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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/6/2025 has been entered.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 13, 15, and 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Berkich (US 5476301).
Berkich discloses a vehicle rack comprising:(a) a pair of laterally spaced lateral members (110, 116); (b) a pair of longitudinally spaced apart crossmembers (30s) extending transversely relative to the lateral members, wherein the crossmember is configurable in a first configuration and a second configuration; and (c) first and second pairs of laterally spaced apart legs (S) configured for connection to at least one of the lateral member and the crossmember (see Fig. 5); wherein in the first configuration, the crossmember is releasably secured to the leg (dashed line installation of 30 shown in Fig. 5) wherein in the second configuration, the crossmember is mounted to the lateral member and is movable along a longitudinal axis of the lateral member (other installation of 30 shown in Fig. 5), and wherein the lateral member has a top surface and the crossmember has another top surface, wherein the top surface of the lateral member is in a same plane as the top surface of the crossmember to form a substantially planar uppermost surface of the vehicle rack in the first and second configurations (see Figs. 3, 4, 5).
Berkich further discloses the lateral member includes a first channel and the crossmember is secured to the first channel of the lateral member (Fig. 5); the lateral member, the crossmember, or both each include interconnected faces, and at least a portion of the interconnected faces include a channel therein (Fig. 5, between 114, 115); the lateral member, the crossmember, or both include a cavity extending at least partially along a length of the lateral member, the crossmember, or both (Fig. 5, between 114, 115).
Berkich further discloses the crossmember is defined between two opposing terminal ends, and one of the two opposing terminal ends faces an inner surface of the lateral member or a mounting plate that is attached to the inner surface of the lateral member (Fig. 5); the leg has a leg top surface in the same plane as the top surface of the lateral member and the top surface of the crossmember (Figs. 3, 4, 5); the leg includes a first side face and a second side face orthogonal to the first side face, and in the first condition, the crossmember is secured to the second side face (Fig. 5, dashed line installation of 30).
Berkich further discloses wherein a first lateral member of the pair of lateral members is connected to a first leg of the first pair of legs and a first leg of the second pair of legs, and a second lateral member of the pair of lateral members is connected to a second leg of the first pair of legs and a second leg of the second pair of legs, wherein at least one crossmember of the pair of crossmembers is configurable in a first configuration and a second configuration, wherein, in a first configuration, the at least one crossmember is releasably connected to the first pair of legs or the second pair of legs, and wherein, in the second configuration, the at least one crossmember is slidably connected to the pair of lateral members (see Figs. 3, 4, 5); and top surfaces of the pair of lateral members, the pair of crossmembers, the first pair of legs and the second pair of legs are coplanar (see Fig. 5).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkich (US 5476301) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Petty (US 11577637).
Regarding claim 3, Berkich discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the mounting plate as claimed.
However, Petty teaches a similar device wherein a mounting plate (174) is positioned between a distal-most end of a crossmember (110B) and the first channel of a lateral member to secure the crossmember (112B, 116B).
Because Berkich and Petty both teach attachment mechanisms for crossbars on vehicle racks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the mounting plate with bolts taught by Petty for the bolts alone taught by Berkich to attach the Berkich crossbar to the lateral member as taught by Petty.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkich (US 5476301) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Leitner (US 2016/0059906).
Regarding claims 4-6, Berkich discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the panel and channel details as claimed.
However, Leitner teaches a vehicle rack which includes a panel mounted to the lateral member (130, 132, 134), and the panel is configured to secure an accessory; the panel includes a mounting opening to secure the panel to a second channel of the lateral member via a fastener (Fig. 5, bolts shown through 166), wherein the first channel is located on a first face of the lateral member and the second channel is located on a second face of the lateral member, and the first face and the second face are on opposite sides of the lateral member (see Figs. 1-4); the panel includes a first flange (166) that abuts the lateral member, and the fastener extends through a mounting hole of the first flange to secure the panel to a second channel of the lateral member (Fig. 5, bolts shown through 166), wherein the first face is an inboard side of the lateral member and the second face is an outboard side of the lateral member (see Figs. 1-4) 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 panel taught by Berkich to the rack taught by Moore as modified above, in order to allow accessories to carry additional contents as taught by Leitner (para 0044).
Regarding claim 8, Berkich discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the leg details as claimed.
However, Leitner teaches a vehicle rack comprising a cover (116, 118) that at least partially encloses an inner cavity of the leg (space between 110 and 108), wherein the leg is defined by an inner leg surface (110) and an outer leg surface (108).
Because Berkich and Leitner both teach tubular framework structures for vehicle racks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the legs as detailed above taught by Leitner for the simple tubing taught by Berkich to achieve the predictable result of securely attaching the rack to the vehicle.
Claim(s) 10, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkich (US 5476301) as applied to claims 1, 13, and 15 above, and further in view of Reyes (US 2022/0219765).
Regarding claim 10, Berkich discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the base and fastener as claimed.
