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
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasor et al. (US 4911348, hereinafter ‘Rasor’) in view of Derecktor (US 5848743).
Rasor discloses a vehicle assembly comprising: a roof panel (14) having a plurality of roof recesses comprising a first roof recess spaced apart from a second roof recess (20s); a first roof mount (22 one end) comprising a first extension (40) sized to be received in the first roof recess and a second roof mount (22 other end) comprising a second extension (40) sized to be received in the second roof recess, wherein the first extension and the first roof recess include a matching first geometric shape, and wherein the second extension and the second roof recess include a matching second geometric shape (rectangular); said first roof mount comprising a first mount recess (62) having a first fastener passage receiving a first fastener (54), said first fastener coupling the first roof mount to the roof panel at the first roof recess (see Fig. 5); said second roof mount comprising a second mount recess (62) having a second fastener passage receiving a second fastener (54), said second fastener coupling the second roof mount to the roof panel at the second roof recess (see Fig. 5); and a first roof rail (24); except does not expressly disclose the first and second mounts having receiver channels or the roof rail having a rail channel with fasteners as claimed.
However, Derecktor teaches a similar device wherein the first and second mounts have first and second receiver channels, respectively (84, 100, 102 – see Fig. 6-7), and the roof rail has a first rail channel (52, 88) at least partially disposed in the first receiver channel and the second receiver channel (see Fig. 3); a third fastener coupling the first roof rail to the first roof mount at the first receiver channel; and a fourth fastener coupling the first roof rail to the second roof mount at the second receiver channel (68s) as claimed.
Because Rasor and Derecktor both teach roof rack crossbar attachment systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the channels/fasteners taught by Derecktor for the undisclosed attachment system taught by Rasor to achieve the predictable result of securely but adjustably attaching the roof rack crossbar to the end mounts as taught by Derecktor.
Rasor as modified above further results in a device comprising a fifth fastener coupling the first roof rail to the first roof mount at the first receiver channel and a sixth fastener coupling the first roof rail to the second roof mount at the second receiver channel (Derecktor col. 6, ll. 23-29; two bolts on each end disclosed); the first fastener is recessed in the first mount recess (Rasor Fig. 5); a fourth fastener coupling the second roof mount to the roof panel and the fourth fastener is recessed in the second mount recess (Rasor Fig. 5); the first roof mount is elongated and the second roof mount is elongated (Rasor Figs. 4, 8); the first roof mount and the second roof mount are oriented laterally on the roof panel (Rasor Figs. 1, 2); the third fastener and the fourth fastener are disposed in the first receiver channel (); a third roof mount and a fourth roof mount coupled to the roof panel and to a second rail extending therebetween (Rasor Figs. 1, 2); and a first cap coupled to a first end of the first roof rail and a second cap disposed in a second end of the first roof rail (Derecktor 74s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that because locking mechanism 40 appears to be separate from mount 22, it does not meet the scope of being the claims extension. This argument has been considered, however is not persuasive. Rasor’s locking mechanism 40 is bolted directly to end mount 22 and thus absolutely meets the scope of being the claimed extension. Both the locking mechanism 40 and the channel in rail 20 have rectangular geometric shapes and thus meet the scope of the newly added claim limitations.
For the reasons stated above, as well as those set forth in the rejections above, applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
April 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights