DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
REJECTION BASED ON BOGOSLOFSKI
Claim(s) 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Published Application 2006/0273124 to Bogoslofski.
Regarding claim 21, Bogoslofski discloses a wheel holder for a vehicle for attaching a wheel of a bicycle to the vehicle, the wheel holder comprising: a docking device comprising a load connecting portion (58) and a wheel holding member (22), wherein the load connecting portion is configured to attach to the vehicle (Fig. 1), wherein the wheel holding member is configured to releasably attach to the load connecting portion and the wheel (Fig. 5), and wherein attachment of the wheel holding member to the load connecting portion secures the wheel holding member in a wheel holding position against gravity without further securement (Fig. 5 – when the wheel holding member is attached to the load connecting portion (by tightening knob 36 and securing 60/62/68), the wheel holding member is secured in a wheel holding position against gravity; alternatively, starting with 22 fully assembled to 20 (by tightening knob 36), when the wheel holding member is attached to the load connecting portion (by securing 60/62/68), the wheel holding member is secured in a wheel holding position against gravity).
Regarding claim 22, Bogoslofski discloses wherein the load connecting portion is configured to attach to a truck bed (the load connecting portion is capable of this intended use, for example by attaching it to the sidewalls of the truck bed).
Regarding claim 23, Bogoslofski discloses wherein the load connecting portion is configured to attach to a rooftop of the vehicle (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Bogoslofski discloses wherein the load connecting portion is configured to attach to an exterior surface of the vehicle (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Bogoslofski discloses wherein the wheel holding member is configured to attach to the load connecting portion by translating the wheel holding member toward the load connecting portion in a vertical direction (Fig. 5 – the wheel holding member can be attached by lowering it vertically toward the load connecting portion (58) and securing it with clamp 60 and bolts 62).
Regarding claim 26, Bogoslofski discloses wherein the wheel holding member is configured to releasably attach to the load connecting portion at a predetermined attachment position (Fig. 5 – the releasable attachment along 58 is capable of being made at a location predetermined by the user).
Regarding claim 27, Bogoslofski discloses wherein the wheel holding member is configured to extend at a predetermined angle from vertical of less than about 20 degrees from vertical in the predetermined attachment position (Fig. 5 – the wheel holding member extends vertically upward).
Regarding claim 28, Bogoslofski discloses wherein the wheel holding member is configured to extend horizontally in the predetermined attachment position (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 29, Bogoslofski discloses wherein the wheel holding member is configured to extend at a predetermined angle from vertical of less than about 20 degrees in a first state, and the wheel holding member is configured to extend horizontally in a second state (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 30, Bogoslofski discloses wherein the wheel holding member is spaced apart from a frame of the bicycle (Fig. 1).
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) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogoslofski.
Regarding claim 31, Bogoslofski fails to disclose whether the wheel is a front or rear wheel. However, using the wheel holder to support a front wheel would have been obvious because it only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable wheel types (i.e. front or rear) to support with the wheel holder.
REJECTION BASED ON BOGOSLOFSKI IN VIEW OF HALL
Claim(s) 21-22 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogoslofski in view of US Patent 5,476,201 to Hall.
Regarding claim 21, Bogoslofski discloses a wheel holder for a vehicle for attaching a wheel of a bicycle to the vehicle, the wheel holder comprising: a docking device comprising a load connecting portion (20/32/34/60) and a wheel holding member (22), wherein the load connecting portion is configured to attach to the vehicle (Figs. 1, 5), wherein the wheel holding member is configured to releasably attach to the load connecting portion and the wheel (Fig. 5; releasably attached to the load connecting portion via threaded rod and knob 36 – see para. 0023), and wherein attachment of the wheel holding member to the load connecting portion secures the wheel holding member in a wheel holding position (Fig. 5 – when the wheel holding member is secured to the load connecting portion (by tightening knob 36), the wheel holding member is secured in a wheel holding position). To the extent the removable threaded rod is not clear, Hall discloses a bicycle carrier including a fastener that includes a removable threaded rod (56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the threaded rod removable in Bogoslofski because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent fastener for another to obtain predictable results. Further, a removable rod would allow for easy replacement as necessary.
