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) 12 and 29-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Published Application 2017/0349111 to Ramsdell in view of US Patent 2,061,727 to Cheney.
Regarding claim 12, Ramsdell discloses a hook arm assembly (Fig. 1 – 26) for a bicycle carrier having a tire tray, the hook arm assembly comprising: a telescoping arm comprising an outer tubular member (outer tubular portion of 26) and an inner tubular member (inner arm portion of 26) slidably disposed inside the outer tubular member; wherein the outer tubular member is pivotally coupled at a first end thereof to the tire tray (Fig. 1), the inner tubular member is configured to telescopically extend from a second end of the outer tubular member (Fig. 1); a tire hook coupled to a second end of the inner tubular member (Fig. 1). Ramsdell fails to disclose the claimed details of the ratchet mechanism. However, Cheney discloses a telescopic arm (Fig. 5) including a ratchet rack (5) disposed on an inner surface of the outer tubular member (3); a ratchet pawl (19) rotatably coupled to the inner tubular member at a first end of the inner tubular member (Fig. 5), the ratchet pawl having a tooth portion (portion engaging rack 5); a torsion spring (22) biasing the tooth portion of the ratchet pawl to engage the ratchet rack; an actuator (9) pivotally coupled to the inner tubular member); a pushrod (lower half of 26) coupled at a first end thereof to the actuator, and coupled at a second end thereof to the ratchet pawl by a pushrod body (upper half of 26 plus 28); wherein the actuator comprises a cutout (29) configured to couple to the first end of the pushrod; wherein pivotal movement of the actuator is configured to translate the pushrod causing the pushrod body to disengage the tooth portion of the ratchet pawl from the ratchet rack (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Cheney’s ratchet mechanism in Ramsdell because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent telescopic adjustment mechanism for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the actuator is coupled to the tire hook.
Regarding claim 29, Ramsdell in view of Cheney discloses a hook arm assembly for a bicycle carrier, the hook arm assembly comprising: a telescoping arm comprising an outer tubular member (Ramsdell – outer tubular portion of 26) and an inner tubular member (Ramsdell – inner arm portion of 26) slidably disposed inside the outer tubular member; wherein the outer tubular member is pivotally coupled at a first end thereof to the bicycle carrier (Ramsdell Fig. 1), and the inner tubular member is configured to telescopically extend from a second end of the outer tubular member (Ramsdell Fig. 1); a tire hook coupled to a first end of the inner tubular member (Ramsdell Fig. 1); a ratchet rack (5 – Cheney) disposed on an inner surface of the outer tubular member (Cheney Fig. 5); a ratchet pawl (19 – Cheney) rotatably coupled to the inner tubular member at a second end of the inner tubular member, the ratchet pawl having a tooth (portion of 19 engaging rack 5 – Cheney) configured to engage the ratchet rack; an actuator (9 – Cheney) coupled to the first end of the inner tubular member; a rod (lower half of 26 – Cheney) coupled at a first end to the actuator and coupled at a second end to the ratchet pawl by a coupling component (upper half of 26 plus 28).
Regarding claim 30, the combination from claim 29 discloses wherein movement of the actuator is configured to translate the rod to disengage the tooth from the ratchet rack (Cheney Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 31, the combination from claim 29 discloses wherein the rod moves the coupling component to disengage the tooth from the ratchet rack (Cheney Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 32, the combination from claim 29 discloses wherein the rod translates the coupling component to disengage the tooth from the ratchet rack (Cheney Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 33, the combination from claim 29 discloses wherein the coupling component further comprises a protrusion (28 – Cheney Fig. 5) configured to disengage the tooth of the ratchet pawl from the ratchet rack.
Regarding claim 34, the combination from claim 29 discloses wherein the protrusion is a wedge-shaped protrusion (28 (Cheney) is wedge-shaped).
Regarding claim 35, the combination from claim 29 discloses wherein the actuator is pivotally attached to the tire hook (Cheney Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 36, Ramsdell in view of Cheney discloses a hook arm assembly for a bicycle carrier having a tire tray, the hook arm assembly comprising: a telescoping arm pivotally attachable at a first end thereof to the tire tray (Ramsdell Fig. 1); a tire hook attached to a second end of the telescoping arm (Ramsdell Fig. 1); a ratchet mechanism disposed inside the telescoping arm (Cheney Fig. 5); an actuator (9 – Cheney) coupled to the second end of the telescoping arm; a rod (lower half of 26 – Cheney) disposed inside the telescoping arm operably connecting the actuator to the ratchet mechanism by a coupling component (upper half of 26 plus 28 – Cheney).
Regarding claim 37, the combination from claim 36 discloses the tire tray, wherein the telescoping arm is pivotally attached at the first end thereof to the tire tray (Ramsdell Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 38, the combination from claim 36 discloses wherein the ratchet mechanism further comprises a ratchet rack (5 – Cheney) and a ratchet pawl (19 – Cheney); and wherein a first end of the rod is coupled to the actuator and a second end of the rod is coupled to the ratchet pawl by the coupling component (Cheney Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 39, the combination from claim 36 discloses wherein the coupling component further comprises a protrusion (28 – Cheney Fig. 5) configured to disengage the ratchet pawl from the ratchet rack.
Regarding claim 40, the combination from claim 36 discloses wherein the coupling component is configured to pivot the ratchet pawl away from the ratchet rack (Cheney Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 41, the combination from claim 36 discloses wherein the rod is configured to move the coupling component to disengage the ratchet mechanism (Cheney Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 42, the combination from claim 36 discloses wherein the rod is configured to translate the coupling component to disengage the ratchet mechanism (Cheney Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 43, the combination from claim 36 discloses wherein the actuator is pivotally attached to the tire hook (Cheney Fig. 5/Ramsdell Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 44, the combination from claim 36 discloses an aperture (29 – Cheney) in the actuator for receiving a first end of the rod.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsdell and Cheney, further in view of US Patent 9,649,986 to Pedrini and US Patent 4,179,154 to Ingram.
Regarding claims 13-14, the combination from claim 12 fails to disclose the cutout being a cavity that engages the pushrod. However, Pedrini discloses a bicycle carrier including a ratchet mechanism that includes a pivoting pushbutton that engages a pushrod (81) to engage/disengage a pawl. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a pivoting pushbutton on top of the tire hook to move the pushrod in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent actuator element for another to obtain predictable results. The combination fails to disclose how the pushbutton engages the pushrod. However, Ingram discloses a vehicle bracket that attaches a rod (72) to a knob (74) via a cavity (cavity in 74 accepting 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a cavity in the pushbutton to engage the pushrod because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable connections to use. The modification also only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent linkage attachment method for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, the combination from claim 13 discloses wherein the cutout is an indentation (cavity in 74 (Ingram) can be considered an indentation under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that Ramsdell and Cheney do not teach a pushrod and a pushrod body (page 6) because they are not separate components, the examiner disagrees. The claim language recites “a pushrod coupled at a first end thereof to the actuator, and coupled at a second end thereof to the ratchet pawl by a pushrod body”. The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of this claim language allows for a connection between the pushrod and pushrod body, and an integral connection would be one type of connection that fits within the BRI. It is also noted that constructing a formerly integral structure in various connected elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
As to applicant’s argument that Ramsdell and Cheney do not teach the rod coupled to the ratchet pawl by a coupling component (page 7), the prior art rod (lower half of 26) maintains contact with (i.e. couples with) the ratchet pawl by way of the upper half of 26 plus 28 (the coupling component). As noted in the previous paragraph, the rod and upper half of 26 can be integrally connected under a BRI of the claim language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights