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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichmann (US Patent no. 5845832) in view of Wright (US Publication no. 20160361960).
Regarding claim 1, Eichmann discloses a bicycle (intended use, see discussion below) hanger comprising: a mount (26 and 30 assembly, figure 1); a folding extension arm (38 and 42) connected to the mount; and a bicycle (intended use, see discussion below) support (46) connected to the folding extension arm (38 and 42); the bicycle support (46) being adapted to support a bicycle by hanging the bicycle on the bicycle support (intended use, see discussion below); the mount having a rear side, a front side, a top side, and a bottom side, the folding extension arm comprising a first arm segment (38) and a second arm segment (42), the first arm segment (38) having a first arm segment proximal end (adjacent 40) and a first arm segment distal end (adjacent 44), the second arm segment (42) having a second arm segment proximal end (adjacent 44) and a second arm segment distal end (adjacent 52), the folding extension arm having a proximal end (adjacent 40) at the first arm segment proximal end (adjacent 40) and a distal end (adjacent 52) at the second arm segment distal end (adjacent 52), the first arm segment proximal end (adjacent 40) being pivotally connected to the mount (26 and 30 assembly) by a first joint (40), the second arm segment proximal end (adjacent 44) being pivotally connected to the first arm segment distal end by a second joint (44), so that the folding extension arm is articulable in a folding plane, the folding plane being horizontal when the mount is mounted in an upright orientation to the vertical wall (12), with the mount top side positioned vertically above the wall mount bottom side; the bicycle support (46) being rotatably connected to the distal end (adjacent 52) of the folding extension arm by a third joint (52), to permit rotation of the bicycle support (cargo carrier 46) relative to the distal end of the folding extension arm in the folding plane; the first joint (40), the second joint (44), and the third joint (52) being free to articular independently of one another,
Regarding applicant’s recitation of intended use emphasized above, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this instance Eichmann’s cargo carrier (46) is capable of “support a bicycle by hanging the bicycle on the bicycle support (46, cargo carrier)”.
Eichmann, however, does not disclose the mount is a wall mount being of one piece construction and wherein the wall mount being adapted to be fixedly mounted to a vertical wall with the wall mount rear side facing the vertical wall.
.
PNG
media_image1.png
749
1116
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wright teaches a wall mount (figure 5) being of one piece construction for bicycle rack (60) normally attached to trailer hitch wherein the combination provides a bicycle hanger (figure 5) comprising: a wall mount (11, figure 2 or m, see markup above); an extension arm (a and b) connected to the wall mount; and a bicycle support (c, see markup above) connected to the extension arm (a and b); the wall mount (11, figure 2 or m, see markup above) having a rear side, a front side, a top side, and a bottom side, the wall mount being adapted to be fixedly mounted to a vertical wall with the wall mount rear side facing the vertical wall (figures 2 and 5), the bicycle support (c) being connected to the distal end of the extension arm, the bicycle support (c) being adapted to support a bicycle (d) by hanging the bicycle on the bicycle support.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have mounted the extension arm and cargo carrier of Eichmann onto a wall mount when not used with the trailer hitch of a vehicle as taught to be desirable by Wright. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the cargo carrier of Eichmann such that it is of bicycle support for supporting bicycle as taught to be desirable by Wright.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichmann (US Patent no. 5845832) in view of Wright (US Publication no. 20160361960) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (US Publication no.2007/0221794).
Regarding claim 2, Eichmann and Wright combined discloses the bicycle hanger of claim 1, additionally, Eichmann discloses further the bicycle support (46) is rotatably connected to the folding extension arm to permit rotation of the bicycle support relative to the distal end of the folding extension arm in the folding plane.
However, Eichmann and Wright combined does not disclose wherein the bicycle support is rotatably connected to the folding extension arm to permit rotation of the bicycle support relative to the distal end of the folding extension arm in a tilting plane, the tilting plane being vertical when the wall mount is mounted in the upright orientation.
Li (US Publication no. 2007/0221794) discloses wall hanger comprising folding extension arm (2 and 3) wherein the object support (41) is rotatably connected to the folding extension arm (at 432) to permit rotation of the object support (41) relative to the distal end of the folding extension arm in a tilting plane, the tilting plane being vertical when the wall mount (13) is mounted in the upright orientation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the bicycle support of Eichmann and Wright combined such that wherein the bicycle support is rotatably connected to the folding extension arm to permit rotation of the bicycle support relative to the distal end of the folding extension arm in a tilting plane, the tilting plane being vertical when the wall mount is mounted in the upright orientation providing an additional adjustment position for the object support as taught by Li for the well-known advantage of tilting or lowering the bicycle support for ease in loading a bicycle.
Regarding claim 3, Eichmann, Wright, and Li combined discloses the bicycle hanger of claim 2 as discussed above, wherein Wright discloses the bike support (c, see examiner’s markup above) comprises a top tube mount (t, see markup above), the top tube mount comprising a top tube cradle (c) adapted and configured to support an underside of a bicycle frame top tube positioned on a top side of the top tube cradle.