Regarding claim 22, the combination from claim 21 discloses wherein the load connecting portion is configured to attach to a truck bed (the load connecting portion is capable of this intended use, for example by attaching to a truck bed cross bar).
Regarding claim 40, Bogoslofski as modified by Hall discloses a method of mounting a wheel of a bicycle to a vehicle, comprising the steps of: attaching a load connecting portion (20, 32, 34, 60 – Bogoslofski) of a wheel holder to the vehicle (Bogoslofski Figs. 1, 5); attaching the wheel of the bicycle to a wheel holding member (28, 30, 38 – Bogoslofski) of the wheel holder that is separate from the frame of the bicycle (wheel attachment shown in Bogoslofski Fig. 5); and attaching the wheel holding member to the load connecting portion (by securing threaded rod (Bogoslofski/Hall)), wherein the wheel holding member is configured to releasably attach to the load connecting portion (threaded rod is removable (Bogoslofski/Hall)). Bogoslofski as modified fails to disclose attaching the wheel holding member to the load connecting portion by moving the wheel holding member towards the load connecting portion in a vertical direction. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used vertical movement during the attachment process because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable directions to use to move the wheel holding member during attachment (i.e. purely horizontal movement, purely vertical movement, or diagonal movement (which would include some vertical movement).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogoslofski and Hall, further in view of US Patent 5,779,119 to Talbot and US Patent 4,378,883 to Profeta.
Regarding claim 41, the combination from claim 40 fails to disclose whether the wheel is attached to the wheel holding member first, or the wheel holding member is attached to the load connecting portion first. However, Talbot discloses a wheel holder in which the wheel is attached to the wheel holding member without being attached to the load connecting portion (Fig. 4) and then the assembly is attached to the load connecting portion (Fig. 5). Profeta also discloses securing a wheel to a wheel holding member (case 10) before attaching the wheel holding member to a load connecting portion (30, 35 – Figs. 2, 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have attached the wheel to the wheel holding member before attaching the wheel holding member to the load connecting portion because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable orders of assembly (i.e. attach the wheel to the holding member first, or attach the wheel holding member to the load connecting portion first).
REJECTION BASED ON HALL
Claim(s) 32-36 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall.
Regarding claim 32, Hall discloses a system for transporting a bicycle, the system comprising: a wheel holder comprising a load connecting portion (46) and a wheel holding member (26 plus frame of bicycle), wherein the load connecting portion is configured to be attached to a vehicle (Fig. 3) and comprises a first socket (Fig. 3 – socket in 46 receiving 28) and a second socket (Fig. 3 – socket in 46 receiving 30), wherein the wheel holding member is configured to releasably attach to the wheel (frame releasably attaches to the rear wheel) and comprises a first leg (28) and a second leg (30), and wherein the first socket is configured to receive the first leg and the second socket is configured to receive the second leg to secure the wheel holding member in a wheel holding position (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 33, Hall discloses wherein the wheel holding member is configured to receive an axle of the wheel (the frame is configured to receive the axle of the rear wheel).
Regarding claim 34, Hall discloses wherein the wheel is a bicycle wheel.
Regarding claim 35, Hall discloses wherein the vehicle is a truck (the load connecting portion is capable of being attached to a truck by securing the crossbar 46 to the roof or bed of the truck).
Regarding claim 36, Hall discloses wherein the first socket is configured to receive a protrusion of the first leg (Fig. 3 – first socket receives lower protrusion of 28).
Regarding claim 38, Hall discloses wherein the wheel holder comprises a fixation device (78) configured to redundantly secure the wheel holding member and the load connecting portion in a predetermined attachment position.
Regarding claim 39, Hall discloses wherein the wheel holding member is configured to adjust between a first predetermined attachment position and a second predetermined attachment position (Figs. 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument against Bogoslofski for claim 21 (page 6, 10), as noted in the rejection above, Bogoslofski’s attachment includes tightening the threaded rod and knob 36. No further securing is required to hold the wheel against gravity.
As to applicant’s argument against Bogoslofski for claim 32 (page 7), see the new rejection of this claim based on Hall.
As to applicant’s argument against Hall for claim 40 (page 9), see the new rejection of this claim based on Bogoslofski.
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 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