The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-19 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, line 6, the recitation “laterally attached side rails” is unclear not only in that it does not define relative to what “laterally” refers but also in that it does not indicate to what the rails are attached;
lines 14, 17 and 19, the recitation “the decking sections” lacks clear and proper antecedent basis, as “one or more decking sections” have previously been recited (emphasis added);
lines 15-16, the recitation “parallelly stowed” is vague (i.e., parallel to what?);
lines 17-18, the recitation “the decking sections inclining to form an angle” is not understood in that since there could be only one decking section, it is not clear how or relative to what it would “form an angle”; and
line 20, it is not clear what meant by the recitation “a consistent cradle is formed”.
Claim 2, it is not clear what is meant by “further comprising ... a front pair of side rails”, as it is believed that such side rails are a further limitation of the “side rails” previously recited, not an additional pair of side rails.
Claim 3, line 5, the recitation “the trailer” lacks proper antecedent basis;
and line 7, the recitation “the front pair of side rails” lacks antecedent basis (in claim 1).
Claim 4, line 2, the recitation “the trailer” lacks proper antecedent basis
Claim 7, last line, --the-- should apparently be inserted before “second” and “third” to provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8, lines 2-8, the recitations “longitudinally”, “laterally”, “lateral” and “longitudinal” are unclear absent any spatial orientation being set forth.
Claim 10, lines 12, 14 and 16, the recitations “the first condition”, “the second condition”, and “the third condition” lack proper antecedent basis (i.e., “three conditions” have previously been recited but these are not necessarily first, second and third conditions); and
lines 12-15, it is unclear how “one or more decking sections” (which could comprise a single such section) could form an “angled cradle” in a condition distinct from a condition in which it was “substantially horizontal”.
Claim 13, line 1, --the-- should apparently be inserted before “second” to provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14, lines 4, 7 and 9, the recitations “lateral beams” are unclear absent any spatial orientation being set forth;
lines 8-9, it is unclear if the recitation “the one or more decking sections connects to a selected one or more of the plurality of lateral beams” is intended to cover all possible permutations of such a limitation (i.e., can either a single or a plurality of decking sections connect to both a single and a plurality of lateral beams?);
line 10, it is not clear if the recitation “a plurality of cylinders” is meant to refer to the “plurality of cylinders” previously recited in line 3; and
last line, it is not clear if the recitation “a continuous cradle” is intended to refer to the “continuous ... cradle” previously recited in claim 10.
Claim 15, it is not clear if the recitation “at least two cylinders” is meant to refer to the “plurality of cylinders” previously recited in claim 14.
Claim 16, the recitation “about at least 180 degrees” is vague.
Claims 1-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, e.g., U.S. Patent 6,537,008 to Haring, discloses a trailer with a deck surface adjustable between a first condition in which the deck surface is flat and a second condition in which the deck surface or sections thereof pivot to form a load support cradle. While it is generally well known to provide a trailer with a ramp, e.g., see U.S. Patent 9,764,674 to Friesen et al, the prior art does not show or suggest such a trailer with a first section comprising one or more decking sections, a frame, and a pair of laterally attached side rails, and a second section comprising a transition section, a flip over ramp, and a hinge connecting the transition section and the flip over ramp, wherein the trailer is convertible between a first condition defined by the decking sections being in a generally horizontal position and in which the flip over ramp is parallelly stowed on the transition section, a second condition defined by the decking sections inclining to form an angle, in which the laterally attached side rails pivot outwards at an angle relative to the decking sections, and in which a consistent cradle is formed, and a third condition defined by the conjoining of the transition section and the flip over ramp, such that the deployment of the flip over ramp creates a diagonally declining slope extending from the hinge to a supporting ground surface, as set forth in claim 1, or with a main body structure, a first set of side rails, in which each side rail is laterally attached to the main body structure, a second set of side rails pivotally attached to the first set of side rails, and a flip over ramp pivotally attached to the main body structure, wherein the main body structure joins the flip over ramp at a hinge, the main body structure is comprised of one or more decking sections, and the main body structure is configurable in three conditions, wherein a first condition is defined by the one or more decking sections being substantially horizontal, a second condition is defined by the one or more decking sections creating a continuous and angled cradle, and a third condition is defined by the flip over ramp deploying towards a supporting ground surface, in which the flip over ramp diagonally declines from the main body structure, as set forth in claim 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
9/16/26
Prosecution Insights