DETAILED ACTION
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) 1,3-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duschkewitz (Machine Translation of EP 1099597 A1 and Original Patent Provided in present OA) in view of Czichos (Machine Translation and Original Patent DE 20313915-U1 provided in present OA)
Regarding claim 1, Duschkewitz teaches a bicycle carrier 1 (Fig 1) [for towing a second bicycle behind a first bicycle] (“The invention relates to a device for towing a second bicycle behind a first bicycle,” para 1 ), the bicycle carrier comprising:
An arm 18,19 (Fig 1) [for pivotal attachment to a wheel-carrying part of the first bicycle] (“A tension strut 18 is also screwed to the carrier plate 9, at the end of which strut there is an eyelet 19 in which a hook mounted on the first bicycle” para 0019),
a carrier base 3 (Fig 1) having carrier wheels 24,25 (Fig 1) and adapted to carry a wheel 26 (Fig 1) of the second bicycle 2 , [the carrier base 3 being articulated to the arm 18 (Fig 1) at ends thereof remote from the pivotal attachment 19] (“On the front end 8 of the U-shaped profile 3 in the direction of travel 7, a carrier plate 9 is fastened to its underside.” Para 0017 and “A tension strut 18 is also screwed to the carrier plate 9, at the end of which strut there is an eyelet 19 in which a hook mounted on the first bicycle,” para 0019), and
a clamping arrangement 4,12,13,14 (Fig 1) [including at least one elongate member 12,13 attached to the carrier base for clamping the wheel 26 of the second bicycle 2 in place on the base 3] (“For towing, the second bicycle 2 is first placed with both wheels 26 into the U-shaped profile 3... The pivotable boom 4 is pivoted into the position shown by dashed lines in the figure. The clamping jaws 14, 15 are placed against the inclined central strut 16 and the adjusting screw 17 is tightened with the hand wheel.” para 0021). The at least one elongate member comprising first and second elongate members 12,13 (Fig 1) arranged [at an acute angle to each other] (Fig 1 shows the elongated members positioned at an acute angle between one another) , [between which the wheels 26 of the second bicycle 2 can be inserted and clamped] (Fig 1 shows phantom lines where the elongated members 12 and 13 clamp around the first wheel 26 of the bicycle); and the at least one elongate member 12,13 (Fig 1) is at least one strut pivotable 11 (Fig 1) with respect to the base 3 (Fig 1) [ for securing the base to a frame of the second bicycle 2 ](“ Angled sections 11 of the carrier plate 9 are connected in articulated fashion to the arms 12, 13 forming the pivotable extension arm 4.” para 0017-Fig 1 shows the articulated plates 11 having a pin that connects to the elongated members 12 and 13 ), and the one strut 12,13 (Fig 1) is foldable against the base (Fig 1 shows phantom lines for members 12 and 13 that are attached to the base 3 via pins and pivot point 11 that rest against the base 3), the struts have jaws 14 and 15 (Fig 1) for clamping the frame 16 (Fig 1) of the second bicycle (“At the end side remote from the joint, the arms 12, 13 merge into trough-shaped clamping jaws 14, 15, the radius of which approximately corresponds to the radius of the central strut 16 of the tube frame of the second bicycle 2.” para 0018).
Duschkewitz does not a first and second arm for pivotal attachment to a first bicycle, and the base being securable to a frame of the first bicycle such that the base can be carried above a rear wheel of the first bicycle when the carrier is not in use.
Czichos teaches an equivalent trailer mechanism with a [first and second arm 3 (Fig 3) for pivotal attachment to a first bicycle 11 (Fig 1)] (“The arms 3 of the trailer 1 consist of aluminium angle with movable joints 2 and 7.” pg 1 para 5 ), and the base 1 (Fig 4) being securable to a frame of the first bicycle 11 (Fig 4) [such that the base can be carried above a rear wheel of the first bicycle when the carrier is not in use] (Fig 4 shows the carrier system in a collapsed and partially extended state (phantom lines). The carrier is collapsed and supported by the bicycle frame 11 and rests on elements 5 (see Figs 3 and 4 for an expanded view of the carrier) ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the folding carrier arms of Czichos with the bicycle carrier of Duschkewitz with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for additional structural support when connecting to the first bicycle. By using a pair of arms instead of a single arm, the pair of arms provide additional stability on both sides of the first bicycle. Further, the
collapsing mechanism taught by Czichos makes the bicycle carrier easier to store away when not in use and will not impede the driving of the first bicycle.