Regarding claim 4, Eichmann, Wright, and Li combined discloses the bicycle hanger of claim 3 wherein Wright discloses the top tube cradle (c, see markup above) comprises a pair of longitudinally extending opposed cradle edges (e, see markup above) and a cradle opening disposed between the cradle edges, the cradle edges being adapted to straddle the bicycle frame top tube underside when the top tube underside is received in the cradle opening.
Regarding claim 5, Eichmann, Wright, and Li combined discloses the bicycle hanger of claim 4 wherein Wright discloses the top tube cradle (t) further comprises a channel support surface (surface of cradle c) disposed below the cradle opening, the channel support surface extending continuously across the cradle opening and being adapted and configured to contact the top tube underside when the top tube underside is received in the cradle opening.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichmann et al (US Patent no. 5845832) in view of Wright (US Publication no. 20160361960) and Li (US Publication no. 2007/0221794).as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Anderson et al (US Patent no. 6547116).
Regarding claim 6, Eichmann, Wright, and Li combined discloses the bicycle hanger of claim 4 except wherein the top tube mount further comprises a top tube mount base formed of a first material, at least a contact portion of the top tube cradle being formed of a second material, the second material being softer than the first material, the top tube cradle being disposed over the top tube mount base so that when a bicycle frame top tube underside is placed on the top tube cradle, the top tube underside contacts the contact portion of the top tube cradle and does not contact the top tube mount base; and per claim 7, wherein the contact portion of the top tube cradle comprises a foam material or a rubber material.
Anderson discloses cradle (44) with rubber (46, column 4, lines 5-10) for supporting the bicycle. Such rubber has the well-known advantage of prevent marring of the bicycle frame supported thereon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the cradle of Eichmann, Wright, and Li combined such that the cradle comprises rubber as taught by Anderson for the well-known advantage of prevent marring of the bicycle frame supported thereon.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichmann in view of Wright (US Publication no. 20160361960) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hilk (US Patent no. 6435523).
Regarding claim 13, Eichmann and Wright combined discloses the bicycle hanger of claim 1 except wherein the bicycle support comprises a bicycle seat and handlebar mount, the bicycle seat and handlebar mount comprising a seat arm and a handlebar arm, the bicycle seat and handlebar mount being adapted and configured to support a bicycle hung on the bicycle seat and handlebar mount with a seat underside of the bicycle positioned on a top side of the seat arm and a handlebar of the bicycle positioned on a top side of the handlebar arm.
Hilk (US Patent no. 6435523) discloses the bicycle support (12) comprises a bicycle seat and handlebar mount (10), the bicycle seat and handlebar mount comprising a seat arm (26, figure 2) and a handlebar arm (24, figure 2), the bicycle seat and handlebar mount being adapted and configured to support a bicycle (22, figure 1) hung on the bicycle seat and handlebar mount with a seat underside (28, figure 1) of the bicycle positioned on a top side of the seat arm (26) and a handlebar (30, figure 1) of the bicycle positioned on a top side of the handlebar arm (24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled to have modify the bicycle support of Eichmann and Wright combined such that the bicycle support comprises a bicycle seat and handlebar mount, the bicycle seat and handlebar mount comprising a seat arm and a handlebar arm, the bicycle seat and handlebar mount being adapted and configured to support a bicycle hung on the bicycle seat and handlebar mount with a seat underside of the bicycle positioned on a top side of the seat arm and a handlebar of the bicycle positioned on a top side of the handlebar arm as such bicycle supporting arrangement is old and well-known in the bicycle art as demonstrated by Hilk.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichmann in view of Wright (US Publication no. 20160361960) and Hilk (US Patent no. 6435523) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Hersh (US Patent no. 0529861). Regarding claim 14, Eichmann, Wright, Hilk combined discloses the bicycle hanger of claim 13 wherein Hilk discloses the bicycle seat and handlebar mount further comprises a mount base (42 and 44), the seat arm (26) and the handlebar arm (24) extending away from the mount base (42 and 44) in opposite directions when in their respective horizontal working positions.
However, Eichmann, Wright, and Hilk combined does not disclose each of the seat arm and the handlebar arm being pivotally connected to the mount base to provide freedom of rotation in a common vertical plane to and from respective horizontal working positions and vertically inclined stowed positions relative to the mount base.
Hersh discloses a bicycle seat and handle bar mount comprising each of the seat arm and the handlebar arm (D) being pivotally connected to the mount base (2 and 3) to provide freedom of rotation in a common vertical plane to and from respective horizontal working positions and vertically inclined stowed positions relative to the mount base so as accommodate different orientation of bicycle tube frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the seat arm and handlebar arm mount of Eichmann, Wright, and Hilk combined such that each of the seat arm and the handlebar arm being pivotally connected to the mount base to provide freedom of rotation in a common vertical plane to and from respective horizontal working positions and vertically inclined stowed positions relative to the mount base so as to accommodate different orientation of the bicycle tube frame as taught to be desirable by Hersh.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichmann in view of Wright (US Publication no. 20160361960) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carlson et al (US Patent no. 7712614).
