DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to describe “wherein the two first positioning members each extend through only one of the first positioning plates” and “wherein the two second positioning members each extend through only one of the second positioning plates”. As shown in applicant’s Fig. 2, the first positioning members (5) extend through both first positioning plates (25, left/right) and the second positioning members (50) extend through both second positioning plates (35, left/right). It appears that this should read “wherein the two first positioning members each extend through only one bore of the first positioning plates”, which will be assumed for purposes of the art rejection below.
Regarding claims 5-6, the disclosure fails to disclose the tubes parallel to the post. As shown in applicant’s Figs. 1-2, the first tube (24) and second tube (34) extend perpendicular to the post (1). It will be assumed that this is intended for the art rejection below.
Claims 2-3 depend from the above claim(s) and are rejected for the above reason as they do not cure the deficiency.
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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,181,822 to Allsop in view of US Patent 6,585,465 to Hammond and US Patent 7,419,076 to Grothues.
Regarding claim 1, Allsop discloses a skis and snowboards rack comprising: a post (134) adapted to be connected to a vehicle (Fig. 7), a first clamp unit (126) and a second clamp unit (130) respectively connected to the post; the first clamp unit including multiple pairs of first bars (144/146), a first space formed between each pair of the first bars (Fig. 7 – space between bars), multiple restriction members (tie downs 148) mounted to each pair of the first bars (Fig. 7); the second clamp unit including multiple pairs of second bars (180), a second space formed between each pair of the second bars (Fig. 7 – space between bars), the second spaces located corresponding to the first spaces, and an end bar (150) connected to the first clamp unit to close up the first spaces (Fig. 7); the first clamp unit including a first tube (138), the second clamp unit including a second tube (170); the post positioned between the first tube and the second tube such that the first tube and the second tube are on opposite sides of the post (Fig. 7 – 134 extends between tubes 138 and 170, and the tubes are on opposite vertical sides of the post); the multiple pairs of first bars are connected to the first tube, the multiple pairs of second bars are connected to the second tube (Figs. 7-8); wherein the first tube is physically separated from the second tube by the post positioned therebetween (Fig. 7), wherein the first bars extend from the first tube in a direction away from the post and the second bars extend from the second tube in a direction away from the post (Fig. 7). Allsop fails to disclose the restriction members being slidable. However, Hammond discloses tie downs that are slidably adjustable (see Fig. 1, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used slidable tie downs in Allsop because it would allow the user to adjust the anchor points for the securing strap as desired. Allsop discloses multiple end bars for the second clamp unit rather than a single end bar. However, elsewhere Allsop discloses a single end bar (150) for closing the holding spaces (Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a single end bar for the second clamp unit because doing so only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent end bar configuration (single end bar) for another (multiple individual end bars) to obtain predictable results. The combination fails to disclose the positioning plates and positioning members. However, Grothues discloses a vehicle carrier with a pivoting bar (4 – Figs. 9-10) including multiple positioning plates (12, 13) and multiple positioning members (14, 15 – Fig. 10) for securing the bar in position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Grothues’ pivoting design for the top and bottom clamp units in the combination because doing so only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent pivoting element for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the top clamp unit would pivot downward (as taught by Grothues Fig. 7) and the bottom clamp unit would pivot upward (as taught by Allsop Fig. 8) with both of the clamp units pivoting on the rear side (i.e. the side facing away from the vehicle) of the post using Grothues’ pivot mechanism. There would be two sets of pivoting plates for each clamp unit to interact with the two vertical bars (134 – Allsop). The combination discloses the first clamp unit including two first positioning plates (12, 13 – Grothues), the second clamp unit including two second positioning plates (12, 13 – Grothues), the post (134 – Allsop) connected between the two first positioning plates and the two second positioning plates (the post extends between and connects the first and second plates), each first positioning plate includes first bores defined through at least three corners thereof (see three bores through 12, 13 in Grothues), each second positioning plate includes second bores defined through at least three corners thereof (see three bores through 12, 13 in Grothues), two first positioning members (14, 15 – Grothues) extending through two of the three first bores of the at least three corners of each first positioning plates to secure the first positioning plates to the post, wherein the two