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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
The Examiner notes that the office action below may reference support found in the cited prior art by indicating element numbers, figures or by pointing out a specific paragraph (PAR) number in which support can be found. The PAR number referenced corresponds to paragraph number beginning in the "Detailed Description" of the disclosure unless otherwise noted. The pending claims are 21-40.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 21-22, 24-26, 28-30, 40, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,279,296 to Condon, II in view of US 8,814,015 to Gier and US 7,416,098 to Settelmayer et al.
With regard to claim 21, Condon discloses the invention substantially as claimed including a cargo carrier (102, figs. 1-4) comprising a base (104) securable to a surface of a substrate and an attachment feature (130) connected to the base. Condon does not disclose rods extending from the base or clamp mechanisms having openings configured to receive rods. Gier discloses a cargo system having elongated structural members, i.e. rods (110-112, fig. 3 of Gier) extending from a base structure and wrapped in a material (Gier discloses rod 112 wrapped in fiberglass); Settelmayer discloses a cargo system (20) having clamp mechanisms (34a-d and jaws 51, fig. 2 of Settelmayer) having openings configured to receive structural members such as rods (clamps 34a-d and jaws 51, 53 configured to receive vehicle crossbars 28) and further teaches providing protective coverings or materials on such members to improve grip and prevent damage (inner surfaces of movable jaws 51 may have cushion or pads).
It would have been obvious to modify the cargo carrier system of Condon to include a rod extending from the base as taught by Gier and to provide material for protection or grip as taught by Settelmayer to improve frictional engagement and durability. Settelmayer further teaches a clamp having an opening configured to receive such a rod and secure it to a surface. The claimed invention represents a predictable combination of known elements performing their established functions.
As discussed above and with regard to claim 22, Condon teaches a base (104) configured to engage a surface, i.e. surface of cargo (see Condon figs. 1-2) and distribute load across the substrate.
As discussed above and with regard to claim 24, Condon teaches that the substrate surface may be a vehicle surface (cargo carrier 102 is a wheeled vehicle).
As discussed above and with regard to claim 25, Condon modified by Gier discloses a plurality of rods or structural members (110-112) extending from a base and wrapped in a material. It would have been obvious to provide multiple rods for improved support and stability.
As discussed above and with regard to claim 26, Condon modified by Gier and Settelmayer discloses multiple clamp structures (34a-d) configured to engage multiple structural members (crossbars). Providing multiple clamps corresponding to multiple rods is a predictable design choice and enhances securement of the cargo carrier.
As discussed above and with regard to claims 28-30, Condon modified by Gier and Settelmayer discloses clamp structures (34a-d) having opposing and pivotal portions (top and bottom jaws 51, 53, figs. 3-4 of Settelmeyer pivot via 49) defining an opening configured to receive and secure a structural member between them.
As discussed above and with regard to claim 40, Condon modified by Gier discloses rigid rods (110-112) having a straight length (see figs. 1-3 of Gier).
Claims 31-32, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,279,296 to Condon, II in view of US 8,814,015 to Gier and US 7,416,098 to Settelmayer et al and further in view of US 2020/0331406 to Casagrande.
As discussed above and with regard to claims 31-32, Condon modified by Gier and Settelmayer discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not disclose a vacuum device cup on the clamp adapted and configured to secure the surface of the substrate via suction. Casagrande teaches the use of suction cups or vacuum devices associated with clamps for securing mounting structures to vehicle surfaces (see figs. 1-2 of Casagrande). It would have been obvious to incorporate a vacuum device cup into the clamp to provide an alternative attachment mechanism.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 27, 33-39, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appear to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to attachment (PTO-892) for notice of references cited and recommended for consideration based on their disclosure of limitations of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Nash whose telephone number is 571-272-4465. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. The official fax number for this Group is: 571-273-8300; Inventor Assistance Center is 800-786-9199.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system; see www.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BRIAN D NASH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
4/17/2026
Prosecution Insights