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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 6/24/2024, 11/15/2024, 12/30/2024, and 3/14/2025 are is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 29-34 and 36-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,179,712 to Kuschmeader. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the only difference between the claims is a slight variation in terminology.
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose configurations similar to that disclosed by applicant.
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