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 § 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZipsTruckEquip (Youtube.com video).
With respect to claim 1. ZipsTruckEquip disclose an auto slide, comprising:
a body comprised of metal and/or a polymeric material (“plastic,” see time 0:25 of the video), the body having a front, a rear opposite the front, a left side that extends between the rear and the front and a right side that extends between the rear and the front opposite the left side to define a wheel well, the wheel well is sized and configured to retain a wheel of a vehicle so that the body is positionable between the wheel of the vehicle and ground as shown at time 0:30 of the video and as shown in the below image taken from time 1:34 of the video:
[AltContent: textbox (wheel well)]
[AltContent: textbox (right side)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
[AltContent: textbox (rear)][AltContent: textbox (front)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
257
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (left side)]
With respect to claim 2, ZipsTruckEquip discloses that the body is comprised of plastic (see time 0:25 of the video).
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Esparza et al. (US 2021/0300305).
With respect to claim 1, Esparza et al. disclose an auto slide 16A, comprising:
a body comprised of metal and/or a polymeric material (“steel,” Esparza et al,. paragraph [0040]), the body having a front, a rear opposite the front, a left side that extends between the rear and the front and a right side that extends between the rear and the front opposite the left side to define a wheel well, the wheel well is sized and configured to retain a wheel of a vehicle so that the body is positionable between the wheel of the vehicle and ground (Esparza et al., paragraph [0011]) as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 4 of Esparza et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (wheel well)][AltContent: textbox (right side)][AltContent: ]
[AltContent: textbox (front)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (rear)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
254
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (left side)]
With respect to claim 4, Esparza et al. disclose that the front and/or the rear includes holes through which straps are passable for attachment of the wheel to the body (“The skid may have a plurality of anchors 66, such as holes, loops, and hooks, for connection of chains, cables or straps, such as for attaching a tire to the skid . . . For example, the skid may have four anchors 66, with an anchor positioned proximal to each corner of the body 60,” Esparza et al., paragraph [0036]).
With respect to claims 5-7, Esparza et al. discloses that the left side and/or the right side includes holes through which straps are passable for attachment of the wheel to the body (“For example, the skid may have four anchors 66, with an anchor positioned proximal to each corner of the body 60,” Esparza et al., paragraph [0036].
With respect to claim 10, Esparza et l. disclose at least two auto slides 16A/16B of claim 1 (as shown in Fig. 2. of Esparza et al.).
With respect to claim 11, Esparza et al. disclose 11 a method of towing a vehicle, comprising:
attaching a first auto slide 16A to a first wheel of the vehicle such that the first wheel is positioned in a wheel well of the first auto slide 16A (as can be inferred from the arrangement of front and rear stays 68 and 70, Esparza et al., paragraphs [0037]-[0038]) and a bottom of the first auto slide is between the first wheel and ground on which the vehicle is positioned (“Additionally, the boot 72 may have rounded side edges 78 and a rounded rear edge 80 to ease sliding of the skid over bumps, such as, for example, road imperfections, “Esparza et al., paragraph [0041]);
attaching a second auto slide 18A to a second wheel of the vehicle such that the second wheel is positioned in a wheel well of the second auto slide and a bottom of the second auto slide is between the second wheel and the ground (as is evident from Fig. 2 of Esparza et al.);
coupling the first and second auto slides 16A/18A to a winch 12 of a tow truck (via harness 14 as shown in Fig. 2 of Esparza et al.);
actuating the winch 12 to pull the vehicle onto a bed or trailer of the tow truck (Esparza et al., paragraph [0044]);
transporting the vehicle to a pre-selected location after the vehicle is on the bed or trailer of the tow truck (“Once a vehicle or other item to be towed is located,” Esparza et al., paragraph [0034]–this language implying that the vehicle will be towed another location (i.e., the general purpose of tow trucks).
With respect to claim 14, the first auto slide 16A includes a body having a front, a rear opposite the front, a left side that extends between the rear and the front and a right side that extends between the rear and the front opposite the left side to define the wheel well of the first auto slide, the wheel well of the first auto slide being sized and configured to retain the first wheel of the vehicle as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 4 of Esparza et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (wheel well)][AltContent: textbox (right side)][AltContent: ]
[AltContent: textbox (front)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (rear)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
254
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (left side)]
With respect to claim 15, Esparza et al. disclose that the second auto slide 18A is interchangeable with the front auto slide 16A (Esparza et al., paragraph [0039]). Thus, the second auto slide 18A would include a body having a front, a rear opposite the front, a left side that extends between the rear and the front and a right side that extends between the rear and the front opposite the left side to define the wheel well of the second auto slide, the wheel well of the second auto slide being sized and configured to retain the second wheel of the vehicle (as shown above).
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.
Claims 3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esparza et al. (US 2021/0300305), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cruse (US 6,126,377).
With respect to claim 3, Esparza et al. disclose the claimed auto slide except for the ribs positioned on a bottom of the body. However, Cruse teaches a similar auto slide 10 including a body 30 with ribs 33 positioned on a bottom of the body 30 (Cruse, col. 3, lines 9-12; Fig. 4), the ribs sized and configured to engage the ground.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Cruse with the auto glide disclosed by Esparza et al. for the advantage of reducing friction between the auto slide and the ground it is sliding against (Cruse, col. 3, lines 9-12).
With respect to claim 8, Esparza et al. disclose the claimed auto slide except for the ribs positioned on a bottom of the body, the ribs being integral to the bottom of the body. However, Cruse teaches a similar auto slide 10 including a body 30 with ribs 33 positioned on a bottom of the body 30 (“Elongate ribs 33 are integrally molded along the entire underside of the skate 10,” Cruse, col. 3, lines 9-10; Fig. 4), the ribs sized and configured to engage the ground.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Cruse with the auto glide disclosed by Esparza et al. for the advantage of reducing friction between the auto slide and the ground it is sliding against (Cruse, col. 3, lines 9-12).
With respect to claim 9, Esparza discloses the claimed auto slide except for the ribs positioned on a bottom of the body, the ribs being attached to the bottom of the body via fasteners. However, Cruse teaches a similar auto slide 10 including a body 30 with ribs 33 positioned on a bottom of the body 30 (“Elongate ribs 33 are integrally molded along the entire underside of the skate 10,” Cruse, col. 3, lines 9-10; Fig. 4). While Cruse teaches that the ribs are integral to the body of the auto slide, It has been held that making something separable is obvious if there is a motivation for separating that structure. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”). See MPEP § 21044.04, part V.
In this case, it would have been obvious to make the ribs separable since they are a high-wear component that would frequently need to be replaced. Making the ribs separable would allow the ribs to be replaced without also replacing the whole body of the auto slide. The ribs would then require fasteners to position the ribs on the bottom of the body to engage the ground.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esparza et al. (US 2021/0300305), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of TowMan127 (Youtube.com video).
With respect to claim 12, Esparza et al. disclose the claimed method except that they are silent on the step of tilting the trailer. However, TowMan127 teaches a similar method including attaching an auto slide to a vehicle (as shown at time 4:10 of the video) and then tilting the trailer or the bed for the tow truck for pulling vehicle onto the bed or the trailer (as shown at time 7:14 of the video).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of TowMan127 with the method disclosed by Esparaza et al. for the advantage of facilitating movement of the vehicle onto the bed or trailer of the tow truck.
With respect to claim 13, TowMan127 teaches13adjusting the trailer or the bed into a horizontal orientation after the vehicle is pulled onto the bed or the trailer (as shown at time 23:43 of the video).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esparza et al. (US 2021/0300305), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of ZipsTruckEquip (Youtube.com video).
With respect to claim 16, Esparza et al. disclose that the first auto slide 17A is made from “steel or aluminum, or other materials sufficient to support the weight of the vehicle,” (Esparaza et al., paragraph [0040]), but is silent on whether the other materials can be a polymeric material. However, ZipsTruckEquip teach that the auto slide can be made from a polymeric material (“plastic,” see time 0:25 of the video).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of ZipsTruckEquip with the method disclosed by Esparza et al. for the superior corrosion resistance of polymeric materials and the lesser cost of polymer materials.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esparza et al. (US 2021/0300305), as applied to claims 11 or 15 above, and further in view of Cruse (US 6,126,377).
With respect to claims 17-18, Esparza et al. disclose the claimed method except for a bottom of the body of the first auto slide including plurality of ribs and a bottom of the body of the second auto slide including a plurality of ribs. . However, Cruse teaches a similar auto slide 10 including a body 30 with ribs 33 positioned on a bottom of the body 30 (Cruse, col. 3, lines 9-12; Fig. 4).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Cruse with the method disclosed by Esparza et al. for the advantage of reducing friction between the auto slide and the ground it is sliding against (Cruse, col. 3, lines 9-12).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esparza et al. (US 2021/0300305) in view of Cruse (US 6,126,377), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of TowMan127 (Youtube.com video).
With respect to claim 19, Esparza et al. in view of Cruse disclose the claimed method except for the step of pulling the vehicle onto the bed or the trailer of the tow truck such that the ribs of the first auto slide and the ribs of the second auto slide contat the ground while the vehicle is being pulled onto the trailer or the bed.
However, TowMan 127 teaches a similar method including pulling the vehicle onto the bed or the trailer of the tow truck (as shown at time 19:40 of the video). In the combination, the ribs of the first auto slide (as taught by Cruse) and the ribs of the second auto slide (the second auto slide disclosed by Esparza et al.) would contact the ground while the vehicle is being pulled onto the trailer or the bed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
