DETAILED ACTION
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) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 202017103523 (“DE ‘523).
Regarding claim 28, DE ‘523 discloses a bicycle carrier, comprising: a base frame (18 – Fig. 1) coupled to a load carrier coupling (coupling for attaching to rear of vehicle – page 2, fourth paragraph of English translation); at least one wheel tray (second wheel tray from the right in Fig. 1) supported on said base frame; and an attachment portion (third wheel tray from the right in Fig. 1 (which is wheel tray 7 in Fig. 13)) configured to receive an add-on wheel tray (6), wherein said attachment portion is configured to receive a fixation arm (8) and engage with said fixation arm and wherein said fixation arm comprises a coupling portion and a support portion extending perpendicularly away from said coupling portion (Annotated Fig. 15 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
303
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DE ‘523 Annotated Fig. 15
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) 1-3, 8-9, 13-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202017103523 (“DE ‘523) in view of US Patent 10,093,243 to Shen.
Regarding claim 1, DE ‘523 discloses an add-on wheel tray (2) for a carrier, said add-on wheel tray configured to be mounted on said carrier at a designated position on said carrier and configured to increase the predefined maximum number of bicycles supported on said carrier (the add-on wheel tray is capable of this function), said add-on wheel tray comprising: a supporting structure (6) configured to support wheels of a bicycle; and a coupling structure (8) configured to securely connect said supporting structure with said carrier, wherein at least a portion of said coupling structure (14 – Fig. 18) is inserted into an attachment portion (10b – Fig. 18) of said carrier to securely connect said add-on wheel tray to said carrier. DE ‘523 fails to disclose an in-use and stowage configuration. However, Shen discloses a bicycle carrier in which the wheel support structure is configured to move between an in-use configuration (Fig. 1) in which said supporting structure has an enlarged dimension and a stowage configuration (Fig. 6) in which said supporting structure has a reduced dimension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the tray in DE ‘523 collapsible via pivoting because it would take up less space when storing or not using the tray.
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein said supporting structure comprises a first supporting portion (one half of wheel tray 6 – DE ‘523) and a second supporting portion (other half of wheel tray 6 – DE ‘523) each configured to support a wheel of said bicycle, and wherein in said in-use configuration a distance between said first supporting portion and said second supporting portion is larger than in said stowage configuration (when in the pivoted configuration, the claimed distance is decreased).
Regarding claim 3, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein said supporting structure is foldable into at least two parts (Shen Fig. 6 – two portions of tray would fold upward).
Regarding claim 8, the combination from claim 2 discloses a fixation portion (pins 312 plus plates 62 – Shen) for holding said first supporting portion and said second supporting portion together in said stowage configuration.
Regarding claim 9, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein said supporting structure is configured to fold together with foldable wheel trays of said carrier when said add-on wheel tray is coupled to said carrier (the supporting structure is capable of this function (the carrier is not positively claimed)).
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein said coupling structure comprises at least one fixation arm (16 – DE ‘523 Fig. 17-18) coupled to said supporting structure, and wherein said at least one fixation arm comprises a coupling section (DE ‘523 Figs. 17-18 – section securing to 10) and a supporting section (portion extending from the coupling section – DE ‘523 Figs. 17-18).
Regarding claim 14, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein said supporting section is configured to couple to said supporting structure (Fig. 19 – DE ‘523 – 16 couples to the add-on tray via bracket 4).
Regarding claim 15, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein said coupling section is configured to detachably mount to said carrier (DE ‘523 Figs. 17-18).
Regarding claim 16, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein said coupling section is configured for a snap-in engagement with said carrier (DE ‘523 – Figs. 17-18 – 14 snaps into 10b).
Regarding claim 17, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein said coupling section is configured to interlock with an attachment portion of said carrier (DE ‘523 – Figs. 17-18).
Regarding claim 18, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein said coupling section comprises a first coupling partner of a plug and socket type coupling arrangement (DE ‘523 Figs. 17-18 – 10 is the plug and 16 has the socket).
Regarding claim 19, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein said coupling section is configured to automatically engage with said attachment portion on said carrier upon inserting said coupling section in said attachment portion (DE ‘523 Figs. 17-18 – via spring 9).
Regarding claim 20, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein said coupling section comprises an engaging portion (14A – DE ‘523 Figs. 17-18), wherein said coupling section is configured to be received in an adapter (DE ‘523 Figs. 17-18 – 14A is capable of being received in an adapter (the adapter is functionally claimed); alternatively, opening portion 10b can be considered an adapter).
Regarding claim 22, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein at least one of said first supporting portion and said second supporting portion comprises a support configured to support said supporting portion on an outermost wheel tray of said bike carrier (DE ‘523 Fig. 13 – one of the mounting portions (8) is considered the coupling structure, the other is considered the support).
Regarding claim 23, the combination from claim 1 discloses a release mechanism (9/14/15 – DE ‘523 Figs. 17-18) configured to release an engagement of said coupling section with the attachment portion (10b) of said carrier, wherein said release mechanism comprises an operating member (15 – DE ‘523) operatively coupled to said coupling section, wherein said operating member is configured to move between a locking position and an unlocking position, and wherein said operating member is disposed on said fixation arm (DE ‘523 Figs. 17-18).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘523 and Shen, further in view of D717,717 to Williams.
Regarding claim 4, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose the supporting portions being hingedly coupled (each tray portion is separately hinged to a central structure – Shen Fig. 6). However, Williams discloses that it is known to arrange two bicycle supporting portions with a single central hinge (Figs. 1-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have connected the two tray portions with a single central hinge in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent tray pivoting configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the combination from claim 4 discloses wherein said first supporting portion and said second supporting portion are configured to be foldable into a V-shape (Williams).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘523, Shen and Williams, further in view of US Published Application 2022/0266762 to Bowe.
Regarding claim 6, the combination from claim 4 discloses wherein said first supporting portion and said second supporting portion are configured to pivot about a pivot axis (Shen/Williams), but fails to disclose the pivot axis being offset from said first supporting portion and said second supporting portion. However, Bowe discloses a bicycle carrier including a central support that is pivotable about a pivot axis that is offset from the support (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have offset the pivot axis from the wheel tray in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent pivoting configuration for another to obtain predictable results. Further, the modification only involves a mere rearrangement of known parts (i.e. moving the pivot) having predictable results. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 7, the combination from claim 6 discloses wherein said supporting structure comprises a stop configuration (Bowe Fig. 2 – abutting surfaces of central support (56) at pivot (54)) defining a respective position of a first supporting portion and a second supporting portion in an in-use configuration, wherein said stop configuration is configured to limit a movement of said first supporting portion and said second supporting portion in an application direction of a force (i.e. downward) exerted on said first supporting portion or said second supporting portion (Bowe Fig. 2 – the central support is prevented from pivoting in a downward direction once the stop surfaces are abutting).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘523 and Shen, further in view of US Patent 5,282,555 to Muir.
Regarding claim 21, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose the engaging portion in the coupling section such that it is movable between a protruding and retracted position as claimed. However, Muir discloses a bicycle rack including a connection that includes an engaging portion (112) that is arranged in a coupling section (111) such that it is movable between a protruding position (Fig. 1) in which it protrudes from an opening in said coupling section and configured to engage with a recess (122) formed in said adapter and a retracted position (with 112 pushed into 111) in which it does not protrude from said opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used the connection from Muir to connect the add-on wheel tray to the bicycle carrier because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent bicycle rack connection element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘523 and Shen, further in view of US Published Application 2022/0017020 to McFadden.
Regarding claim 24, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose the fixation arm being movable. However, McFadden discloses a bicycle rack including arms that are configured to move between a deployed configuration (Fig. 3) and a retracted configuration (Fig. 2) in which the arms are folded towards the supporting structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the fixation arm foldable in the combination because it would allow for more compact storage when the add-on tray is not in use.
Claim(s) 1, 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,491,195 to McLemore in view of Shen and DE ‘523.
Regarding claim 1, McLemore discloses an add-on wheel tray (rearmost 22 and 20 in Fig. 7) for a carrier, said add-on wheel tray configured to be mounted on said carrier at a designated position on said carrier and configured to increase the predefined maximum number of bicycles supported on said carrier, said add-on wheel tray comprising: a supporting structure (rearmost 20) configured to support wheels of a bicycle; and a coupling structure (36) configured to securely connect said supporting structure with said carrier, and wherein at least a portion of said coupling structure (36) is inserted into an attachment portion (McLemore Annotated Fig. 7 below) of said carrier to securely connect said add-on wheel tray to said carrier. McLemore fails to disclose an in-use and stowage configuration. However, Shen discloses a bicycle carrier in which the wheel support structure is configured to move between an in-use configuration (Fig. 1) in which said supporting structure has an enlarged dimension and a stowage configuration (Fig. 6) in which said supporting structure has a reduced dimension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the tray in McLemore collapsible via pivoting because it would take up less space when storing or not using the tray. The combination yields a flat support, and fails to disclose a tray. However, DE ‘523 discloses using a tray shape for the bicycle support (Fig. 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a tray shape for the bicycle supports in McLemore because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent bicycle support element for another to obtain predictable results. Further, using a tray shape would tend to keep the wheels in the correct position on the support.
PNG
media_image2.png
485
777
media_image2.png
Greyscale
McLemore Annotated Fig. 7
Regarding claim 27, McLemore discloses a wheel tray assembly, comprising: an add-on wheel tray (rearmost 22 and 20 in Fig. 7) configured to be mounted on a carrier (first two of 22, 20 in Fig. 7) at a designated position on said carrier (Fig. 7) and configured to increase the predefined maximum number of bicycles supported on said carrier (Fig. 7 – by securing rearmost 22, 20, the predefined maximum number of bicycles increases), said add-on wheel tray comprising: a supporting structure (rearmost 20) configured to support wheels of a bicycle; and a coupling structure (36) configured to securely connect said supporting structure with said carrier, and an adapter (third 22 in Fig. 7) configured to be fixedly attached to an attachment portion (Annotated Fig. 7) on said carrier and configured to detachably receive said coupling structure (36), wherein said attachment portion is disposed distally to a rear-most wheel tray of said carrier (Annotated Fig. 7 – attachment portion is distal to second 20 (which is the last tray on the carrier); attachment portion is also distal to third 20). McLemore fails to disclose an in-use and stowage configuration. However, Shen discloses a bicycle carrier in which the wheel support structure is configured to move between an in-use configuration (Fig. 1) in which said supporting structure has an enlarged dimension and a stowage configuration (Fig. 6) in which said supporting structure has a reduced dimension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the tray in McLemore collapsible via pivoting because it would take up less space when storing or not using the tray. The combination yields a flat support, and fails to disclose a tray. However, DE ‘523 discloses using a tray shape for the bicycle support (Fig. 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a tray shape for the bicycle supports in McLemore because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent bicycle support element for another to obtain predictable results. Further, using a tray shape would tend to keep the wheels in the correct position on the support.
Regarding claim 29, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein an aperture (McLemore – aperture receiving 36) is formed in said attachment portion, and said portion of said coupling structure (McLemore – 36) is inserted into said aperture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that DE ‘523 lacks a perpendicular configuration (page 8-9), see DE ‘523 Annotated Fig. 15 above, which illustrates where this is found.
As to applicant’s argument that DE ‘523 fails to disclose a coupling structure inserted into an attachment portion (page 10), see the rejection of claim 1, which notes that DE ‘523 discloses wherein at least a portion of said coupling structure (14 – Fig. 18) is inserted into an attachment portion (10b – Fig. 18) of said carrier. See also the rejection of claim 1 based on McLemore.
As to applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose claim 27 (page 11), see the new rejection based on McLemore.
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