However, Reyes teaches a similar truck rack wherein the leg includes a base and a fastener to mount the vehicle rack to a cargo box of a vehicle, wherein the fastener extends upwardly through the base to connect the leg to the cargo box (Figs. 2A, 2B);
Because Berkich and Reyes both teach attachment mechanisms for support legs on vehicle racks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the mounting plate and fastener taught by Reyes for the fastening system taught by Berkich to attach the Berkich uprights to the cargo box as taught by Reyes.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Berkich discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the inward extending opposing flanges as claimed.
However, Reyes teaches a similar truck rack wherein the attachment channel includes opposing flanges that extend inward towards one another (Fig. 10); and the cavity includes a boss adapted to receive a fastener (Fig. 10) as claimed.
Because Berkich and Reyes both teach attachment mechanisms for crossbars on vehicle racks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the channel shape with boss taught by Reyes for the open channel and bolts taught by Berkich to attach the Berkich crossbar to the lateral member as taught by Reyes.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkich (US 5476301) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Richardson et al. (US 9914403, hereinafter ‘Richardson’).
Berkich discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the mounting plate and leg particulars as claimed.
However, Richardson teaches attaching a leg to a vehicle via a mounting plate (50) that is connected to the leg by a bolt (45); the vehicle rack is secured to a cargo box of a vehicle by positioning the mounting plate within a stake pocket of the cargo box and positioning an upper surface of the cargo box between the leg of the vehicle rack and the mounting plate (see Fig. 4) as claimed.
Because Berkich and Richardson both teach attaching tubular framework structures to vehicles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the plate/bolt attachment structure as detailed above taught by Richardson for the simple square tubing and bolt taught by Berkich to achieve the predictable result of securely attaching the rack to the vehicle.
When viewed in combination, Berkich further results in a device wherein vehicle rack comprises a mounting plate and the leg comprises a cavity, wherein the bolt is configured to be tightened within the cavity to connect the leg to the cargo box, wherein a bed cap and/or top surface of the cargo box are sandwiched between the leg and the mounting plate, and wherein the vehicle rack is attached to a cargo box of the vehicle by positioning the leg over a stake pocket of the cargo box, positioning the mounting plate within the stake pocket, and extending the fastener through the mounting plate and into the leg (see Berkich Fig. 5; Richardson Figs. 3, 4).
Claim(s) 20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkich (US 5476301) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 6179181, hereinafter ‘Johnson’).
Berkich discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the cross members being telescoping as claimed.
However, Johnson teaches a crossmember includes an inner crossmember (12) positioned within a channel of an outer crossmember (11) so that a width of the crossmember can be adjusted.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the Berkich crossbars as telescoping crossbars as taught by Johnson, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
When viewed in combination, Berkich results in a device which teaches the rack comprises a plate that slidably engages the lateral member, the plate comprises an inner crossmember that slidably extends into an inside of the crossmember, wherein the crossmember slidably engages the inner crossmember to adjust a width of the vehicle rack (Johnson 11, 12); and wherein the plate slidably engages the lateral member to adjust a position of the crossmember relative to the lateral member (see Berkich Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkich (US 5476301) in view of Reyes (US 2022/0219765) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Richardson et al. (US 9914403, hereinafter ‘Richardson’).
Berkich as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the mounting plate and leg particulars as claimed.
However, Richardson teaches attaching a leg to a vehicle via a mounting plate (50) that is connected to the leg by a bolt (45); the vehicle rack is secured to a cargo box of a vehicle by positioning the mounting plate within a stake pocket of the cargo box and positioning an upper surface of the cargo box between the leg of the vehicle rack and the mounting plate (see Fig. 4) as claimed.
Because Berkich as modified above and Richardson both teach attaching tubular framework structures to vehicles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the plate/bolt attachment structure as detailed above taught by Richardson for the simple square tubing and bolt taught by Reyes to achieve the predictable result of securely attaching the rack to the vehicle.
When viewed in combination, Berkich as modified above further results in a device wherein vehicle rack comprises a mounting plate and the leg comprises a cavity, wherein the bolt is configured to be tightened within the cavity to connect the leg to the cargo box, wherein a bed cap and/or top surface of the cargo box are sandwiched between the leg and the mounting plate, and wherein the vehicle rack is attached to a cargo box of the vehicle by positioning the leg over a stake pocket of the cargo box, positioning the mounting plate within the stake pocket, and extending the fastener through the mounting plate and into the leg (see Berkich Fig. 5; Richardson Figs. 3, 4).
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkich (US 5476301) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rakow (US D519440).
Berkich discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above and further including the lateral member comprises a first face, a second face arranged substantially orthogonal to the first face, a third face arranged substantially orthogonal to the first face, and a fourth face and each of the first face, the second face, the third face, and the fourth face comprise longitudinally extending C-shaped channels (see Figs. 3, 4) except does not expressly disclose the fourth face being non-orthogonal as claimed.
However, Rakow teaches a similar extrusion rail wherein one of the faces is arranged at a substantially non-orthogonal angle (Fig. 1) as claimed.
Because Berkich and Rakow both teach tubular rail structures for vehicles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the non-orthogonal face as detailed above taught by Rakow for one of the orthogonal faces taught by Berkich to achieve the predictable result of providing secure attachment points along the channels of the rail faces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
February 8, 2026