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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an peripheral” should be --a peripheral--; and “dollies’ potential” should be --dollie’s potential--; and “aligned in fixed orientation” should be --is aligned in fixed orientation--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-24 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kershaw (7,114,288) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (6,726,524).
Regarding claim 16, Kershaw discloses a dollie for supporting an object, the dollie comprising:
a holder (3) adapted to support the object (1) above a floor or ground such that the object rests securely on one or more points of support (4) on the holder; and
a mobile structure (see underside of dolly in Fig. 3) that supports the holder above the support surface,
wherein:
the holder (3) is a plinth-like structure (as shown in Figs. 1 and 4, the holder has an outer wall 7 that extends downwardly to partially obscure the wheels and presents, like the instant device, a generally upright wall-like surface that in combination with the load supporting top reads upon the term “plinth-like,” when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of this term);
the mobile structure comprises:
a peripheral body (see round body in Figs.) and a wheel set (5) comprising a plurality of wheels;
a wheel support frame (e.g., the rib-like walls defining a wheel socket that receives the caster mounting post) is housed in a cavity defined by inner (6) and outer (7) walls of the holder, the outer wall (7) having a low outer edge or lip (see Fig. 4 showing the outer wall extending downwardly past substantially all of the rest of the holder structures except for the ground-engaging wheels) to restrict the dollie’s potential tilt angle to provide protection from overturning (implicit to the wall 7 extending downwardly toward the ground is that it restricts tilting when compared to a dolly having no peripheral outer wall/skirt);
each wheel of the wheel set:
is spaced radially from an inner center-point of the holder (see Fig. 3 showing each of the wheels 5 spaced from the center of the device);
is spaced about the peripheral body from each other adjacent wheel of the wheel set (see Fig. 3 showing spacing between all of the wheels 5); and
has a fixed main axis of rotation oriented perpendicular to a radial line extending from the center-point of the holder (e.g., when the casters are arranged tangentially, each wheel’s axle is perpendicular to a radial line coming from the center);
[is] aligned in fixed orientation to rotate about its fixed main axis (e.g., the wheels mounted to the caster’s axle can be reasonably interpreted to be fixed thereon and these wheels rotate about this fixed axle/axis); and
the wheel set includes three or more omnidirectional wheels (e.g., each caster wheel 5 allows for the wheel to move and rotate so that the dollie can move in any direction).
While Kershaw discloses a dollie having wheels that can be interpreted to be omnidirectional wheels that can be oriented so their main axis is perpendicular to a radial line from the center-point, it does not specifically provide for omni-wheels that the main axle of each wheel are aligned perpendicular to such a line.
Yamaguchi teaches another rolling platform having peripherally arranged (see Fig. 1) sets of omni-wheels (4; see Fig. 4). As shown in Fig. 1, the wheels (4) are arranged having their main axles (43) arranged to be perpendicular to a radial line from a center point of the rolling platform. Further, as shown in Figs. 12a-e, the wheel sets (4) can be oriented substantially evenly spaced around a circumferential line centered on a point on the rolling platform.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the dollie of Kershaw to replace the casters with radially arranged omni-wheels as taught by Yamaguchi to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (an omni-wheel having multiple rotational axes and a fixed main axle) for another (an omnidirectional wheel having multiple rotational axes and a repositionable main axle) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a dollie having more predictable and more stable multi-directional movement). -------
Regarding claim 17, Kershaw further discloses that each wheel support is circumferentially located and equispaced around the peripheral body (see Fig. 3).
Further, the omni-wheel from the above combination Yamaguchi has its main axle (43) of each wheel is supported by a wheel support frame which comprises a pair of spaced and opposed axle cradles (see e.g., Fig. 3 showing the spaced axle supports).
Regarding claim 18, Kershaw further discloses that the peripheral body is part of the holder and is integrated with the mobile structure that includes the wheel support frame (see underside in Fig. 3) that is housed in the cavity that is further defined by an upper surface (3) of a platform of the holder (i.e., as shown in Figs. 2-4 and described at least at Col. 2, lines 33-41, the body of the caddie is a single unit, including the wheel supports and socket structure disposed within a cavity defined by the downwardly depending inner and outer walls 6, 7),
Regarding claim 19, Kershaw further discloses that the upper surface is a peripheral support that corresponds in shape, configuration or footprint to the peripheral body (i.e., the top surface 3) provides a surface to support the plant (1).
Regarding claims 20, 23-24, and 26, Kershaw further discloses that the holder includes an array of internal ribs (8) that form a reinforcing web. The ribs include both radially oriented ribs and two rows/races of radially spaced circumferential/round ribs, with the second row being aligned with and extending circumferentially away from the mounting point/socket of the wheels (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 21-22, Kershaw further discloses that the holder is a circular structure that defines the central hole having a part-cylindrical or frusto-conical shape (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 27, Kershaw further discloses that five sets of wheels are equally spaced around the dollie (see Fig. 3), the above substitution with Yamaguchi resulting in five omni-wheels without any standard, non-multiple-directional wheel types.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 28-30 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not appear to disclose or otherwise fairly suggest the following features when included with the other claimed features and limitations recited in the claims: that the dollie has its radially arranged ribs terminate at the inner and outer ends at a butted join with a vertical slot in the walls that do not extend through the walls; that the plurality of wheels of the wheel set includes three omni-wheels and three standard wheels; or that the wheel support frame has the claimed structural arrangement of buttresses that form a supporting structure for each axle cradle, each buttress including a pair of posts, including an inner post and an outer post, that each comprise mirrored L-shaped structures that have an inner or outer arm, that is substantially radially aligned relative to the holder and join to form a cradle base of the axle cradle at their respective lower ends, whereby, with the wheels on the support surface, the cradle base supports an end of the main axle against vertical displacement in an upward direction, and a deflectable detent traps the main axle in the cradle and resists vertical displacement thereof in a downward direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Particularly, independent claim 16 has been amended to recite that the outer wall has a low outer edge/lip that restricts tipping. The applicant argues that while the base Kershaw device has an outer wall, it does not extend past the rotational axis of the wheels. However, in response to this argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims, as currently presented, only recite that the outer wall has a low outer edge to protect from overturning, as discussed in greater detail above, the peripheral wall 7 of Kershaw reads upon a low outer edge whose presence implicitly provides protection from overturning as this lip will engage the ground during a tilting event.
Further, the applicant has amended to claim 16 to now recite that the holder is “plinth-like,” and argues that this shape results in the wheels being hidden to improve aesthetics. As discussed above, the holder of Kershaw has nearly the same general appearance as the instant device (see respective Figures), with the wheels being partially hidden by the outer peripheral walls of both devices. Therefore, the Kershaw holder reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of it being “plinth-like.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights