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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 21, 22, 23, and 32 have been amended. Claims 1-20, and 37 have been canceled. Claims 40 and 41 have been added. Claims 21-36, and 38-41 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, filed 09/19/2025, with respect to the amendments regarding the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of specifically claim 21 is persuasive. With respect to the amendments regarding the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of specifically claim 32 is not persuasive.
With respect to the newly added claims which recite: “the at least one guide bar is configured to guide movement of the same one of the first leg or the second leg as the axle relative to the workbench.”, the language of the claims is nowhere in the specification, therefore it’s new matter. Additionally, as detailed below in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, it is unclear how the guide bar guides movement of either leg as the axle relative to the workbench. Lastly, claim 41 recites “the axle” and claim 32, which it depends on, does not introduce any axle.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-7, filed 09/19/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to “Borgatti does not disclose or illustrate in any manner that the handle could support the assembly on a supporting surface as a foot.”, the examiner disagrees.
Borgatti’s, guide bar 55, as shown in Fig. 1, juts out sufficiently for the feature to be relied on to rest against a surface. As evidenced in Tiramani’s Fig. 2, a similar configuration structure is capable of supporting the bench when laid on the ground.
With respect to the newly amended claim 32, is moot, because a new grounds of rejection do not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the at least one guide bar is configured as a foot to support the collapsible assembly on a supporting surface parallel to the workbench” of claim 32, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 32-36 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 32 recites: “wherein in the collapsed position the at least one guide bar is configured as a foot to support the collapsible assembly on a supporting surface parallel to the workbench”. While the specification discloses the guide bar/ guide wire “may act as feet” in paragraph 0053, it does not specify that they support the workbench specifically parallel to the supporting surface. The specification does disclose in paragraph 0032 “skid platform 18 are positioned adjacent the workbench 30 and extend parallel to the workbench 30,”, but it does not specifically recite this is as a result of resting on the guide bar/ guide wire. Figs. 11 and 12 show both features parallel but in an “intermediate position” and supported by leg 26. Lastly, the guide wire 280 shown in Fig. 10 appears at a different height than the wheel and would not result in a bench parallel to the ground. Therefore, it’s new matter.
Claims 40 and 41 recite: “the at least one guide bar is configured to guide movement of the same one of the first leg or the second leg as the axle relative to the workbench.”. The claim language has no support in the specification. The only paragraphs describing the “guide bar” are 0050 and 0053. There is no mention of guiding movement nor an axle. The drawings also do not support the claimed language. The recited axle is numbered as 74 and shown in Figs. 4B and 13; the “guide bar”/ “guide wire” are labeled as 580 Fig. 16 and 280 Fig. 11 and 12. Therefore, it's new matter.
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 40 and 41 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.
Claims 40 and 41 recite: “the at least one guide bar is configured to guide movement of the same one of the first leg or the second leg as the axle relative to the workbench.”. It is unclear how the guide bars guide movement of either leg as the axle relative to the bench. Neither the specification nor drawings clarify the claimed language. The recited axle is numbered as 74 and shown in Figs. 4B and 13; while the “guide bar”/ “guide wire” are labeled as 580 Fig. 16 and 280 Fig. 11 and 12. Claims 21 and 32 have the guide bar coupled to the frame, and based on the drawings, almost on the opposite side as the axle. It is unclear how the features are meant to interact according to the claims.
Claim 41’s “the axle” lacks antecedent basis with claim 32. Claim 32 does not introduce any axle. Therefore it is unclear whether claim 41 was meant to depend on another claim.
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 21, 22, 23, 30, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472 A) in view of Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A).
Referring to claim 21: Borgatti discloses a workbench-hand truck assembly (10 Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
a first leg (14 Fig. 2; Column. 4, lines 9-10 noting the pair of legs);
a second leg (12 Fig. 2; Column 3, lines 39-42 noting the pair of legs);
a workbench (16 Figs. 1 and 2) configured to be supported (shown in Fig. 2) by the first and second legs (14 and 12 Fig. 2);
a pair of wheels (18 Figs. 1, 2, and 4) configured to support the workbench-hand truck assembly (10 Figs. 1 and 2) in a hand truck position (hand truck position shown in Fig. 1; Column 3, lines 12-15);
an axle (axle shown between wheels 18, but not numbered in Figs. 1, 2, and 4) rotatably supporting the wheels (18 Figs. 1, 2, and 4),
wherein the axle is coupled (shown in Figs. 1 and 2) to the first leg (14 Fig. 2) or the second leg; and
a nose plate (34 Figs. 1 and 2),
and at least one guide bar (55 Figs. 1 and 2) coupled to a frame (12, 14, and 58 Fig. 2) of the workbench (16 Figs. 1 and 2) and configured as a foot (10 is supported by guide bar 55 when laying down on a surface) to support the workbench-hand truck assembly (10 Figs. 1 and 2) on a supporting surface in a table position (10 is capable of resting on 55 when laying down on a surface);
wherein in the hand truck position (hand truck position shown in Fig. 1) the nose plate extends perpendicular (shown extending perpendicular in Fig. 1) to the workbench (16 Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the workbench and the one of the first leg (14 Fig. 2) or the second leg are pivotable relative (pivotable relative via pin 40 Figs. 1-4) to the nose plate (34 Figs. 1 and 2).
But is silent on:
a nose plate coupled to the same one of the first leg or the second leg as the axle.
Voegele in an analogous workbench-hand truck assembly teaches a similar configuration nose plate (7 Figs. 1, 3, and 4) coupled to the same (shown in Fig. 3) one of the similar configuration first leg or the second leg (2 Figs. 1-4) as the similar configuration axle (8 Figs. 1, 2, and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the workbench-hand truck assembly of Borgatti with the leg, nose plate, and axle arrangement as taught by Voegele for the purpose of, having an alternate configuration which the wheels support the table configuration, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Referring to claim 22: Borgatti as modified teaches the workbench-hand truck assembly of claim 21, wherein the first leg (14 Fig. 2 of Borgatti) and the second leg (12 Fig. 2 of Borgatti) are movable between a first position (when 14 is latched in FP Fig. 1-Annotated inserted below of Borgatti), in which the workbench (16 Figs. 1 and 2 of Borgatti) is positioned at a first height (first height shown in Fig. 2 of Borgatti) above the supporting surface, and a second position (when 14 is latched in SP Fig. 1-Annotated inserted below), in which the workbench (16 Figs. 1 and 2 of Borgatti) is positioned at a second height (second height when 14 is latched in SP Fig. 1-Annotated inserted below of Borgatti) above the supporting surface that is greater (SP’s position is greater as the spacing between 52 and 56 Figs. 1 and 2 is shortened of Borgatti) than the first height.
PNG
media_image1.png
327
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 23: Borgatti as modified teaches the workbench-hand truck assembly of claim 22, and further teaches wherein the first leg (14 Fig. 2 of Borgatti) and the second leg (12 Fig. 2 of Borgatti) are movable to a third position (TP Fig. 1-Annotated inserted above of Borgatti), in which the workbench (16 Figs. 1 and 2 of Borgatti) is positioned at a third height above the supporting surface that is greater (TP’s position is greater as the spacing between 52 and 56 Figs. 1 and 2 is shortened more so than when in the second position of Borgatti) than the second height (second height when latched in SP Fig. 1-Annotated inserted above of Borgatti).
Referring to Claim 30: Borgatti as modified teaches the workbench-hand truck assembly of claim 21, and further teaches the assembly further comprising a locking pin (40 Figs. 1-4 of Borgatti) configured to retain the nose plate (34 Figs. 1 and 2 of Borgatti) in at least one of the stored position or a deployed position (Column 3, lines 46-49 of Borgatti).
Referring to Claim 40: Borgatti as modified teaches the workbench-hand truck assembly of claim 21, wherein the at least one guide bar (55 Figs. 1 and 2 of Borgatti) is configured to guide movement (112(b)) of the same one of the first leg or the second leg as the axle relative (112(b)) to the workbench.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472 A) and Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A), as applied above in claim 23, and in further view of Bassett (U.S. Patent No. 4,726,405 A).
Referring to claim 24: Borgatti as modified teaches the workbench-hand truck assembly of claim 23, but is silent on wherein the second height is between 20-inches and 28-inches, and wherein the third height is between 30-inches and 38- inches.
Bassett, in an analogous foldable workbench (see Fig. 2 including 24 and 22; Column 3, lines 22-25) teaches a height between 30-inches and 38-inches (Column 7, lines 63-66).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the workbench-hand truck assembly of Borgatti as modified with the specific height of Bassett for the purpose of providing a comfortable surface height which is safely adequate for the user to operate the supported machinery.
It is noted by the examiner that the multiple positions (FP, SP, TP Fig. 1-Annotated inserted above) does not disclose the height measurement of the multiple positions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to include the range of second height being between 20-28 inches since Borgatti and Basset teach the third height and since Borgatti also teaches a second height less than the third height. It has also been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Also, it is noted that similar to the applicant’s specification “support a portable table saw” and “support a portable miter saw” of Paragraph 0044, the device is also configured of supporting machinery (Column 1, lines 6-7) such as a table saw (Column 1, lines 13-14).
Lastly, as a result of the height modification of Bassett, being at the maximum height required by the claims and Borgatti’s adjustable height (Column 4, lines 46-48), the prior art referenced meets the cited structural limitations and therefore would be capable of supporting the additional machinery and meeting the height requirements as claimed by applicant.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472 A) and Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A), as applied above in claim 21, and in further view of Busser (U.S. Patent No. 9,393,980 B2).
Referring to claim 25: Borgatti as modified teaches the workbench-hand truck assembly of claim 21, but is silent on further comprising a skid platform removably coupled to the nose plate.
Busser, in an analogous hand truck assembly (10 and 20 Figs. 1-3) further comprising a skid platform (10 Figs. 1-3) removably coupled (shown in Figs. 1 and 3; Column 1, lines 60-62) to the similar configuration nose plate (18 Figs. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Borgatti as modified with the skid platform of Busser for the purpose of further enhancing the carrying capabilities of the hand truck by increasing the lifting surface area thus allowing to securely carry larger/oddly shaped objects.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472 A), Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A), and Busser (U.S. Patent No. 9,393,980 B2), as applied above in claim 25, and in further view of Harlan (U.S. Patent No. 6,131,926 A).
Referring to Claim 26: Borgatti as modified teaches the workbench-hand truck assembly of claim 25, but is silent on further comprising a container specifically removably coupled to the skid platform, wherein the container includes a recess and the skid platform specifically includes a detent that cooperates with the recess to retain the container on the skid platform.
Harlan, in an analogous hand truck assembly (12, 14, and 16 Figs. 1-3) teaches it comprising a container (16 Figs. 1-3) specifically removably coupled to the similar configuration skid platform (14 Figs. 1-3), wherein the container (16 Figs. 1-3) includes a detent (“groove of planar member”; Column 3, lines 17-22) and the similar configuration skid platform (14 Figs. 1-3) specifically includes a recess (“raised annular lip”; Column 3, lines 17-22) that cooperates with the detent to retain (“raised annular lip (not shown) on its bottom surface that would mate with the annular recessed groove”; Column 3, lines 17-22) the container (16 Figs. 1-3) on the similar configuration skid platform (14 Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Borgatti as modified with the container and coupling mechanism of Harlan for the purpose of securing containers to the skid platform in the circumstance when the containers are loaded with heavy, oddly shaped objects which could slide (Column 3, lines 9-11 of Harlan) and fall off while maneuvering the hand truck.
But Borgatti as modified is silent on the container specifically comprising the recess and the skid platform specifically comprising the detent.
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coupling mechanism of Borgatti as modified with the container specifically comprising the recess and the skid platform specifically comprising the detent for the purpose of keeping the container as flat as possible to the surface to avoid the stresses created by any heavy objects within to damage the container, and since it has been held that the reversal of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A)
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472 A), Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A), and Busser (U.S. Patent No. 9,393,980 B2), as applied above to claim 25, and in further view of Brunner et al. (WO2020003302A1).
Referring to Claim 27: Borgatti as modified teaches the workbench-hand truck assembly of claim 25, but is silent on wherein the skid platform specifically includes a projection, and wherein the nose plate specifically includes a groove configured to receive the projection in a snap-fit to specifically couple the skid platform to the nose plate.
Brunner et al., in an analogous hand truck assembly, teaches a similar configuration skid platform (60 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B), a projection (82 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B), a similar configuration nose plate (28 Figs. 1A, 1B, 2B, 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B), a groove (80 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B) configured to receive (shown in Fig. 4B; Page 9, lines 9-11 of the attached original document) the projection (82 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B) in a snap-fit (Page 5, lines 13-14; Page 9, lines 9-11 of the attached original document) to specifically couple the similar configuration skid platform (60 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B) to the similar configuration nose plate (28 Figs. 1A, 1B, 2B, 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Borgatti as modified with the locking mechanism of Brunner et al. for the purpose of having an alternate quick-locking mechanism which prevents unintentional separation (Page 5, lines 15-17 of Brunner et al.).
Borgatti as modified is silent on the skid platform specifically including a projection and
the nose plate specifically including the groove.
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection/ groove locations for the purpose of having an alternate configuration, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472 A) and Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A), as applied above in claim 21, and in further view of Wohrle et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,199,135 A).
Referring to Claim 28: Borgatti as modified teaches the workbench-hand truck assembly of claim 21, wherein the workbench includes a plurality of removably coupled modular table sections.
Wohrle et al., in an analogous modular workstation (1 Figs. 2, 8-10), wherein the similar configuration workbench (Column 2, lines 57-60) includes a plurality of removably coupled modular table sections (2 and 3 Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Borgatti as modified with the modular table sections of Wohrle et al. for the purpose of moving/ adjusting the modular table sections and fixing them at distances beneficial to accommodate different sized workpieces (Column 6, lines 43-46 of Wohrle et al.).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472 A) and Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A), as applied above in claim 21, and in further view of Hilton (U.S. Patent No. 4,555,099 A) and Halter (U.S. Patent No. 4,498,662 A).
Referring to Claim 29: Borgatti as modified teaches the workbench-hand truck assembly of claim 21, but is silent on wherein the workbench specifically including a guide track configured to slidably receive a bar clamp to specifically couple the bar clamp to the workbench.
Hilton, in an analogous portable, foldable workbench (shown in Figs. 1 and 4; Column 2, lines 10-13) teaches the workbench specifically including a guide track (44 Figs. 5-7) configured to slidably receive (Column 3, lines 50-53) a securing device (24 Fig. 5; Column 5, lines 21-23) to specifically couple (Column 3, lines 50-53) the securing device (24 Fig. 5) to the workbench (shown in Figs. 1 and 4; Column 2, lines 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Borgatti as modified with the tracks and securing member of Hilton for the purpose of having the capability of having securing mounts while keeping the portable workstation compact and easily carried (Column 5, lines 14-16 of Hilton).
It is noted that the portable, foldable workbench of Hilton is not specifically configured to operate with a bar clamp. To remedy this deficiency, Halter, in an analogous workbench (12 Fig. 1) teaches a similar configuration track (44 of 10 Figs. 2 and 3; Column 4, lines 39-43) configured to slidably receive (Column 4, lines 39-43) a bar clamp (26 Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Borgatti as modified with the bar clamp of Halter as an alternate form of clamp which couples to the workbench for the purpose of allowing the workbench to grip/ secure larger or odd shaped objects.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472) and Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A), as applied above in claim 21, and in further view of Lurie (U.S. Patent No. 10,279,241 B1).
Referring to Claim 31: Borgatti as modified teaches the workbench-hand truck assembly of claim 21, but is silent on each of the wheels specifically has a diameter between 8-inches and 10-inches.
Lurie, in a similar configuration hand truck (Hand truck embodiment shown in Fig. 11), teaches each of the wheels specifically has a diameter between 8-inches and 10-inches (Column 14, lines 33-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Borgatti as modified with the wheel diameter of Lurie for the purpose of traveling over rough ground, curbs and steps (Column 14, line 35 of Lurie).
Claims 32, 39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472 A), Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A), and Tiramani (U.S. Patent No. 7,331,596 B2).
