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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: a) O n page s 22, 25, and 26 , the written description uses single digit numerals rather than their word form ( e.g., “3 standard wheels” instead of --three standard wheels--) . This writing style adds some confusion to the specification due to the use of numeric reference characters . b) O n page 23, line 23, “outer walls 35, 39” should be --outer walls 35, 36--. Appropriate correction is required. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: object 20 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the clause “each wheel of the wheel set;” should likely end in a colon rather than a semi-colon as the clauses that follow appear to be elaborating on each wheel. Each of these following clauses should also be further indented to show their association with the “wheel set” clause. Further, the next to last line appears to be missing a word and should likely read -- is aligned in fixed orientation--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 17-30 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. Each of these claims depend from claims that have been canceled and it is therefore unclear what the proper claim hierarchy should be. For examination purposes, each of these claims’ written dependency number has been increased by fifteen . For example, instead of claim 17 depending from claim 1, it is being examined as if it depends from claim 16. 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 of this title, 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. Clai m s 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 1 6 , Kershaw discloses a dollie for supporting an object, the dollie comprising: a holder (3) adapted to support the object (1) above a support surface 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 mobile structure comprises: an outer peripheral body (see round body in Figs.) and a wheel set (5) comprising a plurality of wheels; a wheel support frame (e.g., the socket that receives the caster mounting post) is housed in a cavity defined by inner (6) and outer (7) walls of the holder; e ach wheel of the wheel set [:] is spaced radially from an inner-point of the holder (see Fig. 3 showing each of the wheels 5 spaced from the center of the device) ; is radially aligned so that the respective main axle of each wheel can be aligned parallel with a nominal tangential line radially spaced from a center point and intersecting the subject wheel (i.e., each wheel is a caster wheel and can be oriented such that the wheel’s main axle is arranged tangent to the circular shape) ; is spaced about the peripheral body from each other adjacent wheel of the wheel set (see Fig. 3 showing the equal circumferential spacing 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 the wheel set includes three or more omni-wheels (e.g., each caster wheel 5 allows for the wheel to move and rotate so that the dollie can move in any direction; this multi-directional movement of each wheel reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “omni-wheel” . While Kershaw discloses a dollie having wheels that can be interpreted to be omni-wheels that can be oriented in the recited “tangential” position, it does not specifically provide for omni-wheels that the main axle of each wheel is aligned parallel 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 parallel to a tangential line radially spaced 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 (a n omni-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 of Yamaguchi combined above 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 t he peripheral body is part of the holder and integrated with the mobile structure that includes a wheel supporting structure having a wheel support frame housed in a cavity defined by inner and outer walls (6, 7) of the holder, together with an upper surface 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 t he 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). Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kershaw in view of Yamaguchi as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ozawa (JP 2008001119, see attached machine translation ) . Regarding claim s 2 8-29 , Kershaw does not disclose the use of vertically offset standard wheels . Ozawa teaches another wheeled platform having a plurality of wheels including main wheels (102/202) and auxiliary standard/non-directional wheels (307), wherein the auxiliary wheels are arranged above the running surface when a non-heavy load is being carried resulting in an arrangement where these auxiliary wheels would only come into contact with the ground when a lighter load is applied when traversing a gap or change of level. 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 the Kershaw combination to include offset auxiliary standard wheels as taught by Ozawa while maintaining the even spacing of Kershaw 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 applying a known technique (e.g., providing auxiliary wheels on a transport device ) to known devices (e.g., wheeled transport devices for carrying relatively heavy loads) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a dollie that can support greater weights when necessary ). Lastly, while none of the above prior art references specifically recite three omni-wheels and three standard wheels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use three spaced omni-wheels and three spaced auxiliary wheels , since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) The motivation for doing so would be to balance the relative cost of the more complicated omni-wheels to the amount of weight desired to be carried for a given size or shaped dollie . Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 25 and 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and 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: presuming that these claims depend from the above-discussed modified dependency (+15), 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; 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-4842 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT J Allen Shriver can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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