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 .
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, 7-10, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagy (US 5,086,958 A) in view of Retief (US 2010/0264184 A1) and Trimble (US 4,957,227 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nagy discloses a carrier assembly including a mounting assembly (Fig. 2), at least one payload support joined to said mounting assembly, said at least one payload support defining a mounting structure (10) for supporting a payload carrier attachment (31) for carrying a payload as carried by a payload carrier attachment (Fig. 3), said mounting structure being defined as an elongated channel (29) having a closed end to form an interference fit therebetween permitting constrained longitudinal motion of said elongated boss within said elongated channel and preventing lateral movement of said elongated boss within said elongated channel (Fig. 3), and at least one payload carrier attachment adapted for carrying the payload (Fig. 3), said at least one payload carrier attachment defining a mating mounting structure complementary to said mounting structure of said at least one payload support, said mating mounting structure being defined as another of said elongated channel and said elongated boss (noting an elongated boss), said mating mounting structure being selectively mountable and demountable from said mounting structure in tool-free fashion by longitudinal sliding of said elongated boss relative to said elongated channel.
Nagy does not specifically disclose the carrier assembly is mountable to rails of a saddle of a bicycle, the carrier assembly comprising, a mounting assembly adapted for attachment to at least one rail of the saddle to secure said mounting assembly thereto.
Retief discloses a payload carrier attachable to a bicycle including a mounting assembly adapted for attachment to at least one rail of the saddle to secure said mounting assembly thereto (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Nagy and use the teaching of Retief and include mounting structure attachable to at least one rail of a saddle of a bicycle because such a change would allow the device to be attached to additional structures thereby increasing the number of situations where the device can be used and also increasing the versatility of the device.
Modified Nagy does not specifically disclose the at least one payload support having a first side and a second side extending orthogonally to said first side, each of said first side and said second side defining a respective mounting structure.
Trimble teaches the ability to have a payload supporting device including the device configured to support a single payload (Figs. 2 and 6) or a configuration for supporting a plurality of payloads (Figs. 3, 4, and 6) and including a first and second side extending at angles relative to one another (Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Nagy and include two payload supports, or an additional tool free mounting structure of the type as taught by modified Nagy because such a change would require a mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
To the degree that it can be argued that the sides do not specifically extend orthogonally to one another, such a change would require a mere rearrangement of parts or a mere choice of an optimum value for the angle between the sides. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nagy discloses said at least one payload support is adjustably mounted to the mounting assembly to allow for adjustment of an angle of orientation of said at least one payload support relative to the mounting assembly and for securing of said at least one payload support in any selected one of a plurality of angular orientations (via 18).
Regarding claims 8, modified Nagy discloses said mounting assembly comprises an attachment mechanism for adjustably securing said at least one payload support in any selected one of a plurality of angular orientations relative to said mounting assembly (Via 18, 19, and 21).
Regarding claim 9, modified Nagy discloses said attachment mechanism comprises a hub threaded to receive a screw operable to clamp a mating hub of said at least one payload support therebetween to secure said at least one payload support in a selected angular orientation (Fig. 5).
Modified Nagy does not specifically note that the screw is a thumbscrew.
Nagy demonstrates the ability to use thumbscrews (40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Nagy and replace the screw shown in Fig. 5 and replace it with a thumbscrew because such a change would require a mere substitution of one known piece of hardware for another and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, modified Nagy discloses at least one of said hub and said mating hub comprises complementary structures collectively defining a plurality of detents for mating the hubs at a plurality of predefined angular orientations (noting teeth 17 noting complimentary radial teeth mounted to 18 as noted in Col. 4; Ll. 10-16).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nagy discloses said plurality of tool-free mounting structures on said first side and said second side have a common orientation as they are, or are configured to be, generally vertical.
Regarding claim 18, modified Nagy discloses said mounting structures of said at least one payload support defines a first channel that is one of rearward-facing and side-facing and a second channel that is another of a rearward-facing and side facing noting the teaching of Trimble places the attachment mechanisms at an angle related to one another, and the adjustment of Nagy allows for one of the mounting structures to face “rearward” whereby the other would at least partially be side-facing.
Claims 14, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagy (US 5,086,958 A) in view of Retief (US 2010/0264184 A1) and Trimble (US 4,957,227 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gates et al. (US 6,637,707 B1)(Gates) and Kuo (US 2003/0029209 A1).
Regarding claims 14, 16, and 19, modified Nagy demonstrates forming an interference fit therebetween permitting constrained longitudinal motion of each said elongated boss within each said elongated channel and preventing lateral movement of each said elongated boss within each said elongated channel does not specifically disclose each of said mounting structures comprises a plurality of tool-free mounting structures, each of said elongated channels and said elongated bosses being keystone shaped in cross-section in a direction extending transversely to a direction of elongation of each of said elongated channels and said elongated bosses, and the mounting structure on one surface of said at least one payload support that is one of rearward facing and side-facing.
Gates teaches the ability to have a similar channel and boss mounting system where the channel and boss being keystone shaped in cross section in a direction extending transversely to a direction of elongation and are and are shaped in a known “dovetail” configuration (Figs. 3 and 5, and Col. 3; Ll. 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Nagy and use the teaching of Gates and make the cross section of the channel and the boss generally keystone (or dovetail) shaped having angled side portions because such a change would harness the well-known attributes of a dovetailed connection. I.e. properly dimensioned and configured angles of the dovetail mechanism would ensure a secure fitment between the channel and the boss. Additionally, a dovetail configuration is a well-known alternative to a slot with generally square edges.
Kuo demonstrates a tool free mounting structure including a plurality of mounting structures (Fig. 7, noting the vertical and horizontal slots), wherein each of said plurality of tool-free mounting structures on each of said first side and said second side comprises a first tool-free mounting structure oriented in one of a vertical orientation and a second tool-free mounting structure oriented in a horizontal orientation (Fig. 7), wherein each said mounting structure of said at least one payload support defines a first channel having a first orientation and a second channel having an orientation different from said first orientation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Nagy and use the teaching of Kuo and include a horizontal slot in addition to the vertical slot thereby allowing payload supports to be attached at a different orientation as demonstrated by Kuo in order to allow the user to attach items in additional orientations suitable for different conditions.
Claims 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagy (US 5,086,958 A) in view of Retief (US 2010/0264184 A1) and Trimble (US 4,957,227 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Resnick (US 5,052,146 A) and Johnson (US 8,393,111 B1).
Regarding claims 20-21, modified Nagy does not specifically disclose the payload carrier attachment comprises an elongated tube having a sidewall, said sidewall defining an elongated channel extending part of a length of said tube, said tube being open at least one end, said tube having an upper end and a lower end, said lower end of said tube being shaped to form a point.
Resnick discloses a support device including an elongated tube (Fig. 7) having a sidewall (40), said sidewall defining an elongated channel (18) extending part of a length of said tube, said tube being open at least one end (noting the upper end), said tube having an upper end and a lower end, said lower end of said tube being shaped to form a point (42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Nagy and replace at least one payload carrier with a support similar to that of Resnick because such a change would allow for the device to support additional types of items thereby increasing the versatility of the carrying device.
Modified Nagy does not specifically disclose said at least one payload carrier attachment comprises an elongated tube having a sidewall, said sidewall defining an elongated channel extending part of a length of said tube, said tube being open at least one end, or said elongated tube further comprises a pair of bosses positioned on an external surface on opposite sides of said channel.
Johnson teaches the ability to have a device support including an elongated tube (52) having a sidewall, said sidewall defining an elongated channel (52S) extending part of a length of said tube, said tube being open at least one end (52T), said elongated tube further comprises a pair of bosses (noting one end of 53 and knob 56) positioned on an external surface on opposite sides of said channel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Nagy and add the features noted above as taught by Johnson to the at least one payload carrier because such a change would allow for the device to further support additional types of items thereby increasing the versatility of the carrying device.
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagy (US 5,086,958 A) in view of Retief (US 2010/0264184 A1) and Trimble (US 4,957,227 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of and further in view of Puluso (US 6,401,998 B1).
Regarding claim 23, modified Nagy does not specifically disclose said at least one payload carrier attachment comprises a laterally-open bracket having a lower lip for supporting a fishing rod case in a vertical direction, and at least one strap for lashing a rod case to said bracket and supporting it in a horizontal direction.
Puluso teaches the ability to have at least one payload carrier attachment (10) comprises a laterally-open bracket having a lower lip (20) and structurally capable of supporting a fishing rod case in a vertical direction, and at least one strap (22) structurally capable of lashing a rod case to said bracket and supporting it in a horizontal direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Nagy and replace the payload carrier attachment with one similar to that of Puluso in order to allow the device to support different types of cargo thereby increasing the versatility of the device.
Claims 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagy (US 5,086,958 A) in view of Retief (US 2010/0264184 A1), Zuraski et al. (US 9,079,626 B2)(Zuraski), and Trimble (US 4,957,227 A).
Regarding claim 26-27, Nagy discloses a carrier assembly including a mounting assembly (Fig. 2), at least one payload support joined to said mounting assembly, said at least one payload support defining a mounting structure (10) for supporting a payload carrier attachment (31) for carrying a payload as carried by a payload carrier attachment (Fig. 3), said mounting structure being defined as an elongated channel (29) having a closed end to form an interference fit therebetween permitting constrained longitudinal motion of said elongated boss within said elongated channel and preventing lateral movement of said elongated boss within said elongated channel (Fig. 3), and at least one payload carrier attachment adapted for carrying the payload (Fig. 3), said at least one payload carrier attachment defining a mating mounting structure complementary to said mounting structure of said at least one payload support, said mating mounting structure being defined as another of said elongated channel and said elongated boss (noting an elongated boss), said mating mounting structure being selectively mountable and demountable from said mounting structure in tool-free fashion by longitudinal sliding of said elongated boss relative to said elongated channel, said at least one payload carrier attachment being adapted for carrying a payload.
Nagy does not specifically disclose the carrier assembly is mountable to rails of a saddle of a bicycle, the carrier assembly comprising, a mounting assembly adapted for attachment to at least one rail of the saddle to secure said mounting assembly thereto.
Retief discloses a payload carrier attachable to a bicycle including a mounting assembly adapted for attachment to at least one rail of the saddle to secure said mounting assembly thereto (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Nagy and use the teaching of Retief and include mounting structure attachable to at least one rail of a saddle of a bicycle because such a change would allow the device to be attached to additional structures thereby increasing the number of situations where the device can be used and also increasing the versatility of the device.
Modified Nagy does not specifically disclose said mounting structure further defining a channel and a locking mechanism comprising a catch pivotably mounted for movement between an inoperative position in which a tip of said catch Is positioned outside of said channel and an operative position, in which said tip of said catch is positioned within said channel, said mating mounting boss defining a socket dimensioned and positioned for receiving said tip of said catch when said mating mounting boss is seated within said channel.
Zuraski teaches the ability to have a mounting structure defining a channel (1024) and a locking mechanism (1040) comprising a catch (1044) pivotably mounted (Figs. 5 and 6) for movement between an inoperative position in which a tip of said catch is positioned outside of said channel (Fig. 6) and an operative position, in which said tip of said catch is positioned within said channel (Fig. 5), and at least one payload carrier attachment, said at least one payload carrier attachment defining a mating mounting boss (1054) complementary to said channel of said at least one payload support, said mating mounting boss defining a socket (1058) dimensioned and positioned for receiving said tip of said catch when said mating mounting boss is seated within said channel (Fig. 5), said mating mounting boss being selectively mountable and demountable from said channel in a tool-free fashion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Retief and replace the aperture and fastener mating structures and replace them with a locking channel and boss connection mating structure similar to that of Zuraski because such a change would allow the payload carrier to be securely attached and quickly removed without the need for tools thereby allowing for eased attachment and removable as well as eased interchangeability.
Modified Nagy does not specifically disclose at least two discreet payload supports defining plurality of tool-free mounting structures located in positions in different planes relative to each other.
Trimble teaches the ability to have a payload supporting device including the device configured to support a single payload (Figs. 2 and 6) or a configuration for at least two discreet payload supports (Figs. 3-4, 7) defining plurality of tool-free mounting structures located in positions in different planes relative to each other.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Nagy and include two payload supports, or an additional tool free mounting structure of the type as taught by modified Nagy because such a change would require a mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 28, modified Nagy and specifically Zuraski discloses said mating mounting boss and said channel are T-shaped in cross-section. (Figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claims 29-30, modified Nagy and specifically Zuraski discloses said locking mechanism further comprises a resilient member biasing said catch toward said operative position, said locking mechanism further comprises a resilient tab biasing said catch toward said operative position (Col. 4; Ll. 25-32, noting the counterbalance legs are considered to be resilient members and resilient tabs based on their description).
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, 6-10, 14-16, 18-21, 23, and 26-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-19 and 22-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,891,148. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-19 and 22-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,891,148 teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 6-10, 14-16, 18-21, 23, and 26-30 of the present application.
Claims 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,891,148. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,891,148 teaches all of the limitations of claim 25 of the present application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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.
/M.T.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
