Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, and 13, drawn to a roof rack, classified in B60R 9/04
II. Claims 16, 37, 38, 41-43, 50, 54, and 56-62, drawn to a cargo container, classified in B60R 9/055
3. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as supporting something other than the cargo container of subcombination II, perhaps a ladder. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
4. The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
5. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
c) the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
6. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
7. During a telephone conversation with Curtiss Dosier on 12/11/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute Invention I, the roof rack, covered by claims 1, 6, 7, 11, and 13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16, 37, 38, 41-43, 50, 54, and 56-62 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claim 6 is 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. In particular, the scope of the limitation “infinitely adjustable between a first end and a second end” is unclear. The limitation itself defines the adjustability as being limited between the first and second ends which is by definition not infinite. Even within the ends, it doesn’t seem possible to have truly infinite adjustability. As such, it is not clear what structure Applicant truly intends to cover with this limitation. For the purpose of examination, Examiner assumes this limitation means there are no positive stops between the first and second ends that would positionally limit the adjustability of the load bars - they are free to slide to literally any location between the ends and be fixed. For now, Examiner suggests simply removing the word “infinitely”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bott (US 3,554,416 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bott discloses a rack assembly for a vehicle (vehicle not currently being claimed in combination due to functional language “for”), comprising: a first side support (16) configured to be attached to a first lateral side of the vehicle, the first side support having a first upper wall and a first lower wall defining a first channel (30) having a first opening (see Figure 3); a second side support (18) configured to be attached to a second lateral side of the vehicle opposite the first side, the second side support having a second upper wall and a second lower wall defining a second channel having a second opening (30), wherein the first opening faces the second side support and the second opening faces the first side support (see Figure 1); a plurality of load bars (22,24) that extend between the first side support and the second side support, each of the plurality of load bars having a first end and a second end (see Figure 1), wherein the first end of each of the plurality of load bars is received within the first channel and the second end of each of the plurality of load bars is received within the second channel (see Figures 3-5); a first clamp (106) associated with the first end of each of the plurality of load bars, wherein the first clamp secures the first end to the first side support (see Figures 4 and 5; see col. 6 lines 12-32); and a second clamp associated with the second end of each of the plurality of load bars, wherein the second clamp secures the second end to the second side support (see Figures 4 and 5; see col. 6 lines 12-32).
Regarding claim 6, to the degree the claim is understood, Bott discloses the rack assembly of Claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of load bars is infinitely adjustable between a first end and a second end of each of the first channel and the second channel. Bott does not disclose any positive stops along the length of the channels (30) such that the load bars are infinitely adjustable to the same degree Applicant has seemingly disclosed.
Regarding claim 7, Bott discloses the rack assembly of Claim 1, wherein the first side support comprises a first rail (16) and at least one first vertical support (20) configured to support the first rail at an elevated position relative to a corresponding surface of the vehicle (see Figure 1), and wherein the second side support comprises a second rail (18) and at least one second vertical support (20) configured to support the second rail at an elevated position relative to the corresponding surface of the vehicle (see Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bott (US 3,554,416 A) in view of Bjornetun (EP 3,931,047 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Bott discloses the rack assembly of Claim 1, but fails to further disclose a container supported by the plurality of load bars.
Regarding claim 13, Bott fails to disclose the rack assembly of Claim 11, and also fails to disclose a mounting plate that is attached to one or more of the plurality of load bars, wherein the container is attached to the mounting plate.
Bjornetun teaches that it was already known in the art for a container (6) to be supported on load bars (5) like those of Bott using mounting plates (2) attached between the load bars and the container. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have attached a container to the load bars of Bott using mounting plates, where such load bar use was already known in the art, as shown by Bjornetun.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art includes other related clamping load bar designs.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 12/16/25