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 § 112
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 8 define the scope of the mounting components in terms of the mounting components’ relationship to the bed of a truck. Specifically, lines 7-9 of claim 1 and lines 10-12 of claim 8 recite "wherein first mounting component, the second mounting component, and the third mounting component are attached to the bed of a truck and arranged in a trigonal geometric configured to retain a bicycle in an upright configuration.” The claims, however, do not explicitly define mounting components and a truck bed in combination. Because of this conflict, the claim must be amended to positively recite the combination or the features of the mounting components must be defined by other explicit means. Applicant is also reminded that “configured to retain a bicycle in an upright configuration” is with respect to the manner in which the mounting components are intended to be employed and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitation of the claims (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78,44USPQ2d, 1429, 1431-.2 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469,15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
From the overall makeup of the claims, including the claim preambles, it does not appear that the intent is to claim a truck bed itself, and therefore the claim limitations “wherein first mounting component, the second mounting component, and the third mounting component are attached to the bed of a truck and arranged in a trigonal geometric configured to retain a bicycle in an upright configuration” will be interpretated as not positively requiring a truck bed as part of the claims and to be functional/intended use recitations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bed of a truck" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bed of a truck" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 and 9-18 are rejected for incorporating the indefinite limitations by dependency.
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) 1, 5, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesslinger et al. (US 3105572, hereinafter ‘Nesslinger’) in view of Shelton (US 2012/0247159).
Nesslinger discloses a system capable of mounting a bicycle in an upright position in a truck bed, the system comprising: a first mounting component (9+11), a second mounting component (10+12) and a third mounting component (17+18), each of the first mounting component, the second mounting component, and the third mounting component comprised of an inner member and an outer member (see Fig. 3); wherein first mounting component, the second mounting component, and the third mounting component are capable of being attached to the bed of a truck and arranged in a trigonal geometric configured to retain a bicycle in an upright configuration (functional/intended use recitation); except does not expressly disclose the padlock as claimed.
However, Shelton teaches connecting inner/outer support members with a padlock to rigidly connect each of the inner members and the outer members (94+96).
Because Nesslinger and Shelton both teach securing mechanisms for inner/outer members of telescoping supports, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the padlock/apertures taught by Shelton for the locking system taught by Nesslinger to achieve the predictable result of securing maintaining the inner/outer members at the desired length as taught by Shelton.
Nesslinger as modified above further results in a device wherein each of the outer members include a first end capable of attaching to the bed of the truck (functional/intended use recitation); each of the inner members include a first end capable of interlocking and attaching to the bicycle (functional/intended use recitation); a plurality of apertures positioned on each of the first mounting component, the second mounting component and the third mounting component to receive a padlock and retain them in at a fixed length (Shelton 74, 76, etc.).
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesslinger et al. (US 3105572, hereinafter ‘Nesslinger’) in view of Shelton (US 2012/0247159) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Recker et al. (US 11091923, hereinafter ‘Recker’).
Nesslinger as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the plurality of apertures on the inner member as claimed, rather disclosing only one.
However, Recker teaches a telescoping support brace wherein the inner member has a plurality of apertures positioned thereon (40s) as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide multiple apertures on the inner member as taught by Recker, 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).
Nesslinger as modified above further results in a device with an aperture on the outer member to align with the plurality of apertures on the inner member (Shelton 74, Recker 42); the padlock extends through the aligned apertures on the inner member and the outer member to retain the mounting component at a fixed length (Shelton para 0056); the first ends of the inner and outer members are rounded at a 60 degree angle (Nesslinger Fig. 3); the bicycle mount is capable of preventing the bicycle from rolling in the bed of the truck (functional/intended use limitation); and the bicycle mount is capable of preventing the bicycle from being removed from the bed of the truck via the padlock (functional/intended use limitation).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesslinger et al. (US 3105572, hereinafter ‘Nesslinger’) in view of Shelton (US 2012/0247159) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abad (US 2002/0162265).
Nesslinger as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the padlock having an adjustable length as claimed.
However, Abad teaches that adjustable length padlocks (18, 20, 22) were known long before the invention by applicant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the Nesslinger as modified above padlock adjustable in length as taught by Abad, 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesslinger et al. (US 3105572, hereinafter ‘Nesslinger’) in view of Shelton (US 2012/0247159) and Recker et al. (US 11091923, hereinafter ‘Recker’) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Abad (US 2002/0162265).
Nesslinger as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the padlock having an adjustable length as claimed.
However, Abad teaches that adjustable length padlocks (18, 20, 22) were known long before the invention by applicant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the Nesslinger as modified above padlock adjustable in length as taught by Abad, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
October 22, 2025