DETAILED ACTION
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 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2586992 to Joly in view of US Patent 10,227,097 to Smith, US Published Application 2024/0149959 to Miles and Youtube.com (NPL #1).
Regarding claim 1, Joly discloses a device for carrying a spare tire on the rear of a vehicle (see figures, solid lines), the device comprising: a tire assembly (1, 2) coupled to said vehicle and having a support arm frame (1) and a tire carrier frame (2); said assembly shaped to enclose said tire and having an open position (with tire bracket open) and a closed position (with tire bracket closed); a securing mechanism (15, 16) for securing said assembly in said closed position; a pivot member (12) for opening said assembly to said open position. Joly fails to disclose attaching the device to a vehicle rear gate. However, Smith discloses that it is known to reinforce a tailgate and attach a tire bracket to the tailgate (abstract, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have attached the tire assembly to a tailgate because it only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable vehicles and locations to attach a tire assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have reinforced the tailgate to provide structural support, as taught by Smith (see abstract, for example). In the combination, the pivot member is positioned to allow full access of said gate regardless of tire assembly position (the gate can be swung open or closed regardless of the position of the tire assembly). The combination fails to disclose a speed control device. However, Miles discloses a tire carrier including a speed control device (171, 172 – Fig. 12) affixed to both a support arm frame (stationary frame 155) and a tire carrier frame (movable frame 141/144), said device controlling a speed of opening of said assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a speed control device between the support arm frame and the tire carrier frame in the combination to bias the tire carrier frame toward the stowed position, as taught by Miles (para. 0100). One of ordinary skill would have been able to make minor modifications to the shape of the frames to allow for attachment of the speed control device, as they are also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). However, to the extent there is any doubt, Youtube discloses that it is known to extend the frame farther around the tire (see screenshot), which would allow for attachment of the speed control device.
Regarding claim 3, Joly discloses wherein said securing mechanism secures said support arm frame to said tire carrier frame (see figures).
Regarding claim 4, Joly discloses wherein said support arm frame and said tire carrier frame are pivotally connected (at 12).
Regarding claim 5, the combination from claim 1 discloses a gate support assembly (200 – Smith).
Regarding claim 6, Joly discloses wherein said support arm frame includes an extending arm (bottom of 1 adjacent 12) whereby said pivot member is positioned near an extending arm end (see figures).
Regarding claim 7, Joly discloses wherein said tire assembly contacts an underlying support surface when open (lower right figure, with tire assembly swung open).
Regarding claim 8, Joly discloses wherein said securing means is near a top of said assembly and said pivot member is near a bottom of said assembly (see figures).
Regarding claim 9, Joly discloses wherein said device has a center of gravity that urges said assembly in said closed position (see figures – with 2 nearing a closed position, the center of gravity of the assembly will urge the device closed).
Regarding claim 10, Joly discloses a stop member (bracket 11) that stops the pivoting of the assembly (bracket at 11 contacts the lower portion of 1 when the tire assembly is opened to stop pivoting).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose the new language from claim 1 (page 1 of arguments), see the new rejection above based in part on Miles.
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 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