first positioning members each extend through only one bore of the first positioning plates (each positioning member only passes through one hole in each plate); two second positioning members (14, 15 – Grothues) extending through two of the three second bores of the at least three corners of each second positioning plates to secure the second positioning plates to the post, wherein the two second positioning members each extend through only one bore of the second positioning plates (each positioning member only passes through one hole in each plate), wherein when removing one of the two first positioning members and one of the two second positioning members, the first positioning plates are pivotable about one of the first positioning members relative to the post, and the second positioning plates are pivotable about one of the second positioning members relative to the post (when 15 (Grothues) is removed, the plates are pivotable as claimed (going from Fig. 9 to Fig. 7, for example), wherein each first positioning member (14/15 – Grothues, in top plates in the combination) and each second positioning member (14/15 – Grothues, in bottom plates in the combination) are independent from each other and form structurally separate fastening elements with no shared components between them (the two sets of fastening elements are separate and do not share components), wherein each first positioning member connects exclusively to the first clamp unit (the top positioning members only connect to the first (top) clamp unit) and each second positioning member connects exclusively to the second clamp unit (the bottom positioning members only connect to the second (bottom) clamp unit), enabling one clamp unit to be individually pivoted or positionally adjusted without requiring movement of or affecting the structural configuration of the other clamp unit (the two clamp units are individually pivoted in the combination); wherein the two first positioning members do not pass through the second positioning plates and the two second positioning members do not pass through the first positioning plates (each set of positioning members passes through its own plates). To the extent it is in doubt that 138 or 170 (Allsop) are tubes, elsewhere Allsop discloses using tubes in the design (Col. 4, line 63, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used tubes for the structural members (at least for 138 and 170 – Allsop) in the configuration because it would provide strength while decreasing the weight of the assembly. In the combination, the two first positioning plates are connected to the first tube and the two second positioning plates are connected to the second tube (Allsop/Grothues) and the first tube structurally isolates the first bars from the second tube, and the second tube structurally isolates the second bars from the first tube, such that the first bars and second bars are mechanically decoupled from each other and operate independently through separate structural pathways defined by their respective tubes and positioning plates (Allsop Figs. 7-8 – the first (138) and second (170) tubes are independently operable through their respective positioning plates (Grothues)).
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allsop, Hammond and Grothues, further in view of US Published Application 2007/0194070 to Rash.
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose vertical alignment holes. However, Rash discloses a vehicle carrier including a post (35 – Fig. 6) that includes a first positioning section and a second positioning section, each of the first and second positioning section includes multiple holes (72, 82 – Fig. 6) arranged in a vertical alignment along a length of the post. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included multiple vertical alignment holes in Allsop because it would allow the rack to be vertically adjusted to hold objects of different lengths. In the combination, the multiple first and second positioning members (14, 15 – Grothues) extend through a portion of each of the first and second clamp units (through the plates 12, 13 – Grothues) and the holes (Rash) to connect the first and second clamp units to the post, wherein the first positioning section is vertically spaced from the second positioning section along the length of the post (Allsop Fig. 7 – the positioning sections would be vertically spaced along the post to secure 138 and 170).
Regarding claim 3, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein one of the two first bars of one pair of the first clamp unit includes a first pivotal end (at 152 – Fig. 7, Allsop), one of the two first bars of another one pair of the first clamp unit includes a first connection end (at 160 – Fig. 7, Allsop); one of the two second bars of one pair of the second clamp unit includes a second pivotal end (end similar to 152 (Allsop) – see claim 1 modification), one of the two second bars of another one pair of the second clamp unit includes a second connection end (end similar to 160 (Allsop) – see claim 1 modification); the end bars each have a pivotal portion (at 152 – Allsop) and an engaging portion (at 160 – Allsop), the pivotal portion is pivotably connected to the first/second pivotal end (portion of end bars 150 adjacent to 152 are pivotally attached to the respective clamp unit at 152), the engaging portion is detachably mounted to the first/second connection end (portion of end bars 150 adjacent to 160 are detachably mounted to the respective clamp unit at 160).
