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
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 now includes limitations requiring the caps to be formed at the opposite ends of the bar, however this limitation is not support by the disclosure as originally filed. The only mention of the caps in the specification is that “the bar includes two caps” and “the bar 13 includes two caps 14…” There is no mention of the caps being formed as part of the bar at either end thereof. In fact, the drawings themselves appear to show the opposite, with the caps being separated attached, pivotable elements attached to the bar, not elements formed therein.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2010/0230455) in view of Purdy et al. (US 2022/0073007, hereinafter ‘Purdy’), Holliday (US 5129559), and Harnetiaux (US 2006/0180063.
Wang discloses a bike carrier assembly comprising: a connection unit adapted to be connected to a vehicle (10-31), an adaptor (30) connected to the connection unit, the adaptor being a U-shaped tube having two open ends and including multiple first holes (34); a bar (302 farthest from hinge 31 meets scope of being a ‘bar’) connected between the two ends of the U-shaped tube capable of reinforcing a strength of the adaptor (functional recitation); at least one bike carrier (302 closest to hinge 31) selectively connected to the adaptor, wherein the bike carrier includes multiple second holes (304), multiple locking members (307) extend through the second holes and the first holes to connect the bike carrier to the adaptor; except does not expressly disclose the bar having an I-shaped cross section or the caps as claimed.
However, Purdy teaches constructing a bicycle rack and its components out of I-shaped cross section (para 0067) as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to construct the bicycle rack and its components including the bar taught by Wang out of an I-shaped cross section material as taught by Purdy, in order to reduce weight and minimize noise and vibration at high speeds as taught by Purdy (para 0067).
Additionally, Holliday teaches providing cargo carrier tubing with end caps (28) as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the end caps taught by Holliday to the tubing taught by Wang, in order to provide a smooth, finished end thereto as taught by Holliday (col. 3, ll. 53-57).
Finally, Harnetiaux teaches tethering an end cap (98) to another portion of a device frame via a strap (100).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to tether the end caps taught by Holliday to the bar taught by Wang as modified above via a tether as taught by Harnetiaux, in order to prevent losing the cap when not in use as taught by Harnetiaux.
When viewed in combination, Wang as modified above results in a device wherein the bar, together with the two caps formed at the two opposite ends thereof, connects between and spans the two open ends of the U-shaped tube as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Wang teaches away from the claimed rigid reinforcing bar due to its adjustability/pivoting. This argument has been considered, however is not persuasive in light of Wang’s pivoting functionality being fully in tact with its bar (302) installed.
A teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize,
Applicant is reminded that “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”KSR, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
All of applicant’s arguments are based on piecemeal analysis of the references used in the rejection above, not the combination of modified references set forth above which does teach the claimed I-shaped bar with caps at either end.
For the reasons stated above as well as those set forth in the rejections above, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm EST.
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.
/PETER N HELVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights