DETAILED ACTION
Rejoined Claims
Claims 17-26 now depend from an elected claim and therefore they are rejoined in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RU 2,698,602 to Komissarov.
Regarding claim 1, Komissarov discloses a vehicle mounted roof rack, comprising: a perimeter rail system (Fig. 1) comprising a front rail (1), a rear rail (1), a first side rail (1), and a second side rail (1); and a plurality of load bars (8) coupled to the perimeter rail system and disposed within an interior space of the perimeter rail system, wherein the front rail comprises a first cross-sectional shape along a midline of the perimeter rail system and the rear rail comprises a second cross-sectional shape along the midline of the perimeter rail system, wherein the first cross-sectional shape is different from the second cross-sectional shape (Fig. 1 – cross sectional shapes of front and rear rails are different).
Regarding claim 3, Komissarov discloses wherein the second cross-sectional shape tapers towards a rear edge of the rear rail (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 4, Komissarov discloses wherein the perimeter rail system further comprises a front corner member (3/4 – Figs. 2, 4) coupled between the front rail (1 (right) in Fig. 2) and one of the first side rail and the second side rail (1 (left) in Fig. 2), wherein the front corner member comprises a top corner surface (top surface of 3/4 – Figs. 2, 4) and a bottom corner surface (bottom surface of 3/4 – Figs. 2, 4) spaced from and non-parallel to the top corner surface.
Regarding claim 5, Komissarov discloses wherein the perimeter rail system further comprises a front corner member (3/4 – Figs. 2, 4) coupled between the front rail (1 (right) in Fig. 2) and one of the first side rail and the second side rail (1 (left) in Fig. 2), wherein the front corner member comprises a top corner surface (top surface of 3/4 – Figs. 2, 4), a bottom corner surface (bottom surface of 3/4 – Figs. 2, 4) spaced apart from the top corner surface, and a low point (lowest point of 3/4 – Figs. 2, 4) disposed on the bottom corner surface and spaced a first distance from the top corner surface.
Regarding claim 6, Komissarov discloses wherein the front rail comprises a top surface and a bottom surface spaced from the top surface by a second distance (height of front rail in Figs. 2, 4), wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (Figs. 2, 4).
Regarding clam 7, Komissarov discloses wherein the top corner surface of the front corner member is coplanar with the top surface of the front rail (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Komissarov discloses wherein at least one of the front rail, the first side rail, and the second side rail comprise a bottom surface that defines a plane extending along the bottom surface (plane along bottom surface of front rail in Figs. 2, 4), and wherein the plane intersects the front corner member between the top corner surface and the low point (Figs. 2, 4).
Regarding claim 35, Komissarov discloses wherein at least one of the first side rail and the second side rail comprises a third cross-sectional shape along a transverse midline of the perimeter rail system, wherein the third cross-sectional shape is different from the first cross-sectional shape and the second cross-sectional shape (Komissarov Annotated Fig. 8, 8(II) below – each circled section is a cross-sectional shape different from each other circled section).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Komissarov Annotated Fig. 8 (Front Rail)
PNG
media_image2.png
288
333
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Komissarov Annotated Fig. 8(II) (Rear Rail)
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) 17, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komissarov in view of Rhino Rack (Youtube NPL).
Regarding claim 17, Komissarov fails to disclose a fairing. However, Rhino Rack discloses a roof rack including a fairing comprising: a coupling portion (Rhino Rack Annotated Screenshot 1 below) configured to couple to the vehicle load rack; and a blade (Rhino Rack Annotated Screenshot 1) extending from the coupling portion at an oblique angle (Rhino Rack Annotated Screenshot 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
715
820
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rhino Rack Annotated Screenshot 1
Regarding claim 19, the combination from claim 17 discloses wherein the blade comprises a body and a bumper coupled to a perimeter of the body (Rhino Rack Annotated Screenshot 2 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
585
704
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Rhino Rack Annotated Screenshot 2
Regarding claim 21, the combination from claim 17 discloses wherein the body of the blade is substantially flat (Rhino Rack Annotated Screenshot 2).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komissarov and Rhino Rack, further in view of US Patent 11,279,295 to Gauci.
Regarding claim 18, the combination from claim 17 fails to disclose slots. However, Gauci discloses a roof rack including two slots (205) for adjustably connecting two elements of the rack (Figs. 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used two slots in the coupling portion to connect the coupling portion to the rack because it would allow for positioning adjustments, as taught by Gauci (Col. 4, lines 23-26).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komissarov and Rhino Rack, further in view of US Patent 9,663,153 to Clark.
Regarding claim 20, the combination from claim 17 fails to disclose a tab and slot connection. However, Clark discloses a rack and fairing wherein a plurality of slots (119) are formed along the perimeter of the body of the blade (Fig. 15), and wherein a bumper (600) comprises an assembly slot (formed between 614 and 614 – Fig. 14) and an assembly tab (608) extending into the assembly slot, wherein the assembly tab is configured to engage a slot in the body of the blade to couple the bumper to the body of the blade (Col. 11, lines 19-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Clark’s separate bumpers and tab-slot engagement in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent bumper element for another to obtain predictable results. Further, using separate bumpers would allow for individual replacement as necessary.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komissarov and Rhino Rack, further in view of US Design Patent D776,585 to Eriksson.
Regarding claim 22, the combination from claim 17 fails to disclose whether a lower edge of the body of the blade is concave. However, Eriksson discloses a fairing that has a concave lower edge (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the lower edge concave to allow a user to better fit the fairing to a vehicle with a convex top.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komissarov and Rhino Rack, further in view of US Published Application 2010/0320245 to Vikomirski.
Regarding claim 23, the combination from claim 17 fails to disclose channels. However, Vikomirski discloses a vehicle bracket including a plurality of vertical channels (Fig. 8 – strengthening ribs form channels in 70). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included vertical ribs/channels in the fairing in the combination because it would strengthen the fairing, as taught by Vikomirski (para. 0043).
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komissarov and Rhino Rack, further in view of US Patent 6,425,507 to Allen.
Regarding claims 24-25, the combination from claim 17 fails to disclose the claimed angles. However, Allen discloses a fairing with a blade that extends at an angle of about 25 degrees relative to the coupling portion (Fig. 11 – angle between 120 and 106 is about 30 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have set the angle to this angle in the combination because it would allow for fitting the fairing to a vehicle that would require this angle for the fairing. Further, the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable angles to use for a fairing.
Regarding claim 26, the combination from claim 17 discloses wherein the fairing is configured to rotate relative to the coupling member to adjust the first angle (Rhino Rack Annotated Screenshot 1).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komissarov in view of US Patent 4,293,159 to Bott.
Regarding claim 34, Komissarov fails to disclose a fairing. However, Bott discloses a roof rail including a fairing (13) coupled with the rail and extending into a space between the rail and a vehicle roof (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a fairing on the front and/or rear rails because it would reduce turbulence and other wind noise, as taught by Bott (Col. 1, lines 34-37).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komissarov in view of AU 201910247 to Asquith.
Regarding claim 36, Komissarov fails to disclose the claimed forward wall and bottom wall orientation. However, Asquith discloses a roof rack with a rail that comprises a forward wall facing the interior space and a bottom wall extending away from the forward wall, wherein the bottom wall extends away from the forward wall at an incline relative to a horizontal plane (Annotated Fig. 3 below – image is flipped horizontally to represent the rear rail in Komissarov). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Asquith’s bottom wall design in Komissarov because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent roof rail bottom wall for another to obtain predictable results.
PNG
media_image5.png
530
761
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Asquith Annotated Fig. 3
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that the first and second cross sectional shapes are the same in Komissarov (page 6), the cross-sections would be flipped horizontally when the cross sections are taken along a midline of the rack as claimed (see images below) and therefore the cross sections are different under a broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. For example, the cross sections, when oriented as they are below, cannot be moved over top of one another to make them match. It is also noted that the claim states that the front rail “comprises a first cross-sectional shape” and the rear rail “comprises a second cross-sectional shape”. Therefore, any portion of the overall cross section can be considered “the first cross-sectional shape”, another portion can be considered “the second cross-sectional shape”, and the first and second cross-sectional shapes would be different. See also the rejection of new claim 35 above.
PNG
media_image6.png
253
326
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
253
326
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Different front and rear rail cross sections in Komissarov
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