Regarding claim 3, Duschkewitz and Czichos fully teach the bicycle carrier according to claim 1, wherein the at least one elongate member comprises first and second elongate members arranged at an acute angle to each other, between which the wheels of the second bicycle can be inserted and clamped (See modification of Duschkewitz in view of Czichos in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Duschkewitz and Czichos fully teach the at least one elongate member is at least one strut pivotable with respect to the base for securing the base to a frame of the second bicycle (See modification of Duschkewitz in view of Czichos in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Duschkewitz and Czichos fully teach the at least one strut is foldable against the base (See modification of Duschkewitz in view of Czichos in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Duschkewitz and Czichos fully teach the elongated members including two of said struts, provided with jaws for clamping the frame of the second bicycle (See modification of Duschkewitz in view of Czichos in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Duschkewitz and Czichos disclose the claimed invention except for the base is detachable from the two arms. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to make the base separable from the two arms, since it has been held that making invention components separable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348. See also that Czichos discloses the arms 3 (Fig 3) being separable from the cart 12 (Fig 3) via bolts 8 (Fig 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duschkewitz and Czichos in further view of Zlotkowski (US 20060066075 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Duschkewitz and Czichos teach the clamping arrangement of claim 1.
Duschkewitz and Czichos do not teach the clamping arrangement comprises a clip and a spring arranged to urge the clip against the wheel of the second bicycle.
Zlotkowski teaches an equivalent clamping mechanism 46b’-46d’ (Figs 8 and 9) comprising a clip 46b’ (Fig 8) and a spring 46d’ (Fig 8) [arranged to urge the clip against the wheel of the second bicycle] (“… the upper section 46b' is telescoped into the fixed lower posts by spring biased pins or detents 46c' which selectively extend through openings 46d'. The upper section may be removed to allow a front wheel of a towed bicycle to be placed in the cradle and then inserted and lowered into posts 46a' to lock the wheel in place.” (emphasis added) para 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the clamping spring mechanism of Zlotkowski with the bicycle carrier of Duschkewitz and Czichos with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a spring force to the clamping element to further support the wheel of the bicycle. By using a spring element to clamp a clip element onto a wheel as taught by Zlotkowski, the clamping force is biased from the spring element and is less likely to have the clamp separate from the wheel due to forces applied from the environment while the bicycle is being towed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duschkewitz and Czichos in further view of Lee (GB 2374323 Original Patent Provided in present OA).
Regarding claim 7, Duschkewitz and Czichos teach the bicycle carrier of having first and second arms.
Duschkewitz and Czichos do not teach the first and second arms being telescopic.
Lee teaches an equivalent carrier (Fig 3) having an equivalent attachment arm 11 (Fig 3) that is telescopic (“The member 11 is curved in an arc of substantially-constant radius, and is telescopic in that it includes an inner tube 12 which is attached to the coupling 10 and which slides in and out within a longer, outer tube 13.” pg 3 line 34 – pg 4 line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the telescopic arm of Lee with the bicycle carrier arms of Duschkewitz and Czichos with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a simple way to adjust the length of the carrier to fit different sizes of towed bicycles. By making the arms telescopic, the carrier can be adjusted to accommodate different sizes of bicycles and can be collapsed to a smaller form factor when not in use.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duschkewitz and Czichos in further view of Pottorff (US 3997186 A).
Regarding claim 8, Duschkewitz and Czichos fully teach the carrier of claim 1.
Duschkewitz and Czichos do not teach first and second arms are articulated to the base via a transverse bar.
Pottorff teaches an equivalent motorcycle carrier device (Fig 5) with first and second arms 44 (Figs 5 and 6) [are articulated to a base 36 (Fig 5) via a transverse bar 39 (Fig 5 and 6)] (“The main frame 36 of trailer-carrier 31 has… a front cross pivot 39 and intermediate cross members 41.” Col 3 lines 61-65 and “A towing extension 44 extends forwardly from the main frame and its front cross pivot 39. Such cross pivot 39 provides the interconnection between the towing extension 44 and the main frame 36.” Col 4 lines 1-4 And “The pivotal joinder illustrated makes it possible for the towing extension 44 and the main frame 36 to be disposed at various alternate angles one with respect to the other when different motorcycles are to be accommodated and also when the trailer-carrier 31 is to be stored.” Col 4 lines 4-9, Figure 6 shows the base 36 being angularly set using the joinder 39 in relation to the front towing frame 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the transverse bar of Pottorff with the bicycle carrier of Duschkewitz and Czichos with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a simple way to adjust the angular offset of the base from the front . By including a pivotal transverse bar, the carrier angle can be adjusted to accommodate different lengths of bicycles and can be collapsed to a smaller form factor when not in use.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duschkewitz and Czichos in further view of Fliehr (Machine Translation and Original Patent DE 19818724 A1 Provided in present OA).
