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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A3, B4, C2, D1, E7, F3, G1, H4, and I1 in the reply filed on 2/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Species of section A are not patentably distinct, and the claims are generic to the other Species sections resulting in there being no burden to examine the application as-is. This is found persuasive and the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,071,104. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application include essentially the same structural elements as the patented claims with only minor variations in verbiage and level of detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burgess (US 5647521).
Burgess discloses a load carrier comprising: a vehicle attachment portion (4) comprising an attachment end; a first base section (10) comprising a longitudinal axis through an interior of the first base section, a first coupling end (lower end of 11) configured to couple with the attachment end of the vehicle attachment portion (Fig. 2), a second coupling end (@33) opposite the first coupling end, and a connector portion (brackets at lower end of 11 through which 17 is placed) extending away from the first coupling end or the second coupling end, wherein a cavity is formed in the other of the first coupling end or the second coupling end (@33, see Fig. 6); and a second base section (30) comprising a coupling end and configured to couple with the attachment end of the vehicle attachment portion or the second coupling end of the first base section, wherein the longitudinal axis extends through the second base section (see Fig. 6).
Burgess further discloses the cavity of the first base section is formed in the first coupling end and configured to receive a connector portion extending away from the attachment end of the vehicle attachment portion, and wherein the a cavity is formed in the coupling end of the second base section and configured to receive the connector portion of the vehicle attachment portion or the connector portion of the first base section (see Figs. 2, 6); the vehicle attachment portion is operably coupled to an actuator (18, 19); the vehicle attachment system is configured to couple to a vehicle (see Fig. 1); the vehicle attachment system further comprises a tilt mechanism configured to tilt the first and second base sections between an operational configuration and a storage configuration (see Fig. 1).
Burgess further discloses a load carrier comprising: an add-in base section (30) configured to support a load, the add-in base section comprising a longitudinal axis extending through an interior of the add-in base section (Fig. 6), a first coupling end (31) configured to removably couple to a load carrying base section (12), and a second coupling end (39), wherein a coupling cavity is formed in the first coupling end or the second coupling end and extends along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 6).
Burgess further discloses the longitudinal axis extends through an interior of the load carrying base section (Fig. 6); a coupling portion (32) extending away from the first coupling end and configured to be received within the load carrying base section; the coupling cavity is removably coupled to a vehicle attachment portion or the load carrying base section (Fig. 6); the longitudinal axis extends through a coupling portion of the vehicle attachment portion or the load carrying base section, and wherein the coupling portion is received within the coupling cavity (Fig. 6); a connector linkage (29) extends through the interior of the add-in base section; the connector linkage is one of an elongated plate, a rod, a wire, a cord, or a combination thereof (Fig. 6; rod shown); the add-in base section further comprises a first wheel tray and a second wheel tray (37a, 37b; ‘wheel’ is an intended use limitation), and wherein the first and second wheel trays extend perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 6); and the first wheel tray is spaced apart from the second wheel tray along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
May 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights