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.
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 16-20 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 16 includes “a first position in which the distal end of the first extension member extends toward a center plane equidistant from the first distal tip and the second distal tip and (b) a second position in which the distal end of the first extension member extends laterally away from the center plane.” This renders the claim indefinite as the claim lacks a frame of reference and it is unclear how a distal end can extend away from something else. This language implies some direction (i.e., a vector from a proximal end to a distal end of the extension member) but this is not defined by the claim. Without such a frame of reference it is not possible to determine what is required by the claim. An alternative way of claiming this could be to reference a distance from the distal end to the central plane in each position and then to compare the two distances. Clarification is required. Claim 17 includes the same issue with regard to the second L-arm and second extension member.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,628,609 to Nespor.
Regarding claim 1 Nespor discloses a wheel grid comprising: a crossbar (20/24) configured to be coupled to a boom of a tow vehicle (see figure 1), the crossbar extending in a first lateral direction from a centerline to a distal tip (figure 1); and an L-arm comprising an extension member (44) rotatably coupled to the crossbar about a fixed rotation axis (46) and a wheel engagement member (62) extending from a distal end of the extension member, the L-arm rotatable between: an engaged position in which the wheel engagement member extends away from the centerline (see e.g., figure 1, 62 is spaced from the centerline and extends away from the centerline when viewed from the free end to the attached end), and a second position in which the extension member extends laterally away from the centerline (the extension member 44 can be said to extend away from the centerline in the position of figure 4, when viewed from wheel stop end towards the pivot end, furthermore the opposite configuration is possible and present when the extension member extends beyond the end of the crossbar when transitioning between the engaged position and the final storage position). It is noted that the claim does not provide a frame of reference or define a direction with regards to the “extends away from the centerline” language. This language could have multiple interpretations as discussed above. For the claims to have the interpretation that it seems may have been intended it would be necessary to define the direction along which the extending occurs, e.g., when viewed from the proximal end to a distal end of the “member” said member extends away from . . ..
Regarding claim 3 Nespor discloses the L-arm is rotatable at least 180 degrees about the fixed rotation axis (see figures 4-5 showing approximately 270 degrees of rotation).
Regarding claim 4 Nespor discloses the L-arm is further rotatable to a loading position in which the extension member extends toward the centerline of the crossbar (either of the positions discussed above when the extension member 44 is aligned with the crossbar, may read on this position).
Regarding claim 5 Nespor discloses when the L-arm is in the loading position, a distance between a proximal end of the wheel engagement member and a plane containing the centerline is substantially equal to a distance between a distal end of the wheel engagement member and the plane containing the centerline (see position in figure 4).
Regarding claim 6 Nespor discloses the wheel engagement member is fixedly coupled to the extension member and extends perpendicularly from the distal end of the extension member (when installed 62 is fixed and perpendicular as claimed, see figure 3).
Regarding claim 16 Nespor discloses a wheel grid comprising: a crossbar (20/24) configured to be coupled to a boom of a tow vehicle (figure 1) and extending from a first distal tip to a second distal tip (figure 1); and a first L-arm comprising a first extension member (44) rotatably coupled to the crossbar about a first fixed rotation axis (46) and a first wheel engagement member (62) extending from a distal end of the first extension member, the first L-arm positionable in (a) a first position in which the distal end of the first extension member extends toward a center plane equidistant from the first distal tip and the second distal tip (see e.g., figure 4) and (b) a second position in which the distal end of the first extension member extends laterally away from the center plane (when 44 extends outward from 22/24).
Regarding claim 17 Nespor discloses a second L-arm comprising a second extension member rotatably coupled to the crossbar about a second fixed rotation axis and a second wheel engagement member extending perpendicularly from a distal end of the first extension member, the second L-arm positionable in (a) a third position in which the distal end of the second extension member extends toward the center plane and (b) a fourth position in which the second extension member extends laterally away from the center plane (other instance of 44/62)
Regarding claim 18 Nespor discloses when the first L-arm is in the first position and the second L-arm is in the third position, a distance between a proximal end of the first wheel engagement member and a proximal end of the second wheel engagement member is substantially equal to a distance between a distal end of the first wheel engagement member and a distal end of the second wheel engagement member (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 19 Nespor discloses the first L-arm is in the first position and the second L-arm is in the third position, the first wheel engagement member is directly adjacent to the second wheel engagement member (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 20 Nespor discloses the first wheel engagement member is fixedly coupled to the first extension member and extends perpendicularly from the distal end of the first extension member (when installed 62 is fixed and perpendicular as claimed, see figure 3).
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nespor in view of US 2004/0156706 to Weller.
Regarding claim 7 Nespor discloses all the limitations of the claim except an actuator coupled to the crossbar and the L-arm and configured to rotate the L-arm about the fixed rotation axis. Rather Nespor is manually manipulated into the working/engaged position.
Weller teaches a towing arrangement including a linear actuator (66) coupled to the crossbar (10) and the L-arm and configured to rotate the L-arm (para 0040) about the fixed rotation axis in order to provide operation that can be controlled via the tow vehicle cab (para 0029 and 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claims to have modified Nespor to include an actuator coupled to the crossbar and the L-arm and configured to rotate the L-arm about the fixed rotation axis, as taught by Weller, in order to provide operation that can be controlled via the tow vehicle cab.
Regarding claim 8 the combination teaches the actuator is configured to be positioned substantially within a footprint of the crossbar when the L-arm positioned such that the extension member extends perpendicularly away from the centerline (see Weller figure 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
Claim 2 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 9, the configuration of the first and second linkage and their various connection points differentiate the claim from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the claimed distance relationships differentiate the claim from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights