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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katz (US 2006/0118012 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Katz discloses a multipurpose worktable comprising. a work surface (table 600) having an upper surface, a lower surface, and at least one side surface extending between the upper surface and lower surface (Annot. Fig. 13); a leg assembly coupled to the lower surface (Annot. Fig. 13), the leg assembly being configured to transition between an extended position and a collapsed position (Para. 0054; Fig. 14); at least one wheel coupled to the leg assembly (Annot. Fig. 13); and a platform coupled to the leg assembly (Annot. Fig. 13), wherein in the collapsed position, an upper surface of the platform extends generally perpendicular relative to the upper surface of the work surface (Fig. 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
571
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Katz discloses the multipurpose worktable of claim 1. Katz further discloses wherein in the collapsed position, the multipurpose worktable forms a transport dolly (see Abstract generally; Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 3, Katz discloses the multipurpose worktable of claim 1. Katz further discloses wherein in the collapsed position, the at least one wheel and the platform are disposed at one end of the work surface (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 4, Katz discloses the multipurpose worktable of claim 1. Katz further discloses wherein in the collapsed position, the multipurpose worktable is configured to stand self-supported in a vertical orientation having the upper surface extending vertically (Fig. 14 shows a vertical orientation) and in a horizontal orientation having the upper surface extending horizontally (when the device of Fig. 14 is laid into a horizontal orientation the upper surface would also be horizontal).
Regarding claim 6, Katz discloses the multipurpose worktable of claim 1. Katz further discloses wherein in the extended position, the at least one wheel and the platform are disposed at opposite ends of the multipurpose worktable (Annot. Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 7, Katz discloses he multipurpose worktable of claim 1. Katz further discloses the leg assembly further comprising a handle (handles 610 are located at the top of leg portions 710).
Regarding claim 8, Katz discloses the multipurpose worktable of claim 7. Katz further discloses the handle being disposed at an opposite end of the leg assembly relative to the platform (see Annot. Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 10, Katz discloses the multipurpose worktable of claim 1. Katz further discloses wherein a first leg of the leg assembly is pivotally coupled to the work surface (Para. 0009).
Regarding claim 11, Katz discloses the multipurpose worktable of claim 10. Katz further discloses wherein the platform is coupled to a second leg of the leg assembly (see Annot. Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 17, Katz discloses a multipurpose transport dolly comprising: a frame; a platform coupled to the frame; a support surface extending generally perpendicular to the platform and supported by the frame; a wheel assembly coupled to the frame; and a handle coupled to the frame; wherein the frame comprises a pair of legs configured to transition between a storage position and an extended position, wherein in the extended position, the pair of legs supports the support surface and the support surface forms a worktable (see Annot. Fig. 13).
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.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz.
Regarding claim 5, Katz differs from the invention as claimed because Katz does not disclose the upper surface having a height of less than about 15 inches from a ground surface when the multipurpose worktable is in the horizontal orientation of the collapsed position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the upper surface having a height of less than about 15 inches from a ground surface when the multipurpose worktable is in the horizontal orientation of the collapsed position, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The purpose for making the modification would be to make it easier to load items from the ground onto the work surface, since less physical effort would be needed to lift less than 15 inches, the low ground clearance also makes it easier to off load heavy items as well.
Claim 9 discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly stating that the platform is removably coupled to the leg assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the platform removably coupled to the leg assembly, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. The purpose for making the modification would be to provide means for removing a damaged platform and replacing it with a new functional platform, or additionally allowing a user to customize the platform size to their needs, thereby providing more versatility to the device.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz in view of Smith et al. (US 2024/0010255 A1).
Regarding claims 12-16: Katz differs from the invention as claimed because Katz does not disclose further comprising a storage support interface coupled to the work surface, the storage support interface comprising at least one mount configured to receive a complementary bracket; wherein the storage support interface extends downward from the lower surface of the work surface; wherein the storage support interface extends along at least one side of the work surface; each mount comprising two protrusions and a bracket receiving space is formed between the two protrusions; and wherein the storage support interface is formed from a single piece of material.
Smith et al., however, teaches a storage support interface coupled to the work surface (bed assembly 48), the storage support interface (plate 46) comprising at least one mount configured to receive a complementary bracket (Para. 0353); wherein the storage support interface extends downward from the lower surface of the work surface (Fig. 39); wherein the storage support interface extends along at least one side of the work surface (Fig. 39); each mount comprising two protrusions and a bracket receiving space is formed between the two protrusions (see mounting holes in plate 46; Fig. 39); and wherein the storage support interface is formed from a single piece of material (Fig. 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included a storage support interface coupled to the work surface, the storage support interface comprising at least one mount configured to receive a complementary bracket; wherein the storage support interface extends downward from the lower surface of the work surface; wherein the storage support interface extends along at least one side of the work surface; each mount comprising two protrusions and a bracket receiving space is formed between the two protrusions; and wherein the storage support interface is formed from a single piece of material as taught by Smith et al. on the invention of Katz for the purpose of carrying a variety of tools.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2006/0118012 A1 to Katz and US 2024/0010255 A1 to Smith et al.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
5. The prior art made of record and cited on PTO Form 892 is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
6. The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY LYNN JOHNS whose telephone number is (313) 446-4852. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-5:30.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/HILARY L JOHNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613