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 § 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, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 13-16, 18-20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higson (GB 2280410 A) in view of Sakai (US 9,440,696 B2), Ahn (KR 101937301 B1), and McCauley (US 3,116,836 A).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 24 Higson discloses a payload device capable of attaching to a host-bicycle and carrying a payload-bicycle (Figs. 1 and 2) or other cargo objects comprising: a back-section (4), a base (8), and payload-securing components; wherein the back-section comprises a vertically extending structure (Figs. 2, Item 4) and the base comprises a horizontally extending structure (Fig. 2, Item 8) and wherein a bottom edge of the back-section is adjacent to a back edge of the base; wherein the base comprises an elongated opening (formed between 82/84/86/88) shaped and dimensioned to accommodate a wheel of the payload bicycle (Fig. 1); and wherein the payload-securing components (62/68) are capable of removably attaching the wheel of the payload bicycle or other cargo objects to the device. Higson discloses the back-section comprises a vertically-extending tubular frame and the base comprises a horizontally-extending tubular frame (Fig. 2).
To the degree that Higson does not specifically disclose payload-securing components are configured to removably secure the wheel of the payload bicycle within the elongated opening or the payload-securing components comprise a first member having a first end attached to the base and a second end member having a first end attached to the back section, and wherein a second end of the first member is configured to removably attach to the second member.
Sakai demonstrates a rear cargo carrier including payload components configured to removably secure the cargo and comprise a first member (3) having a first end attached to a lowermost portion (1’) and a second end member (2) having a first end attached to a back section (1”), and wherein a second end of the first member is configured to removably attach to the second member (Fig. 5).
Ahn teaches a similar strap system shown to secure a circular piece of cargo (Fig. 5) and a lower strap attached to a base (110).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Higson and use the teaching of Sakai and Ahn and include a cargo securing strap system having a first and second parts attached to the base and back portion because such a change would help to further secure the bike wheel to the device thereby reducing the chances of the payload bicycle from becoming disconnected from the device. Further the strap system is capable of securing other types of cargo to the back section thereby making the device more versatile.
To the degree that it can be argued modified Higson and specifically Sakai does not specifically disclose the first end of the second member is slidably attached to the back section, Sakai demonstrates a connection between the first and second members is slidable allowing for adjustment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to take the modified device of Higson and slidably attach the first end of the back section in order to make said attachment adjustable. 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).
Modified Higson does not specifically disclose said elongated opening comprises front and back ends and wherein each of said front and back ends comprises a shape that is one of V-shaped, three-dimensional contoured, nested semi-circular or combinations thereof.
McCauley demonstrates a bicycle wheel support including an opening having a front and back ends each comprising a V-shaped end portion (14) to further secure to the bicycle wheel (Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilling the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Higson and include V-shaped end portions that more closely receive a tire therein to add additional support as demonstrated by McCauley.
Regarding claim 5, modified Higson discloses the base comprises angled support brackets (82/84 to the degree that 82/84 extend at an angle relative to the back portion).
Regarding claim 6, modified Higson discloses the elongated opening of the base extends diagonally at an angle relative to the bottom edge of the back-section at least to the degree that it includes a dimension extending along a diagonal line from the bottom edge of the back-section.
Regarding claim 8, modified Higson discloses the base (8) further comprises an integrated stabilizer support (88, noting the bar 88 will help stabilize the wheel in a lateral direction).
Regarding claim 10, modified Higson discloses a leading edge of the base is set back relative to the host-bicycle’s rear wheel axle (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Higson and specifically Sakai demonstrates the payload-securing components comprise one or more straps and one or more strap anchors (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, modified Higson discloses mounting components capable of removably attaching the payload device to the host bicycle (Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, modified Higson discloses the mounting components comprise a mounting bar (noting either 23, or B1) and wherein the mounting bar is capable of attaching to a location of the host-bicycle and wherein said location comprises one of a seat stay (Figs. 1 and 3) or chainstay (Fig. 1 noting B is attached at a distal end of the chainstay).
Regarding claim 15, modified Higson discloses the mounting components are capable of attaching the back-section to a location of the host-bicycle and wherein said location comprises one of a seat stay (Figs. 1 and 3) or chainstay (Fig. 1 noting B is attached at a distal end of the chainstay).
Regarding claim 16, modified Higson discloses the mounting components comprise a mounting U-bar (Fig. 3, noting the shape of frame 2, whereby 23 is the central part of the U) and wherein the mounting U-bar is capable of attaching to a location of the host- bicycle and wherein said location comprises seat stay (Fig. 1, via connector “A”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Higson discloses the mounting components comprise one or more of a handle (22/21 noting the elongated bar shaped portions are capable of being grabbed and manipulated by a user and is thereby considered a handle).
Regarding claim 19, modified Higson does not specifically disclose the back-section comprises components integrated on a back-section surface and wherein said integrated components comprise at least one of tracks, slots and wherein said tracks extend horizontally, vertically, or arcwise and wherein said slots comprise one of linear shapes, arc shapes, U-shapes, circular shapes, oval shapes, cross-shapes, or H-shapes.
Ahn further demonstrates a similar device including a base and a back section, where the back-section comprises components integrated on a back-section surface and wherein said integrated components comprise at least one of tracks (127), slots (126) and wherein said tracks extend horizontally and said slots comprise one of linear shapes (along an extended axis), arc shapes, U-shapes, circular shapes (noting the generally circular end of the track that is shaped in an arc, curved portion of a U, and at least semicircular, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Higson and use the teaching of Ahn and include tracks and slots integrated on a back section surface because such a change would allow for adjustable attachment of sections of the back relative to one another and/or to the attachment portions thereby allowing the device to be more versatile and adjustable and be usable in more situations and with different sized bikes/cargo.
Regarding claim 20, modified Higson discloses a bicycle rack (21/22/23/24, to the degree that objects can be attached thereto) mountable over a wheel of the host-bicycle (Fig. 1) and wherein the back-section (4) is mounted to the bicycle rack (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higson (GB 2280410 A) in view of Sakai (US 9,440,696 B2), Ahn (KR 101937301 B1), and McCauley (US 3,116,836 A) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Smedlund (SE 455856 B).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, modified Higson does not specifically disclose the back-section comprises a vertically-extending flat board and the base comprises a horizontally-extending flat board, wherein the back-section further comprises a sheet connected to the tubular frame.
Smedlund teaches the ability to have a carrier device attachable to bicycle including a tubular frame (Fig, 1, Item 1) as well as a vertically-extending flat board (8) back section, and a base comprising a horizontally-extending flat board (5) connected to the tubular frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Higson and use the teaching of Smedlund and include flat board portions extending vertically and horizontally over at least a portion of the vertically extending and horizontally extending tubular frame portions because such a change would help to allow the device to more securely attach cargo other than a bicycle to the host bicycle. Such a change would allow the device to be more useful when the a user does not need to transport a bicycle.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higson (GB 2280410 A) in view of Sakai (US 9,440,696 B2), Ahn (KR 101937301 B1), and McCauley (US 3,116,836 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frick (DE 10104958 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Higson does not specifically disclose the base is hingably connected to the back-section and foldable toward the back-section.
Frick teaches the ability to have a similar carrier including a back section (1) and a base (2), where the base is hingedly connected to the back section at (5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Higson and hingedly attach the base to the back portion because such a change would allow the base to be folded upward and aligned with the back section thereby creating a smaller profile when the device is not in use as demonstrated by Frick.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higson (GB 2280410 A) in view of Sakai (US 9,440,696 B2), Ahn (KR 101937301 B1), and McCauley (US 3,116,836 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shockley (US 4,295,586 A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Higson does not specifically disclose the back-section is foldable along one or more locations.
Shockley demonstrates the ability to have a rack for a bicycle including a back section (27/54/60) that is foldable/collapsible along an axis extending through pin (55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Higson and hingedly attach the elongated members of the back portion to one another such that they can fold to a collapsed configuration in order to allow the device to take up less space when not in use as demonstrated by Shockley.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higson (GB 2280410 A) in view of Sakai (US 9,440,696 B2), Ahn (KR 101937301 B1), and McCauley (US 3,116,836 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crowther (GB 2310175 A).
