DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, the disclosure fails to describe the aperture being a circular hole. As shown in Fig. 2A, the hole 108 is not circular. Similarly, the specification does not describe the hole as being circular.
Regarding claim 14, the disclosure fails to describe the distal end of the platform member abutting the support member (lines 12-13). Instead, the proximal end (which has the flange) abuts the support member. For the purpose of the art rejection, it will be assumed that the proximal end is intended.
Claims 15-16 depend from the above claim(s) and are rejected for the above reason as they do not cure the deficiency.
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)(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.
REJECTION BASED ON WARNELOV
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Published Application 2022/0314895 to Warnelov.
Regarding claim 14, Warnelov discloses a bicycle carrier for a vehicle (Fig. 1, for example), the bicycle carrier comprising: a support member (300’’’ – Fig. 28) configured to connect to a vehicle (the support member is capable of the claimed attachment, via 500 for example – see Fig. 17), the support member having a side surface (right surface of 300’’’, including 310a’’’ – Fig. 28) and an aperture (aperture receiving top of upwardly directed end of 310’’’) extending only partially through the support member; a platform member (200, right in Fig. 28) having a proximal end (left end in Fig. 28) configured to attach to the side surface of the support member; a flange (top of upwardly directed end of 310’’’) affixed to and extending substantially vertically from the proximal end of the support member (Fig. 28); wherein the aperture is capable of receiving insertion of the flange only when the support member is in a first orientation wherein the distal end of the platform member is disposed at an acute angle to the side surface of the support member (200 would need to be angled upward to fit the flange in the aperture – Fig. 28); and wherein the platform member is configured to pivot with the flange in the aperture from the first orientation to a second orientation wherein the proximal end of the platform member is substantially parallel to and abuts the side surface of the support member (pivoting from an upwardly angled insertion orientation to the orientation in Fig. 28); and wherein when the platform member is in the second orientation, the flange cannot be removed from the aperture (Fig. 28 – the flange cannot be removed while keeping the platform member horizontal).
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnelov in view of US Patent 5,004,302 to Stocking.
Regarding claim 15, Warnelov fails to disclose the flange extending downwardly. However, Stocking discloses a support member that has a flange that extends downwardly (Annotated Fig. 5 below) wherein the vertically extending flange extends downwardly from the proximal end of the support member in the second orientation (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Stoking’s support member connection in Warnelov because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent structural connection for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the flange can only be inserted with the support member at an angle (to avoid interference between 57 and 58) and the flange cannot be removed from the aperture when the support member is in the second orientation (Stocking Fig. 5). To the extent it is not clear, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the aperture receiving the flange to extend only partially through the support member, as taught by Warnelov (Fig. 28) because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable aperture types to use in a carrying rack.
PNG
media_image1.png
407
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stocking Annotated Fig. 5
REJECTION BASED ON ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENT OF WARNELOV
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Warnelov.
Regarding claim 14, Warnelov discloses a bicycle carrier for a vehicle (Fig. 1, for example), the bicycle carrier comprising: a support member (1200 – Figs. 113-116) configured to connect to a vehicle (the support member is capable of the claimed attachment, via 500 for example – see Fig. 17), the support member having a side surface (right surface of 1200) and an aperture (1212a, top) extending only partially through the support member; a platform member (200) having a proximal end (left end) configured to attach to the side surface of the support member; a flange (1236, top) affixed to and extending substantially vertically from the proximal end of the support member (Fig. 113); wherein the aperture is capable of receiving insertion of the flange only when the support member is in a first orientation wherein the distal end of the platform member is disposed at an acute angle to the side surface of the support member (Fig. 113-114); and wherein the platform member is configured to pivot with the flange in the aperture from the first orientation to a second orientation wherein the proximal end of the platform member is substantially parallel to and abuts the side surface of the support member (going from Figs. 113-114 to 115-116); and wherein when the platform member is in the second orientation, the flange cannot be removed from the aperture (Fig. 116 – the flange cannot be removed while keeping the platform member horizontal).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnelov in view of Stocking.
Regarding claim 15, Warnelov fails to disclose the flange extending downwardly. However, Stocking discloses a support member that has a flange that extends downwardly (Annotated Fig. 5 below) wherein the vertically extending flange extends downwardly from the proximal end of the support member in the second orientation (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Stoking’s support member connection in Warnelov because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent structural connection for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the flange can only be inserted with the support member at an angle (to avoid interference between 57 and 58) and the flange cannot be removed from the aperture when the support member is in the second orientation (Stocking Fig. 5). To the extent it is not clear, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the aperture receiving the flange to extend only partially through the support member, as taught by Warnelov (Figs. 113-116) because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable aperture types to use in a carrying rack.
REJECTION BASED ON KUSCHMEADER
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Published Application 2020/0156724 to Kuschmeader in view of US Patent 6,651,996 to Allemang and AmesWeb (NPL #1).
Regarding claim 1, Kuschmeader discloses a bicycle rack for a vehicle, the bicycle rack comprising: a support member (103) configured to connect to a vehicle; a platform member (102) configured to attach to the support member. Kuschmeader fails to disclose the first and second attachment feature. However, Allemang discloses a cycle carrier wherein a bolt is passed through an overhanging portion of a bracket (Fig. 1 - see bolt passed through hole 114 in overhanging portion of 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a vertical bolt passed through the overhanging portions of the platform member to connect the support member and the platform member because the modification only requires a simple substitution of one known, equivalent fastening method for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the support member has the first attachment feature (hole on the upper chamfer portion) and the platform member has the second attachment feature, which is a protrusion (the bolt); and wherein in the retention orientation with the protrusion in the aperture, the protrusion holds the platform member in a retention position with respect to the support member (with the platform member in a horizontal orientation and the bolt extended through aligned holes in the top and bottom chamfer portions). The combination fails to disclose whether the support member is hollow. However, elsewhere Kuschmeader discloses using a hollow structural member (Fig. 13A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the support member hollow because it would decrease material, weight, and cost of the support member. In the combination, with the protrusion within the aperture the platform member pivots from an insertion orientation to a retention orientation (with the bolt inserted into the hole in the upper chamfer portion (but not the hole in the lower chamfer portion), the platform member is capable of at least some pivoting from an angled upward position to a horizontal position); and wherein in the insertion orientation the protrusion may translate out of the aperture (when the platform member is in a slightly upward angled position, the bolt may translate out of the hole in the upper chamfer portion). To the extent there is any doubt that the top chamfer hole would allow for slight pivoting, AmesWeb discloses that it is known to use a larger clearance when sizing bolt holes (see Fit Class – Loose). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a larger clearance for the bolts in the combination because it would make assembly easier.
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the protrusion is disposed on an end of the platform member (Kuschmeader Fig. 2 – protrusion is on an inside end of 102 adjacent support member 103).
Regarding claim 3, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the aperture is disposed on a side of the support member (the hole is on the upper chamfered side of the support member).
Regarding claim 4, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein in the retention position, an end surface of the platform member presses against the side of the support member (Kuschmeader Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein in the retention position, the protrusion engages the outer side of the aperture (Kuschmeader Fig. 1 – the weight of the platform member (plus bicycle) would tend to move the platform member outward relative to the chamfered surface, which would cause the bolt to engage the outer side of the aperture in the combination).
REJECTION BASED ON GUNN
Claim(s) 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 7,806,308 to Gunn in view of US Patent 6,220,461 to Dickinson.
Regarding claim 10, Gunn discloses a bicycle rack for a vehicle, the bicycle rack comprising: a support member (single plate securing two bumper plates (14 right/left) to bumper 12 – Col. 4, lines 29-31) configured to connect to a vehicle, the support member having a first attachment feature (14d); a platform member (16 (left/right), plus remainder of bike rack in Fig. 1) configured to attach to the support member, the platform member having a second attachment feature (16e); wherein the first attachment feature is a protrusion fixedly attached to the support member; and wherein the second attachment feature is an aperture in the platform member; and wherein with the protrusion within the aperture the platform member is configured to pivot from an insertion orientation to a retention position (Col. 4, lines 51-63); wherein the platform member pivots in a vertical plane that is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the support member (Fig. 1 – pivoting is in a vertical plane as claimed); and wherein the protrusion is in contact with the platform member adjacent to the aperture to hold the platform member in the retention position (protrusion contacts the edge surrounding the aperture to hold the platform member); and wherein in the insertion orientation the protrusion may translate out of the aperture (with the platform member pivoted upward, the protrusion may translate out of the aperture as claimed). Gunn discloses the support member having the protrusion and the platform member having the aperture instead of the reverse orientation. However, Dickinson discloses that it is known to assemble a bracket by positioning a protrusion (24 – Fig. 6A) on the movable portion within an aperture (46 – Fig. 6A) on the base portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have formed the protrusion on the support member and the aperture in the platform member because the modification only involves a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device (i.e. reversing the protrusion and aperture), which involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Alternatively, the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent protrusion/aperture connection for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, the combination from claim 10 discloses wherein the protrusion extends downwardly from the platform member in the retention position (Gunn as modified by Dickinson (see downwardly extending protrusion in Dickinson)).
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 10 discloses a plurality of protrusions on the platform member (2 protrusions in Gunn Fig. 1, which would be on the platform member after the modification by Dickinson) and a plurality of apertures on the support member (Gunn Fig. 1 – 2 apertures, which would be on the single plate of the support member (Gunn Col. 4, lines 29-31) after the modification by Dickinson) for receiving the plurality of protrusions.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunn and Dickinson, further in view of US Published Application 2005/0082329 to Cohen.
Regarding claim 12, the combination from claim 10 fails to disclose the aperture being circular. However, Cohen discloses a bicycle rack that used a round projection (13) and a circular hole (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the aperture and protrusion circular because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent mating protrusion/aperture shape for another to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the Section 112(a) rejection above is addressed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that the disclosure supports a circular hole (page 5), the disclosure only describes the aperture as an oval. It is the examiner’s opinion that a disclosure of an oval aperture does not provide support for a circular aperture.
As to applicant’s argument that a bolt loosely placed in a hole is not a protrusion (page 6), the examiner disagrees. It would appear that the court in Neville v. Found. Constructors (cited by applicant) is considering a different situation. In Neville, the court was deciding whether a single, conically-shaped end piece can be a protrusion extending outwardly from an end plate. The court found that it cannot because there is no demarcation between the end plate and the protrusion. In other words, the problem in Neville is not that the end plate and protrusion are separate (which applicant is arguing), but that the end plate and protrusion are indistinguishable. In the instant application, there is demarcation between the platform member and the protrusion, and the platform member and the protrusion are also connected by the bolt being inserted through the upper hole in the platform member.
Conclusion
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