedent basis in light of the trailer introduced in the preamble. Is the recited “a trailer” in line 3 a separate/additional trailer, or did applicant intend to refer back to the trailer in the preamble? For the sake of compact prosecution, they are interpreted as being the same trailer.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0050573 A1 to Strand in view of US 2020/0096749 A1 to Lange et al (hereinafter Lange).
Regarding Claim 10, Strand discloses a trailer coupling comprising:
[a coupling body (201) configured to form a coupling between a trailer (102) and a motor vehicle (101)] (Figs. 1, 2; paragraphs 0013, 0021), wherein the coupling body comprises:
[a ball head] (Fig. 2; paragraph 0021).
Strand further discloses that the coupling body can be magnetic in paragraph 0024 (therefore necessarily generating a magnetic force that is necessarily capable of holding other objects having magnetic properties) and thus, one skilled in the art of electromagnetic couplings would understand, before the effective filing date of the invention, that the coupling body could further comprise an electromagnet arranged in an interior space of the ball head, Strand does not appear to explicitly disclose the electromagnet arranged in the interior space of the ball head and configured to generate the magnetic holding force as a safeguard against accidental or unauthorized separation of the coupling between the motor vehicle and the trailer (Examiner notes that the underlined phrases in claim 10, and also substantially similar phrases in claims 15, 17, and 18, are considered to be intended use as they are a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and although fully considered – are not understood to affect the scope of the claim because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, see MPEP § 2114).
Lange teaches [an electromagnet (116) arranged in an interior space (136) of a coupling body (110) and configured to generate a magnetic holding force (14) between the coupling body and a coupled body (114)] (Figs. 1, 3; paragraphs 0026 – 0027).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of electromagnetic couplings, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the trailer coupling of Strand to include Lange’s electromagnet arranged in an interior space of the ball head of Strand and configured to generate the magnetic holding force of Lange as a safeguard against accidental or unauthorized separation of the coupling between the motor vehicle and the trailer in order to provide a more secure coupling via the magnetic holding force. Doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 15, Strand teaches [a motor vehicle (101)] (Figs. 1, 2; paragraphs 0013, 0021), in addition to all the limitations discussed in the related rejection of Claim 10 above. Similar considerations apply, Claim 15 being unpatentable for the same reasons as presented above with respect to Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 17, Strand teaches [a trailer (102)] (Figs. 1, 2; paragraphs 0013, 0021), in addition to all the limitations discussed in the related rejection of Claim 10, above. Similar considerations apply, Claim 17 being unpatentable for the same reasons as presented with respect to Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 18, Strand teaches [a carrier system (101, 102)] (Figs. 1, 2; paragraphs 0013, 0021), in addition to all the limitations discussed in the related rejection of Claim 10, above. Similar considerations apply, Claim 18 being unpatentable for the same reasons as presented with respect to Claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strand in view of Lange and further in view of EP 2316668 A1 to Wieczorek et al (hereinafter Wieczorek).
Regarding Claim 11, the Strand/Lange device does not appear to explicitly disclose a display element configured to display an operating state of an electromagnet.
Wieczorek teaches [a trailer coupling] (complete assembly shown in Fig. 6) comprising [a coupling body (40, 154)] (Fig. 3; paragraphs 0074 – 0075) wherein [the coupling body comprises a display element (155) configured to display an operating state of a magnet (80)] (Figs. 4, 6; paragraphs 0096 – 0097 disclose an engagement state of the coupling body with element 110, as facilitated by the magnet, is displayed on the display element, which is interpreted as the coupling body comprising the display element configured to display an operating state of the magnet).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of trailer couplings, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Strand/Lange device to include Wieczorek’s display element according to Wieczorek’s teachings and configure the display element to display an operating state of the electromagnet of the Strand/Lange device to advantageously provide a visual indicator of the operating state of the electromagnet of the Strand/Lange device. Doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strand in view of Lange and further in view of US 2013/0257145 A1 to Caldeira et al (hereinafter Caldeira).