Regarding claim 12, modified Higson does not specifically disclose the payload-securing components comprise a fork catcher, or a tip-prevention nub.
Crowther teaches a similar bicycle towing device attached to a host bicycle and including a fork catcher in the form of a clamp (Page 2, Lines 8-11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Higson and use the teaching of Crowther and include a clamp to catch and hold the fork of the towed bicycle because such a change would help to ensure that the towed bicycle does not accidently become disconnected from the carrier, which could cause damage to either bike or create a dangerous situation.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higson (GB 2280410 A) in view of Sakai (US 9,440,696 B2), Ahn (KR 101937301 B1), and McCauley (US 3,116,836 A) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Rosser (GB 2388555 A).
Regarding claim 17, modified Higson teaches mounting components but does not specifically disclose one or more latches, a catch, a latch-rail and a catch-rail and wherein the latch-rail and catch-rail are mounted on a back surface of the back-section and the one or more latches and the catch are slidably mounted to the latch-rail and catch-rail, respectively.
Rosser teaches the ability to have a similar device attached to a bicycle as well as the ability to replace a threaded attachment with latches (Page 6, Ll. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Higson and use the teaching of Rosser and replace the threaded clamping attachment portions with latches because such a change would allow for an easier and faster attachment and detachment. Additionally, such a change would have required a mere choice of one known suitable removable attachment device for another and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higson (GB 2280410 A) in view of Sakai (US 9,440,696 B2), Ahn (KR 101937301 B1), and McCauley (US 3,116,836 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Record (EP 0825100 A2).
Regarding claim 21, modified Higson does not specifically disclose further comprising a tip-prevention strap having a first end connectable to the payload-bicycle and a second end connectable to the host-bicycle.
Record demonstrates the ability to have a payload bicycle (2) towed by a host bicycle (1) as well as a tip-prevention strap (69, to the degree that a tight strap will prevent tipping) having a first end connectable to the payload-bicycle (2) and a second end connectable to the host-bicycle (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Higson and use the teaching of Record and include a strap extending between the host bicycle and the payload bicycle because such a change would further secure the bicycles to one another and help to prevent accidental separation thereof.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higson (GB 2280410 A) in view of Ahn (KR 101937301 B1), Crowther (GB 2310175 A), and McCauley (US 3,116,836 A).
Regarding claim 22, Higson discloses a payload device capable of attaching to a host-bicycle and carrying a payload-bicycle (Fig. 1) or other cargo objects comprising: a back-section (42/44/46), a base (8), and payload-securing components (62/68); wherein the back-section comprises a vertically extending structure and the base comprises a horizontally extending structure (Figs. 1 and 2) and wherein a bottom edge of the back- section is adjacent to a back edge of the base (Fig. 2); wherein the base comprises an elongated opening shaped and sized to engage a wheel of the payload bicycle (Figs. 1 and 5).
Higson does not specifically disclose the payload-securing components are capable of removably attaching the wheel of the payload bicycle or other cargo objects to the back-section and base.
Ahn teaches a cargo carrier attached to a rear section of a bicycle including an elongated opening having payload securing components (130/132) capable of removably attaching round cargo objects to the back section and the base (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Higson and use the teaching of Ahn and include payload securing straps in order to allow the carrier to more securely attach a circular cargo held thereon and further secure said cargo.
Modified Higson generally demonstrates the carrier supporting a wheel of a similar size as the host bicycle, but does not specifically disclose the opening sized to fit wheel having a diameter within the range of 12 inches to 29 inches.
Crowther demonstrates a carrier for transporting a bicycle including the ability to have adjustable portions to accommodate different wheel sizes (Page 9, Ll. 11-21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Higson and use the teaching of Crowther and configure it such that the opening can change in size to accommodate wheels of different sizes because such a change would allow the device to be usable with more bicycles thereby increasing its versatility. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the opening fit a wheel having a diameter within the range of 12 inches to 29 inches because such a change would have required a mere finding of a suitable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Modified Higson does not specifically disclose said elongated opening comprises front and back ends and wherein each of said front and back ends comprises a shape that is one of V-shaped, three-dimensional contoured, nested semi-circular or combinations thereof.
McCauley demonstrates a bicycle wheel support including an opening having a front and back ends each comprising a V-shaped end portion (14) to further secure to the bicycle wheel (Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilling the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Higson and include V-shaped end portions that more closely receive a tire therein to add additional support as demonstrated by McCauley.
Regarding claim 23, Higson discloses a leading edge of the base is set back relative to the host-bicycle’s rear wheel axle (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higson (GB 2280410 A) in view of McCauley (US 3,116,836 A).
Regarding claim 25, Higson discloses a payload device capable of attaching to a host-bicycle and carrying a payload-bicycle or other cargo objects comprising:
a back-section (42/44), a base (8), and payload-securing components (62/68), wherein the back-section comprises a vertically extending structure and the base comprises a horizontally extending structure (Fig. 2) and wherein a bottom edge of the back-section is adjacent to a back edge of the base, wherein the base comprises an elongated opening shaped and dimensioned to accommodate a wheel of the payload bicycle (Figs. 1 and 5) and wherein said elongated opening comprises front and back ends and wherein each of said front and back ends are V-shaped.
Higson does not specifically disclose said elongated opening comprises front and back ends and wherein each of said front and back ends are V-shaped.
McCauley demonstrates a bicycle wheel support including an opening having a front and back ends each comprising a V-shaped end portion (14) to further secure to the bicycle wheel (Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilling the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Higson and include V-shaped end portions that more closely receive a tire therein to add additional support as demonstrated by McCauley.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding portion A. Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose “said elongated opening comprises front and back ends and wherein each of said front and back ends comprises a shape that is one of a V-shaped, three-dimensional contoured, nested semi-circular or combination thereof”. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting the McCauley reference is considered to teach a wheel support including an opening with ends comprising a shape that is V-shaped. Examiner notes that flanges 14 are situated and form end portions of a wheel supporting opening. Examiner notes that portions 14 form a V-shape (noting Fig. 2). Examiner notes that the claim language does not require or restrict the V-shape or other shapes to be fixed along a single plane. Examiner notes that the flanges of McCauley define the shape of the ends of the opening as they define the space in which a wheel is accepted. Examiner notes that the flanges of McCauley will accommodate sizes of wheels/tires up to a maximum usable width that is not capable of fitting between the points of the flange portions. Examiner notes that the additional structure of McCauley would add some degree of stability as well as a level of centering the wheel within the opening over the significantly rectangular shaped opening of Higson. Examiner notes that the features of the direction of forces and yaw prevention are not positively claimed.
Regarding portion B. Applicant argues that there is no reason given in Higson, or Ahn, or Sakai, or McCauley, that would indicate that there is a need to further modify the modified Higson with McCauley in order to add additional support. Examiner notes the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).”
In response to Applicant' s argument that the Examiner' s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, 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. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding portion C. Applicant argues that there is no indication that McCauley’s stand could secure a moving bicycle when combined with Higson. Examiner notes that the device of McCauley is not intended to be bodily incorporated into the device of Higson, rather, McCauley is relied on to teach the ability to have V-Shaped end portions of a similar wheel securing opening (in the form of portions 14 of McCauley). V-shaped end portions similar to those of McCauley would help to secure and center the wheel within the opening. Examiner notes that the V-shaped portion would be made to accommodate at least the width of a wheel that the width of the opening could secure. Examiner notes that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to weigh the pros and cons of a known additional feature such as the McCauley flanges.
Regarding portion D. Examiner notes that the U-shaped wheel support portion of McCauley is not relied on, and that the V-shaped flanges are separate therefrom. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to utilize the features of the flanges 14 without the need for incorporating every feature of the McCauley device.
Regarding portion E. Applicant argues that the V-flanges also require a V-shaped trough. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner again notes one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to utilize the features of the flanges 14 without the need for incorporating every feature of the McCauley device. Examiner notes that modifying the device of Higson to include the front and rear portions of the opening to include V-shaped flanges would change the contact portions from a significantly single contact point at the front and rear along portions 84 an 82, to contacting two edges at the front and two edges at the back (noting each edge of the V-shaped bracket). Further one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to choose the appropriately sized (thickness) of the sheet material of the flanges 14 such that they would not damage a bicycle wheel/tire.
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 MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734