Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/679,165

Telescoping Bicycle Support Assembly

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 30, 2024
Examiner
SKURDAL, COREY NELSON
Art Unit
3734
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Yakima Products, INC.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
729 granted / 1189 resolved
-8.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1220
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
38.6%
-1.4% vs TC avg
§102
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
§112
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1189 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLemore et al. (US 6,857,545) in view of Walker et al. (US 2016/0068111) and Ward (US 2023/0278654). Regarding claims 1-3, 7 and 20, McLemore discloses a bicycle rack 20 substantially as claimed, including: a hitch mount device 70; a frame structure 22 including a first beam portion 30, a second beam portion 32, and a lateral portion 28 spanning between the first and second beam portions and fixed to the hitch mount device; at least two bicycle support assemblies 24/26, each assembly spanning between the first and second beam portion and including first and second wheel supports 44/46 and 48/50 disposed at opposite ends of the support assemblies. McLemore does not disclose the bicycle support assemblies being telescopic with an outer tray and inner tray slidably received in the outer tray and wherein the inner and outer tray are independently securable to the beam portions (“frame structure” as in claim 1) in plurality/continuous range of positions. Walker discloses a bicycle support assembly 10 having an outer tray 20 with wheel retaining device 28, and an inner tray 30 with a second wheel retaining device 62, wherein the inner tray is telescopically received in the outer tray in order to vary the relative position between the wheel retainers (paragraph 0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the bicycle support assembly of McLemore with inner and outer members as taught by Walker in order to allow the length of the support to be adjusted to the size of the bicycle. McLemore modified by Walker does not disclose the trays are securable to the frame in a plurality/continuous range of positions. Ward teaches that is known to secure bicycle trays 10/12 to frame members 70/72 with fasteners 74/76 received in adjustment slots (Figure 5) thereby enabling the trays to be secured in a plurality/continuous range of positions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to secure the modified trays of the McLemore/Walker device with slots and fasteners as taught by Ward in order to allow quick assembly and adjustment of the device to the size of the bicycle. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-6 are 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. Claims 8-13, 15-19 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see reply filed 1/8/26, with respect to the prior rejection and specifically the Foley reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior rejection has been withdrawn and the new grounds of rejection appears above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-4pm 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. /COREY N SKURDAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 30, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 08, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600424
CONVERTIBLE CARGO HOLDER AND BICYCLE SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584711
UNIVERSAL MOUNT SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TACTICAL ACCESSORIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571609
QUICK RELEASE HOLSTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570218
TRACK ASSEMBLY WITH STORAGE BIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12545344
Reconfigurable Arm for a Bicycle Rack
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+11.4%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1189 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month