Regarding Claim 12, Strand further discloses [a control unit (106) and a battery] (Fig. 2; paragraph 0018); however the modified Strand/Lange device does not appear to explicitly disclose that the control unit is configured to monitor a charge state of a battery for supplying the electromagnet with electrical power, at least when the electromagnet is activated.
Caldeira teaches [a trailer coupling (100) comprising a control unit (116, 236) configured to monitor a charge state of a battery (110) for supplying an electromagnet with electrical power, at least when the electromagnet is activated] (paragraph 0086 discloses the electromagnet is supplied with electrical power by the battery and is activated by the battery; paragraph 0180).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of electromagnetic trailer couplings, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the control unit of the Strand/Lange device, according to the teachings of Caldeira, to monitor the charge state of the battery of the Strand/Lange device for supplying the electromagnet of the Strand/Lange device with electrical power, at least when the electromagnet is activated, in order to determine the amount of available electrical power. Doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, the trailer coupling according to claim 12, wherein Caldeira further discloses the control unit is configured to:
[determine a measured value representative of the charge state] (paragraph 0070 – e.g., a voltage-based [state of charge] measurement device configured to determine the amount of remaining charge in...[the battery] by measuring the open circuit voltage of the battery) [at least when the electromagnet is activated] (paragraph 0086 discloses the electromagnet is supplied with electrical power by the battery);
[automatically carry out a plurality of actions when the measured value falls below a predetermined threshold value; and wherein
the plurality of actions comprise at least one of the following actions:
sending a notification to a recipient,
reducing the electrical power supplied to the electromagnet, or
deactivating the electromagnet] (paragraph 0059 discloses the control unit is communicatively coupled to element 220, disclosed as a "remote user interface device"; paragraph 0084 – e.g., the predetermined threshold value is a “user selected charge level”; paragraphs 0059 discloses the plurality of actions comprises at least the following action: sending a notification to a recipient).
It would have been obvious to have modified the Strand/Lange/Caldeira device in view of Caldeira’s teachings for at least the same reasons discussed in claim 12, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results. Additionally, a recipient would appreciate receiving notifications from the Strand/Lange/Caldeira device to ensure that proper charge states of the batteries are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§102/103 is not made because the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art of record. Every element of the claims is not taught by any of the references individually and the prior art of record fails to permissibly teach the overall combination as claimed. Even if one could construe the prior art of record such that the combination disclosed each and every limitation of the claims, the ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references in reference to themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The Strand/Lange device of Claim 15 generally discloses the coupling body comprising the ball head and the electromagnet. However, Strand in view of Lange does not specifically disclose that the electromagnet is configured to automatically deactivate when a vehicle start is carried out. US 2019/0135122 A1 to Perez Barrera et al (hereinafter Perez Barrera) generally discloses an electromagnet that is configured to automatically deactivate when a vehicle start is carried out (paragraph 0048). However, Perez Barrera does not make up for all of the deficiencies of the Strand/Lange device because at a minimum Perez Barrera teaches away from the limitations presented in Claims 15 and 16 because the electromagnet of Perez Barrera automatically deactivates resulting in a decoupling operation.
Even if each and every element of the present invention were taught individually by the aforementioned references, combining the references as an ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references present in the aforementioned references themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Pub 2019/0366786 A1 – teaches a trailer coupling comprising: a ball head having a magnet arranged in an interior space of the ball head;
US Pat 10,059,161 B1 – teaches a trailer coupling comprising a trailer in communication with a ball head via an electrical element arranged in an interior space of the ball head;
US Pub 2012/0112434 A1 – teaches a trailer coupling comprising a trailer in magnetic communication with a ball head
US Pat 6,222,443 B1 – teaches a trailer coupling comprising a trailer electromagnetically coupled with a ball head via an electromagnetic element arranged in an interior space of the ball head; and
US Pat 5,159,312 A – teaches a trailer coupling comprising a trailer in communication with a ball head via an electrical element arranged in an interior space of the ball head.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler Ferguson whose telephone number is (571)272-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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.
/Tyler Ferguson/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights