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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 9/23/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there are generic claims in the application and there is no serious burden to examine both species in the application. This is not found persuasive because the presence of generic claims does not in-and-up-itself render an Election of Species requirement improper as argued by applicant. Further. the inventions require a different field of search; for example, employing different search queries where the text terminology applicable to one of the species would not necessarily be applicable to the other, resulting in substantial duplication of work effort.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/23/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ajam et al. (US 2019/0291676, hereinafter ‘Ajam’).
Ajam discloses a configurable bed rack, the configurable bed rack comprising: a first riser (driver’s side), wherein the first riser includes: a base (122), the base configured to rest on the sides of a truck bed (para 022); a first vertical portion (121 driver’s side vertical), wherein the first vertical portion is configured to extend vertically from the side of the truck bed (Figs. 1A, 1B); and a second vertical portion (124), wherein the second vertical portion is configured to extend vertically from the side of the truck bed (Figs. 1A, 1B); a second riser (passenger’s side), wherein the second riser includes: a base (122), the base configured to rest on the sides of a truck bed (para 0022); a first vertical portion (121 passenger’s side vertical), wherein the first vertical portion is configured to extend vertically from the side of the truck bed (Figs. 1A, 1B); and a second vertical portion (124), wherein the second vertical portion is configured to extend vertically from the side of the truck bed (Figs. 1A, 1B); and a crossbar (121 horizontal portion), wherein the crossbar is configured to extend from the first riser to the second riser (Fig. 1B).
Ajam further discloses each riser further includes a brace (127), wherein the brace connects the first vertical portion to the second vertical portion (Fig. 1A); and each riser further includes a handle (125-1 capable of use as a handle).
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bagley (US 6237824).
Bagley discloses a configurable hitch rack, the configurable hitch rack comprising: an insert (21), wherein the insert is configured to be inserted in a hitch of a vehicle; an incline, wherein the incline is attached to the insert (see Fig. 7); a column (27), wherein the column is configured to be vertical when the insert is within the hitch of the vehicle (Fig. 1); a crossbar (30), wherein the crossbar is attached to the column; and a rail (50), wherein the rail is attached to the column below the crossbar (Fig. 1).
Bagley further discloses the angle between the insert and the incline is approximately 45 degrees (see Fig. 7); the angle between the column and the incline is approximately 45 degrees (see Fig. 7); a brace (26), wherein the brace secures the column to the incline (Fig. 2); the column is rotatable relative to the brace (functional recitation, square tubing is rotatable in 90 degree increments); a pin (lowermost 15, see Fig. 2), wherein the pin is configured to hold the column relative to the brace; and the crossbar is attached to the top of the column (Figs. 1, 2).
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajam et al. (US 2019/0291676, hereinafter ‘Ajam’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 11077888, hereinafter ‘Zhu’).
Regarding claim 4, Ajam discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the T-track crossbar as claimed.
However, Zhu teaches a similar device wherein the crossbar includes a T-track crossbar (26) as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use T-track as taught by Zhu for the crossbar material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 5, Ajam as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the diamond shape as claimed.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the body of the crossbar of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajam et al. (US 2019/0291676, hereinafter ‘Ajam’) in view of Zhu et al. (US 11077888, hereinafter ‘Zhu’) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Flaig (US 2015/0010343).
Ajam as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose each edge having a pair of tracks as claimed.
However, Flaig teaches a similar extrusion profile T-track wherein each edge of the profile includes a pair of tracks (see Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct he Ajam as modified above crossbar profile with a pair of tracks on each side as taught by Flaig, 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).
Ajam as modified above further results in a device wherein each track includes: an aperture; and an opening into the aperture, wherein the opening is narrower than the aperture (see Flaig Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 8, Ajam as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the pair of bolts attaching each riser to the crossbar as claimed.
However, Zhu itself teaches connecting components together using a pair of recessed bolts (Fig. 15) as a connection means as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the bolts taught by Zhu to attach the crossbar to the risers taught by Ajam as modified above, in order to removably secure the components together as taught by Zhu.
When viewed in combination, Ajam as modified above results in a device comprising: a pair of bolts on the first riser, wherein each of the pair of bolts has a head within an aperture of the T-track crossbar; and a pair of bolts on the second riser, wherein each of the pair of bolts has a head within an aperture of the T-track crossbar.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajam et al. (US 2019/0291676, hereinafter ‘Ajam’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Browning et al. (US 4783097, hereinafter ‘Browning’).
Ajam discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the locking clamp as claimed.
However, Browning teaches attaching a truck rollbar riser structure to the truck with a locking clamp (Fig. 7) as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the locking clamp system taught by Browning to attach the risers taught by Ajam to the truck bed, in order to allow variation in attachment geometry to allow for different truck bed structures as taught by Browning (col. 11, ll. 61 – col. 12, ll. 56).
Further, because Ajam and Browning both teach attachment of truck rack risers to a truck bed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the locking clamp system taught by Browning for the nonspecific attachment taught by Ajam to achieve the predictable result of securely attaching the rack riser to the truck bed as taught by Browning.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagley (US 6237824) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Clausene t al. (US 2008/0093404, hereinafter ‘Clausen’).
Bagley discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the T-track crossbar as claimed.
However, Clausen teaches constructing a hitch mounted carrier rack wherein T-track (44a, 44b) is used as part of the framework as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to T-track as taught by Clausen for the crossbas taught by Bagley, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajam et al. (US 2019/0291676, hereinafter ‘Ajam’) in view of Bagley (US 6237824).
Ajam discloses a truck, wherein the truck includes: a configurable bed rack, the configurable bed rack comprising: a first riser (driver’s side), wherein the first riser includes: a base (122), the base configured to rest on the sides of a truck bed (para 022); a first vertical portion (121 driver’s side vertical), wherein the first vertical portion is configured to extend vertically from the side of the truck bed (Figs. 1A, 1B); and a second vertical portion (124), wherein the second vertical portion is configured to extend vertically from the side of the truck bed (Figs. 1A, 1B); a second riser (passenger’s side), wherein the second riser includes: a base (122), the base configured to rest on the sides of a truck bed (para 0022); a first vertical portion (121 passenger’s side vertical), wherein the first vertical portion is configured to extend vertically from the side of the truck bed (Figs. 1A, 1B); and a second vertical portion (124), wherein the second vertical portion is configured to extend vertically from the side of the truck bed (Figs. 1A, 1B); and a crossbar (121 horizontal portion), wherein the crossbar is extends from the first riser to the second riser (Fig. 1B); except does not expressly disclose the configurable hitch rack as claimed.
Bagley discloses a configurable hitch rack, the configurable hitch rack comprising: an insert (21), wherein the insert is configured to be inserted in a hitch of a vehicle; an incline, wherein the incline is attached to the insert (see Fig. 7); a column (27), wherein the column is configured to be vertical when the insert is within the hitch of the vehicle (Fig. 1); a crossbar (30), wherein the crossbar is attached to the column; and a rail (50), wherein the rail is attached to the column below the crossbar (Fig. 1).
All of the component parts are known in Bagley and Ajam. The only difference is the combination of all the known elements into a single device by adding the hitch rack taught by Bagley to the same vehicle as the bed rack taught by Ajam.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add the hitch rack taught by Bagley to the same vehicle as the bed rack taught by Ajam, since the hitch rack in no way affects the other functions of the bed rack and the hitch rack can be used in combination with a bed rack to achieve the predictable results of allowing additional cargo to be carried by a single vehicle.
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
November 20, 2025
Prosecution Insights