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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the loading bottom” and “the open top”, which lack antecedent basis.
Claim 6 should recite “the bottom base” in line 2 to properly refer to this element.
Claim 6 recites “the bottom base (20) is formed the upper end surface” which appears to be missing one or more words.
Claim 7 recites “the pressure-bearing base” and “the upper end surface”, which lack antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites “the accommodation cavity”, which should be “the accommodating cavity” to match the earlier recitation of this term.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the car luggage rack" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this should depend from claim 1 (i.e. “A luggage loading and unloading method for the car luggage rack of claim 1 comprising . . .”). For purposes of the prior art rejection below, it will be assumed that this depends from claim 1.
Claims 2-5 and 10 depend from the above claim(s) and are rejected for the above reason as they do not cure the deficiency.
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) 1 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111619461 to Zhang in view of GB 2,442,057 to Bryan and US Patent 11,110,868 to Dimmen.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a car luggage rack comprising: a base (9), forming an opening accommodation space (Fig. 2 – interior space of 9); a loading frame (1), forming a loading space with the loading bottom and the open top (1 has a bottom and an open top, forming a loading space); an extension frame (2) with its two ends pivotally connected to the base and the loading frame respectively (Fig. 2); a driving part (8), driving the extension frame to rotate, further driving the loading frame to extend out of the accommodation space to a predetermined position (going from Fig. 3 to Fig. 9 in order) or to be folded in the accommodation space (going from Fig. 9 to Fig. 3 in reverse order); a horizontal holding structure (5, 7), used to keep the loading frame horizontally constant when the driving part drives the loading frame to extend out of the accommodation space (Figs. 3 to 9) or being folded into the accommodation space (Figs. 9 to 3); wherein the base includes a left longitudinal beam (Annotated Fig. 2 below) and a right longitudinal beam (Annotated Fig. 2) arranged oppositely. Zhang fails to disclose a bottom base. However, Bryan discloses a roof rack including an accommodation space (space interior to 1) for receiving a rack portion, the accommodation space having a bottom base (Annotated Fig. 1 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a bottom base in the accommodation space to provide a longer surface for the extension frame to engage when folded so that the extension frame is fully supported. Alternatively, the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent receiving space element for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the bottom base would extend inward from the longitudinal beams and would maintain a gap with the bottom of the accommodation space. The combination fails to disclose installation openings. However, Dimmen discloses a roof rack that includes beams (2) provided with installation openings (Fig. 17C – bottom openings in 114) adapted to the longitudinal rails (113) on the top of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included installation openings on the right and left longitudinal beams in the combination because it would allow for attaching the rack to a vehicle with longitudinal rails.
PNG
media_image1.png
473
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhang Annotated Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
518
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bryan Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding claim 9, the combination from claim 1 discloses a luggage loading and unloading method for the car luggage rack comprising: along the arc path with the driving part as the center and the length of the extension frame as the radius, the loading frame is sent to a predetermined low position in a horizontal attitude (Zhang Fig. 9) or being folded together with the extension frame in the accommodation space (Zhang Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein in an unloading step: the driving part drives the extension frame to rotate around the output shaft of the driving part to lift the loading frame horizontally; continuing to drive the extension frame to rotate, horizontally lowering the loading frame to the side of the vehicle, keeping the height of the loading frame lower than the height of the vehicle roof (moving from Fig. 3 to Fig. 9 in order); and in a loading step: the driving part drives the extension frame to rotate reversely around the output shaft of the driving part and lift the loading frame horizontally; continuing to drive the extension frame to rotate in the opposite direction, lowering the loading frame horizontally, and being folded together with the extension frame in the accommodation space (moving from Fig. 9 to Fig. 3 in reverse order).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Bryan and Dimmen, further in view of DE 20002018 (“DE ‘018”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the loading frame includes a left longitudinal bar (Zhang Annotated Fig. 2 above), a right longitudinal bar (Zhang Annotated Fig. 2) arranged oppositely and crossbar group (Zhang – members of 1 connecting the longitudinal bars) connecting the left longitudinal bar and right longitudinal bar; loading bottom is formed by the left longitudinal bar, the right longitudinal bar and the crossbar group together (Zhang – members of 1 form a loading bottom); said crossbar group includes the fixed crossbar (Zhang Annotated Fig. 2) and the movable crossbar (Zhang Annotated Fig. 2); the two ends of the fixed crossbar are fixedly connected to the left longitudinal bar and the right longitudinal bar respectively (Zhang Annotated Fig. 2); the movable cross bar is fixedly connected to the left longitudinal bar and the right longitudinal bar respectively, and is pivotally connected to the extension frame (Zhang Annotated Fig. 2). To the extent there is any doubt about the movable crossbar being pivotally connected to the extension frame, DE ‘018 discloses a roof rack that includes a crossbar that is pivotally connected to another portion of the rack (Annotated Fig. 3 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have pivotally connected the crossbar to the extension frame in the combination because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable structural portions to pivotally connect to achieve the pivot motion disclosed in Zhang.
PNG
media_image3.png
579
644
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DE ‘018 Annotated Fig. 3
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Bryan and Dimmen, further in view of US Published Application 2004/0201244 to Neuer and US Published Application 2011/0088855 to Boustani.
Regarding claim 8, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose an awning. However, Neuer discloses an awning that attaches to a roof rack (Fig. 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included an awning in the assembly to protect the vehicle from the sun as desired. Attaching the awning to the base would have been obvious because the base remains fixed to the vehicle roof and stationary. The combination fails to disclose the claimed details of the awning. However, Boustani discloses a vehicle awning including: a shell (Fig. 2 – top, bottom and ends of shell 2 (not including 5)), including a shell wall and an accommodating cavity defined by the shell wall (Fig. 1); a opening (Figs. 4-6 – opening in side of shell allowing the shade to extend) communicates with the accommodation cavity and is provided on one side wall of the shell; a shielding component (22); a driving component (4, 6), which is used to drive the shielding component to fold and unfold, in order to form a shielding barrier at a predetermined position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Boustani’s awning design in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent extendable awning for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, front and rear awnings would be secured to the rack (Neuer) and would only extend outward in one direction (i.e. the front awning would extend to the front, and the rear awning would extend to the rear).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if any applicable Section 112 rejections are addressed.
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
Prosecution Insights