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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to support a cycle thereon” in lines 10-11 should be corrected as --to support [[a]]the cycle thereon--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the main frame” in line 11 should be corrected as --the elongated main frame--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the elongated mainframe” in line 2 should be corrected as --the elongated [[mainframe]]main frame--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to support a cycle thereon” in line 10 should be corrected as --to support [[a]]the cycle thereon--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the main frame” in line 11 should be corrected as --the elongated main frame--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the elongated mainframe” in line 2 should be corrected as --the elongated [[mainframe]]main frame--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a locking mechanism configured to engage a portion of the cycle and secure the cycle to the upper cycle mount” in claims 1 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification, para[0041] shows that a locking mechanism may include peg bolts, wherein the peg bolts may, for example, be single bolts and/or U-bolts, etc., and as seen in figures. Therefore, for examination purposes, the term, “a locking mechanism” has been interpreted to be single bolts, U-bolts, etc. or equivalents thereof, as best understood from the originally filed specification and drawings.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 5-6, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ressler et al (US 9,221,402 B2).
Regarding claim 1¸ Ressler et al (‘402) discloses an adjustable cycle rack 10 (col.3 line65) for one or more cycles, configured to be selectively used with multiple different sized cycles, and configured to be used during transport and after transport, the adjustable cycle rack comprising: an elongated main frame 18 (col.4 line2); and a first jackstand 50 (fig2, one on a left end of the elongated main frame 18, col.5 lines4-5) coupled to a first end (a left end) of the elongated main frame 18, and a second jackstand 50 (fig2, one on a right end of the elongated main frame 18, col.5 lines4-5) coupled to a second end (a right end) of the elongated main frame 18; each of the first and second jackstands 50 comprising a lifter frame 46 (col.5 lines19-20, a lifter 58 (col.5 line18) carried by the lifter frame 46 and adjustable to a selected height (col.5 lines22-27), an upper cycle mount 62 (col.5 line21) coupled to the lifter 58 and configured to support the cycle thereon at the selected height (col.5 lines22-27), and a locking mechanism 86 (col.6 line3, figs7-8; As aforementioned, a locking mechanism is interpreted as single bolts, U-bolts, etc., or equivalents thereof. In this case, a locking mechanism 86 taught by Ressler et al is shaped and performs similar to U-bolts.) configured to engage a portion of the cycle and secure the cycle to the upper cycle mount 62 (figs7-8).
Regarding claim 5¸ Ressler et al discloses the adjustable cycle rack according to claim 1, wherein the upper cycle mount 62 comprises a mounting plate 62 (fig2).
Regarding claim 6¸ Ressler et al discloses the adjustable cycle rack according to claim 5, wherein the mounting plate 62 comprises at least one bumper (inclined end portions) on a top surface thereof.
Regarding claim 9¸ Ressler et al discloses the adjustable cycle rack according to claim 1, wherein the main frame 18 includes at least one floor coupler 35 (col.4 line44).
Regarding claim 11¸ Ressler et al discloses the adjustable cycle rack according to claim 1, further comprising an additional jackstand 50 (fig2, one between the first and second jackstands) coupled to the elongated main frame 18 between the first and second ends thereof (fig2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 2, 12, 15-16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ressler et al (US 9,221,402 B2) in view of Posey (US 7,686,549 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Ressler et al discloses the adjustable cycle rack of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose that the elongated main frame comprises a central frame housing carrying first and second extendable spacing rods which are extendable from respective first and second end of the center frame housing. As seen in fig1, Posey (‘549) teaches a use of an elongated main frame 50 (col.4 line20) of a cycle rack (fig1), wherein the elongated main frame 50 comprises a central frame housing 50B (col.4 line25) carrying first and second extendable spacing rods 51A (col.4 lines22-25) which are extendable from respective first and second ends of the central frame housing 51B (fig1, col.4 lines26-29)and wherein a first jackstand (fig1, a jackstand on a first side 44 of the rack) coupled to the first extendable spacing rod 51A (one toward the first side 44) and a second jackstand (fig1, a jackstand on a second side 46 of the rack) is coupled to the second extendable spacing rod 51A (one toward the second side 46), so that a length of the elongated main frame 50 can be adjusted (fig1, col.4 lines26-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ressler et al to use an elongated main frame with a central frame housing carrying first and second extendable spacing rods, as taught by Posey, so that a length of the elongated main frame can be adjusted (fig1, col.4 lines26-29).