Regarding claim 16, Eichmann and Wright combined discloses the bicycle hanger of claim 1 except for wherein the bicycle support comprises a bicycle seat mount adapted and configured to support a bicycle hung on the bicycle seat mount with a seat underside of the bicycle positioned on a top side of the bicycle seat mount.
Carlson et al (US Patent no. 7712614) discloses a bicycle support comprises a bicycle seat mount (108, figure 2) adapted and configured to support a bicycle hung on the bicycle seat mount with a seat underside (20) of the bicycle positioned on a top side of the bicycle seat mount (110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the bicycle support of Eichmann and Wright combined such that it comprises a bicycle seat mount adapted and configured to support a bicycle hung on the bicycle seat mount with a seat underside of the bicycle positioned on a top side of the bicycle seat mount as such mounting arrangement are conventional in the bicycle art as demonstrated by Carlson.
Regarding claim 17, Eichmann, Wright, and Carlson combined discloses the bicycle hanger of claim 16, wherein Carlson further teaches the bicycle seat mount comprises a formed support portion (110, figures 2-3) adapted and configured to couple with standard bicycle seats (20).
Regarding claim 18, Eichmann, Wright, and Carlson combined discloses the bicycle hanger of claim 16 wherein Carlson discloses the bicycle seat mount comprises a padding member (110, figure 3) disposed over a support member, the support member being formed of a first material and the padding member being formed of a second material softer (Carlson discloses the bicycle seat mount includes a rubber or foam on support portion 110, see column 4, lines 65-67) than the first material, the bicycle seat mount being adapted and configured to support the bicycle hung on the bicycle seat mount with the underside of the seat positioned on the padding member without the bicycle contacting the support member.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichmann in view of Wright (US Publication no. 20160361960) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martin (US Patent no. 0607545).
Eichman and Wright combined discloses the bicycle hanger of claim 1 except wherein the bicycle support comprises a bicycle wheel mount, the bicycle wheel mount being adapted and configured to support a bicycle hung on the bicycle wheel mount with an inner side of the bicycle wheel rim positioned on a top side of the bicycle wheel mount.
Martin discloses a bicycle support (C, figure 1) comprises a bicycle wheel mount (K), the bicycle wheel mount being adapted and configured to support a bicycle (A) hung on the bicycle wheel mount with an inner side of the bicycle wheel rim positioned on a top side of the bicycle wheel mount (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the bicycle support of Eichmann and Wright combined such that it comprises a bicycle wheel mount, the bicycle wheel mount being adapted and configured to support a bicycle hung on the bicycle wheel mount with an inner side of the bicycle wheel rim positioned on a top side of the bicycle wheel mount as such wheel mount are conventional in the bicycle art as demonstrated by Martin.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichmann (US Patent no. 5845832) in view of Wright (US Publication no. 20160361960) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bowles et al (US Patent no. 12187234).
With respect to claim 20 (New), Eichmann and Wright combined discloses the bicycle hanger of claim 1 as discussed above. Additionally, Eichmann discloses a pin (40, figure 1) extending vertically through the anchor mount (30) and the first arm segment (38) when the anchor mount (30) is in the upright orientation. However, Eichmann and Wright combined does not disclose wherein the first joint comprises a bolt, the bolt extending vertically through the wall mount and the first arm segment when the wall mount is in said upright orientation. Bowles teaches in hitch connections, that “In current receiver hitch systems, the receiver tube, attached to a vehicle, receives a drawbar that supports a ball hitch or similar type attachment for a trailer, or a drawbar attached to an equipment rack may be inserted into the receiver tube and secured therein by various means such as cross-axis bolts or pins. ” (column 5, lines 55-60) Such bolts can be used in place of pins or vice versa which denotes that they are mechanical equivalents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the pin connection of Eichmann and Wright combined such that the pin is a bolt since bolts are well-known mechanical equivalents in hitch connection as taught by Bowles.
Claim 15 is allowed.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Eichmann and Wright combination, applicant argues that “The proposed combination of Eichmann and Wright wholly lacks a one-piece wall mount that is pivotally connected to a first arm segment by a first joint. Instead, the proposed combination comprises a wall-mounted hitch receiver with no pivotal connecting feature, into which a base member of a bicycle rack is inserted perpendicularly to a wall”. Examiner disagrees. Eichmann,the primary reference, discloses the first joint includes a pin (40, figure 1) extending vertically through the anchor mount (30) and the first arm segment (38) when the anchor mount (30) is in the upright orientation for pivotal connection therewith. Wright provides teaching of providing the anchor mount to a wall to make it a wall mount where Wright’s wall mount is one piece. The combination would have provided a one piece wall mount for Eichmann wherein Eichmann discloses pivotal connection (pin 40) with such one piece wall mount taught by Wright.
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 Ko (Korie) H Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-6816. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 571-272-8227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ko H Chan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631 khc