Regarding claim 9, Duschkewitz and Czichos teach the bicycle carrier of claim 1.
Duschkewitz and Czichos do not teach the bicycle carrier including lateral axle extensions for extending axles of the carrier wheels.
Fliehr teaches the bicycle carrier including lateral axle extensions 2-7 (Fig 1) [for extending axles of the carrier wheels 1 (Fig 2)] (“The simplest design option is to form the rear axle as a tube (sleeve). The axle stubs with the wheels are inserted on both sides of this tube. The securing is achieved by means of bolts which are inserted through an aligned bore in the sleeve and axle stub. The axle stub has two or more holes, allowing for optional adjustment of the track width. Cotter pins, screws or clamp connections can also be used as a safety measure. Of course, other security measures are also possible.” para 0015, note that these extendable axles can be used in “The present invention is therefore based on the objective of solving the requirement for the highest possible tipping stability in the bicycle trailer with the requirement for the smallest possible width in the stroller in a cost-effective manner with the least possible conversion time and without the need for additional parts, and thereby creating a marketable trailer/stroller combination.” paras 10 and 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the adjustable axle of Fliehr with the bicycle carrier of Duschkewitz and Czichos with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a simple way to adjust the width of the axles to maintain a low center of gravity. By including an adjustable axle, the bicycle carrier axle length can be adjusted to provide a lower center of gravity for the towable bicycle and carrier. By having a lower center of gravity, the towed bicycle is less likely to tip over while being transported.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duschkewitz and Czichos in and Fliehr in further view of Zlotkowski.
Regarding claim 10, Duschkewitz and Czichos and Fliehr teach the carrier of claim 9.
Duschkewitz and Czichos and Fliehr do not teach a carrier including axle bars mountable to the base in a vertical orientation, so that the axles of the carrier wheels are elevated with respect to the base.
Zlotkowski teaches axle bars 30 (Fig 7) mountable to the base 20a (Fig 7) [in a vertical orientation] (Fig 7 shows the axle stubs 30 are connected above the base element 20a), so that the axles of the carrier wheels 28 (Fig 7) [are elevated with respect to the base] (“A pair of wheels 28, spaced, for example, about 12'' apart, are mounted on axle stubs 30 secured to respective side members 18 and 20 via brackets 32. The wheels rotate about an axis y-y perpendicularly oriented with respect to the longitudinal axis as shown in FIGS. 5 and 7.” para 0020, Fig 7 shows the wheel 28 axles are in line with axis Y that is elevated above the base carrier 20a elements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the elevated axle bars of Zlotkowski with the bicycle carrier of Duschkewitz/Czichos/Fliehr with a reasonable expectation of success because it would align with the axle of the carrier wheels. By having the carrier wheel axles elevated above the base, the overall center of gravity of the base is lower to the ground, providing a center of gravity that is less likely to tip over when in motion.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duschkewitz and Czichos in further view of Guild (Original Patent WO 9938716 Provided in present OA).
Regarding claim 12, Duschkewitz and Czichos teach the base element of the bicycle carrier.
Duschkewitz and Czichos do not teach the base comprises at least two parts, slidable longitudinally with respect to each other to adjust the size of the base.
Guild teaches an equivalent towing apparatus 40 (Fig 8) wherein the base 53-56 (Fig 8) [comprises at least two parts, slidable longitudinally with respect to each other to adjust the size of the base] (“…member 52 consists of a first section 54 and a second section 55 Section 54 is provided with slots 54a so that when fasteners 56 are loosened section 54 may be moved relative to section 55 to adjust the length of rigid member 52” pg 6 lines 26-32 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the adjustable base of Guild with the bicycle carrier of Duschkewitz and Czichos with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a simple way to adjust the length of the base to accommodate different sizes of bicycle. By making the base adjustable the base can be adjusted to accommodate different sizes of bicycles and can be collapsed to a smaller form factor when not in use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bruno (US 11383565) teaches a tow bar apparatus for a scooter to connect a scooter with a utility cart. The universal attachment member is removably attached and may be modified to accommodate a specific make and model of scooter. The apparatus is reconfigurable depending upon the physical layout of the utility cart. An articulating arm is connected between the attachment member and the attachment arms to allow for an articulating attachment to the shopping cart.
Lee (US 20150266537 A1) teaches a bike tow device that attaches to a bicycle to allow it to tow one or more other bicycles or carry one or more bicycle tires.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN M KNAUF whose telephone number is (703)756-4532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611