Regarding claim 12, Ressler et al (‘402) discloses an adjustable cycle rack 10 (col.3 line65) for one or more cycles, configured to be selectively used with multiple different sized cycles, and configured to be used during transport and after transport, the adjustable cycle rack comprising: an elongated main frame 18 (col.4 line2); and a first jackstand 50 (fig2, one on a left end of the elongated main frame 18, col.5 lines4-5) and a second jackstand 50 (fig2, one on a right end of the elongated main frame 18, col.5 lines4-5); each of the first and second jackstands 50 comprising an upper cycle mount 62 (col.5 line21) configured to support the cycle thereon at a selected height (col.5 lines22-27), and a locking mechanism 86 (col.6 line3, figs7-8; As aforementioned, a locking mechanism is interpreted as single bolts, U-bolts, etc., or equivalents thereof. In this case, a locking mechanism 86 taught by Ressler et al is shaped and performs similar to U-bolts.) configured to engage a portion of the cycle and secure the cycle to the upper cycle mount 62 (figs7-8). Ressler et al, however, does not explicitly disclose that the elongated main frame comprises a central frame housing carrying first and second extendable spacing rods which are extendable from respective first and second end of the center frame housing. As seen in fig1, Posey (‘549) teaches a use of an elongated main frame 50 (col.4 line20) of a cycle rack (fig1), wherein the elongated main frame 50 comprises a central frame housing 50B (col.4 line25) carrying first and second extendable spacing rods 51A (col.4 lines22-25) which are extendable from respective first and second ends of the central frame housing 51B (fig1, col.4 lines26-29)and wherein a first jackstand (fig1, a jackstand on a first side 44 of the rack) coupled to the first extendable spacing rod 51A (one toward the first side 44) and a second jackstand (fig1, a jackstand on a second side 46 of the rack) is coupled to the second extendable spacing rod 51A (one toward the second side 46), so that a length of the elongated main frame 50 can be adjusted (fig1, col.4 lines26-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ressler et al to use an elongated main frame with a central frame housing carrying first and second extendable spacing rods, as taught by Posey, so that a length of the elongated main frame can be adjusted (fig1, col.4 lines26-29).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ressler et al and Posey teaches the adjustable cycle rack according to claim 12. Ressler et al further discloses wherein the upper cycle mount 62 comprises a mounting plate 62 (fig2).
Regarding claim 16¸ the combination of Ressler et al and Posey teaches the adjustable cycle rack according to claim 15. Ressler et al further discloses wherein the mounting plate 62 comprises at least one bumper (inclined end portions) on a top surface thereof.
Regarding claim 19¸ the combination of Ressler et al and Posey teaches the adjustable cycle rack according to claim 12. Ressler et al further discloses wherein the main frame 18 includes at least one floor coupler 35 (col.4 line44).
Regarding claim 20¸ the combination of Ressler et al and Posey teaches the adjustable cycle rack according to claim 12. Ressler et al further discloses an additional jackstand 50 (fig2, one between the first and second jackstands) coupled to the elongated main frame 18 between the first and second ends thereof (fig2).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ressler et al (US 9,221,402 B2) in view of Gluck (6,152,434).
Regarding claims 3-4, Ressler et al discloses the adjustable cycle rack according to claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a biasing member. Gluck (‘434) teaches a use of a spring including a gas pressure spring (col.1 lines33-36) for a jackstand (fig3) to adjust a lifter respect to a lifter frame (col.1 lines33-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ressler et al to use a biasing member including a gas pressure spring, as taught by Gluck, so that a lifter can be adjusted respect to a lifter frame.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ressler et al (US 9,221,402 B2) in view of Dansie et al (US 2005/0199561 A1).
Regarding claims 7-8, Ressler et al discloses the adjustable cycle rack according to claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose that the locking mechanism 62 (para[0058],[0059], “a restraining system”) comprises first and second peg bolts and a driver. Dansie et al (‘561) teaches a use of a locking mechanism a cycle rack including two peg bolts 75 (figs1,6, para[0058]) configured to engage and secure a cycle and a driver 70 (para[0051]) configured to selectively actuate the two peg bolts 75 between an unlocked position (para[0051], “an open position”) and a locked position (para[0051], “a closed position”) that engages the cycle (para[0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ressler et al to use two peg bolts and a driver, as taught by Dansie et al, so that the locking mechanism can be easily actuated between open and closed position (unlocked/locked) via a drive (a locking arm).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ressler et al (US 9,221,402 B2) in view of Warner et al (US 2006/0045685 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ressler et al discloses the adjustable cycle rack according to claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a set of wheels. Warner et al (‘685) teaches a use of a set of wheels 116,118 (para[0071]) for a cycle rack (figs1-3C) to the rack can be a mobile configuration (para[0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ressler et al to use a set of wheels, as taught by Warner et al, so that the rack can be a mobile configuration (para[0071]).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ressler et al (US 9,221,402 B2) and Posey (US 7,686,549 B1) in further view of Gluck (6,152,434).
Regarding claims 13-14, the combination of Ressler et al and Posey teaches the adjustable cycle rack according to claim 12, however, does not explicitly teach a use of a biasing member. Gluck (‘434) teaches a use of a spring including a gas pressure spring (col.1 lines33-36) for a jackstand (fig3) to adjust a lifter respect to a lifter frame (col.1 lines33-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ressler et al to use a biasing member including a gas pressure spring, as taught by Gluck, so that a lifter can be adjusted respect to a lifter frame.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ressler et al (US 9,221,402 B2) in view of Dansie et al (US 2005/0199561 A1).
Regarding claims 17-18, the combination of Ressler et al and Posey teaches the adjustable cycle rack according to claim 12, however, does not explicitly teach that the locking mechanism 62 (para[0058],[0059], “a restraining system”) comprises first and second peg bolts and a driver. Dansie et al (‘561) teaches a use of a locking mechanism a cycle rack including two peg bolts 75 (figs1,6, para[0058]) configured to engage and secure a cycle and a driver 70 (para[0051]) configured to selectively actuate the two peg bolts 75 between an unlocked position (para[0051], “an open position”) and a locked position (para[0051], “a closed position”) that engages the cycle (para[0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ressler et al to use two peg bolts and a driver, as taught by Dansie et al, so that the locking mechanism can be easily actuated between open and closed position (unlocked/locked) via a drive (a locking arm).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723