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
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) 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 4469257) in view of Price (US 5836490) and Bliss, Jr. et al. (US 8157312, hereinafter ‘Bliss’).
Parker discloses a rack for transporting equipment in a pickup truck, comprising: at least one base (26s) for providing on a floor of a truck bed of the pickup truck; a frame assembly (10) on the base to support the equipment in the truck bed; and vertical posts (24s); except does not expressly disclose the frame assembly comprising two parallel, interconnected upper rails or there being exactly four vertical posts as claimed.
However, Price teaches a similar rack for carrying a bicycle wherein the frame assembly has two parallel, interconnected rail members (17, 19, 26, 28) forming a two-rail system that provides stability against lateral sway, the two parallel, interconnected rail members forming slots therebetween for supporting the wheels of a bicycle (Fig. 2) as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the interconnected rail members taught by Price to the rack taught by Parker, in order to allow the rack to carry a bicycle as taught by Price (Abstract).
Further, Bliss is one of myriad references teaching pickup-truck mounted bed racks wherein the racks are supported by four vertical posts (102s, 112s) as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide four vertical posts rather than two, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Because Parker as modified above and Bliss both teach storage racks for pickup truck cargo beds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the four vertical posts taught by Bliss for the two vertical posts taught by Parker as modified above to achieve the predictable result of securely attaching the rack to the pickup truck cargo bed.
Parker as modified above results in a device wherein the frame assembly is sized to accommodate a single bicycle (see Parker Fig. 2); the base is a floor plate that rests on the floor of the truck bed (Parker Fig. 2); the floor plate is bolted to the floor of the truck bed (Parker 40; Fig. 4); the vertical members are provided at a fixed height (Parker Fig. 2); the bicycle is strapped to at least one connection point in the truck bed (Price 30; bicycle itself is not part of the claims, therefore claiming it being strapped is not patentably defining); at least one wheel channel divider to secure the wheels of the bicycle (bent end portions of 26, 28); the wheels of the bicycle drop below the interconnected upper rail to lessen sway of the bicycle during transport (Price Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 4469257) in view of Price (US 5836490) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Bowman (US 3912139).
Parker as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the frame being sized to accommodate multiple bicycles as claimed.
However, Bowman teaches constructing a truck bed bicycle rack such that the frame assembly is sized to accommodate multiple bicycles (Fig. 2); and the cross member has a plurality of parallel wheel channels to accommodate additional bicycles (12a, b; 14a, b) as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the Parker as modified above bicycle rack with additional wheel channels via additional interconnected rail members as taught by Bowman, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 4469257) in view of Price (US 5836490) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Weyhrich (US 6758508).
Parker as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the floor plate mounting without drilling as claimed.
However, Weyhrich teaches mounting a vehicle bed rack structure base plate without drilling (via 20).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to attach the rack taught by Parker as modified above without drilling as taught by Weyhrich, in order to noninvasively attach the rack frame to the vehicle bed as taught by Weyhrich (col. 2, ll. 45-53).
Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 4469257) in view of Price (US 5836490) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Leff Yaffe et al. (US 10703295, hereinafter ‘Leff Yaffe’).
Parker as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the vertical members being adjustable as claimed.
However, Leff Yaffe teaches a vehicle bed bicycle rack wherein the vertical member is adjustable (22, A) as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the Parker as modified above vertical members adjustable as taught by Leff Yaffe, since 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).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 4469257) in view of Price (US 5836490) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Green (US 7641086).
Parker as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the strap handle as claimed.
However, Green teaches a similar device being provided with a strap handle (172) set apart from the wheel engagement structure on the frame for strapping the bicycle against movement during transport as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the handle taught by Green to the frame taught by Parker as modified above, in order to function as a tie-down point as taught by Green (col. 13, ll. 35-57).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm EST.
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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
January 31, 2026