Regarding claim 5, the combination from claim 2 discloses wherein the first clamp unit includes the first tube (138 – Allsop) and two first positioning plates (12, 13 - Grothues) connected to the first tube, the multiple pairs of first bars are connected to the first tube (Allsop Fig. 7), the first positioning plates are pivotably connected to the first positioning section of the post by the multiple first positioning members (14, 15 – Grothues), wherein the first positioning plates are pivotable about one of the first positioning members (14 – Grothues) at one of the corners thereof (Grothues Fig. 10), wherein the first tube is positioned on a first side of the post and extends perpendicular to the post (Fig. 7 – 138 is on a top side of the post and extends as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, the combination from claim 5 discloses wherein the second clamp unit includes the second tube (170 – Allsop) and the two second positioning plates (12, 13 – Grothues (on lower clamp unit)) which are connected to the second tube (170 – Allsop), the multiple pairs of second bars are connected to the second tube (Allsop Fig. 7), the second positioning plates are pivotably connected to the second positioning section of the post by the multiple second positioning members (14, 15 – Grothues), wherein the second positioning plates are pivotable about one of the second positioning members (14 – Grothues) at one of the corners thereof (Grothues Fig. 10), wherein the second tube is positioned on a second side of the post opposite the first side and extends perpendicular to the post (Fig. 7 – 170 is on a bottom side of the post and extends as claimed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that Allsop’s tubes are not on opposite sides of the post (page 3 of arguments), the first tube 138 is on a top side of post 134, and the second tube 170 is on a bottom side of post 134, and the bars extend outward away from the post 134 on both sides (Fig. 7).
As to applicant’s argument that the combination lacks several elements (page 4 of arguments), the post is positioned between the two tubes (Allsop Fig. 7), the tubes are on opposite sides of the post (Allsop Fig. 7 – 138 is on top side, 170 is on bottom side), each tube has its own positioning plates (Allsop/Grothues), and the positioning members pass through their own plates (Allsop/Grothues).
As to applicant’s argument regarding the positioning members extending through only one plate (page 4-5 of arguments), see the Section 112(a) rejection. Regarding the positioning members only passing through their own plates, see the previous paragraph.
As to applicant’s argument that Grothues fails to disclose two clamp units (page 5 of arguments), in the Allsop/Grothues combination, the plates are for two clamp units.
As to applicant’s argument that Allsop fails to disclose the post separating the clamp units and the bars extending outward (page 7 of arguments), see Fig. 7 of Allsop.
As to applicant’s argument that the combination requires substantial structural redesign (page 8 of arguments), any modification necessarily requires some structural changes. Items 1 and 3-4 are in Allsop and do not require redesign. Item #2 (each positioning member extending through one plate) is not supported in the disclosure (see the Section 112(a) rejection above).
As to applicant’s argument that several items are added to the claims (pages 8-9 of arguments), the first, third and fourth items are in Allsop (see Fig. 7). The second item (positioning members extending through only one plate) is not supported in the disclosure (see the Section 112(a) rejection above).
As to applicant’s argument regarding Allsop’s disclosure of separate, structurally isolated bars (page 9 of arguments), Allsop discloses the listed items 1-4 and the positioning members only passing through their own plates (see responses above and the prior art rejection above).
As to applicant’s response to paragraph 12 – Independent Positioning Members (page 10 of arguments), see the responses above and the prior art rejection above).
As to applicant’s argument that the combination is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (page 11 of arguments), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the prior art discloses all of the claimed elements and the rejection provides proper rationale for making each combination.
As to applicant’s argument that the prior art teaches away from the combination (page 12 of arguments), the Allsop/Grothues combination simply takes Grothues pivot mechanism and implements it into Allsop’s pivoting rack. Applicant has not cited any portions from either reference that would teach away from this combination.
As to applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to achieve the stated objective (page 12 of arguments), see the prior art rejection above for a discussion of where each newly recited element is found in the prior art.
As to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention addresses a long-felt need and that others have failed at designing this rack (page 14), applicant is basically arguing that there is a long-felt need and that others have failed because the invention was not previously disclosed in a single reference (i.e. the rejection is not made under Section 102). This conclusion does not follow, as there are a variety of reasons that the claimed invention may not have been previously disclosed in a single reference. As to applicant’s argument regarding commercial success, the assertion at this point is mere argument without any support.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights