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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-22 and 37-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319 teach or disclose all of the limitations of claims 21-22 and 37-38 of the present application.
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319 teach or disclose all of the limitations of claim 28 of the present application.
Claim 31 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319 teach or disclose all of the limitations of claim 31 of the present application.
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319 teach or disclose all of the limitations of claim 32 of the present application.
Claims 23-26 and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319 in view of Hein et al. (WO 2013164693 A2)(Hein).
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319 does not specifically disclose wherein the hub comprises a side plate and a locking pin, the side plate comprises a plurality of slots configured to receive the locking pin, the hub further comprises a pin carriage configured to receive the locking pin at a plurality of locations along the length of the pin, a linkage coupling the trigger to the locking pin, wherein the trigger is configured to displace the locking pin out of a first slot of the plurality of slots a second side plate comprising a second plurality of slots configured to receive the locking pin.
Hein demonstrates a bicycle carrier including a hub (64) comprises a side plate (174) and a locking pin (150), the side plate comprises a plurality of slots (at least at P2 and P3 shown in Annotated Fig. 16 above) configured to receive the locking pin, the hub further comprises a pin carriage (172) configured to receive the locking pin at a plurality of locations along the length of the pin, a linkage (152) coupling the trigger to the locking pin, wherein the trigger is configured to displace the locking pin out of a first slot of the plurality of slots a second side plate comprising a second plurality of slots configured to receive the locking pin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319 and include the hub and linkage similar to that of Hein because such a change would require the mere choice of one reconfigurable hub over another and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319 in view of Hein et al. (WO 2013164693 A2)(Hein) as applied to claim 26 above and further in view of claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319.
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319 in view of Hein et al. (WO 2013164693 A2)(Hein).
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319 does not specifically disclose the stinger is lower than the elongate center beam.
Hein demonstrates a stinger (52) disposed lower than the an elongate center beam (66).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319 and place the stinger below the elongate center beam similar to that of Hein because such a change would have required a mere choice of a finite number of alternatives. i.e. to place it higher, even with, or lower than the center beam.
Claims 21-22, 37-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,584,307 in view of Hein et al. (WO 2013164693 A2)(Hein).
Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,584,307 teaches the limitations of claims 21-22, 37-38 but to the degree that it can be argued that the claims do not teach three configuration, Hein demonstrates a similar carrier including a first second and third corresponding positions (P1, P2, and P3 noted above) of a beam relative to a stinger via a configuration of a central hub and a linkage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,584,307 and include a hub and linkage similar to that of Hein because such a change would have required the mere choice of one known suitable hub structure for another, as well as allow the device to be held in an additional configuration.
Claims 23-26 28-29, and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,584,307 in view of Hein et al. (WO 2013164693 A2)(Hein).
The teaching of Hein and specifically the included hub and linkage further includes the limitations of claims 23-26 and 28-29.
Claims 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,584,307 in view of Hein et al. (WO 2013164693 A2)(Hein) and further in view of claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,584,307.
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,584,307 in view of Hein et al. (WO 2013164693 A2)(Hein).
Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319 does not specifically disclose the stinger is lower than the elongate center beam.
Hein demonstrates a stinger (52) disposed lower than the an elongate center beam (66).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,999,319 and place the stinger below the elongate center beam similar to that of Hein because such a change would have required a mere choice of a finite number of alternatives. i.e. to place it higher, even with, or lower than the center beam.
Claims 35-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,584,307 in view of Hein et al. (WO 2013164693 A2)(Hein) as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,584,307.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-34 and 39 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. No terminal disclaimers nor arguments were made concerning the nonstatutory double patenting rejections. Therefore these rejections were maintained.
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 MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734