Referring to Claim 32: Borgatti teaches a storage system (10 is capable of being a “storage system” since Merriam-Webster defines “storage” as 1a: space or a place for storing) comprising:
a collapsible assembly (10 Figs. 1 and 2) including a worktable (16 and 58 Figs. 1 and 2) configurable between an open position (open position when transitioning from collapsed position shown in Fig. 1 to extended position shown in Fig. 2) and a collapsed position (collapsed position shown in Fig. 1), the worktable (16 and 58 Figs. 1 and 2) including one or more legs (14 Fig. 2; Column. 4, lines 9-10 noting the pair of legs; 12 Fig. 2; Column 3, lines 39-42 noting the pair of legs); and
a workbench (16 Figs. 1 and 2) configured to be supported by the one or more legs (12 and 14 Fig. 2);
a skid platform (34 Figs. 1 and 2) removably coupled (“mounting pins” “slidably received” Col. 3, lines 45-48) to a leg (12 Fig. 2) of the one or more legs (12 and 14 Fig. 2);
at least one guide bar (55 Figs. 1 and 2) coupled to a frame (58 Fig. 2) of the workbench (16 Figs. 1 and 2);
wherein the collapsible assembly (10 Figs. 1 and 2) is configurable in an extended position (extended position shown in Fig. 2);
wherein in the collapsed position (collapsed position shown in Fig. 1) the workbench (16 Figs. 1 and 2) is disposed transverse (shown transverse in Fig. 1) to the skid platform (34 Figs. 1 and 2);
and wherein the workbench (16 Figs. 1 and 2) and at least one of the one or more legs (12 and 14 Fig. 2) are pivotable (pivotable via 13 Fig. 2) relative to each other to transition between the extended position (extended position shown in Fig. 2) and the collapsed position (collapsed position shown in Fig. 1);
wherein in the collapsed position (collapsed position shown in Fig. 1) the at least one guide bar (55 Figs. 1 and 2) is configured as a foot (10 is supported by guide bar 55 when laying down with 16 parallel to the surface) to support the collapsible assembly (10 Figs. 1 and 2) on a supporting surface to the workbench (16 Figs. 1 and 2).
But is silent on:
wherein the collapsible assembly is configurable in an extended position in which the workbench is specifically disposed parallel to the skid platform;
the at least one guide bar is configured as a foot to support the collapsible assembly on a supporting surface specifically parallel to the workbench.
Voegele in an analogous storage system (“storage system” Col. 1, lines 27-29) teaches an
open position (open position shown in Fig. 4) and a collapsed position (collapsed position shown in Figs. 1 and 2); and wherein the similar configuration collapsible assembly (1 Figs. 1) is configurable in an extended position (extended position shown in Fig. 3) in which the similar configuration workbench (10 Figs. 1-4) is disposed specifically parallel (shown in Fig. 3) to the similar configuration skid platform (surface of 7 Figs. 1, 3, and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage system of Borgatti with parallel skid plate as taught by Voegele for the purpose of, having an alternate configuration which is out of the way and/or capable of providing extra storage space.
Tiramani in an analogous collapsible assembly (10 Figs. 1 and 2) teaches the at least one similar configuration guide bar (56 and 26 Fig. 2) is configured as a foot (shown in Fig. 2) to support the similar configuration collapsible assembly (10 Figs. 1 and 2) on a supporting surface specifically parallel (“collapsed flat position (FIG. 2)” Col. 3, line 50) to the similar configuration workbench (16 Figs. 2, 4, and 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage system of Borgatti as modified with the guide bar as taught by Tiramani for the purpose of facilitating storage and when carrying objects which are larger than the top surface profile.
Referring to Claim 39: Borgatti as modified teaches the system of claim 32, further including a pair of wheels (18 Figs. 1, 2, and 4) configured to support the collapsible assembly (10 Figs. 1 and 2) in the collapsed position (collapsed position shown in Fig. 1), and an axle (axle shown between wheels 18, but not numbered in Figs. 1, 2, and 4) rotatably supporting the wheels (18 Figs. 1, 2, and 4), but is silent on wherein the axle is coupled to the same leg as the skid platform.
Voegele in an analogous storage system (“storage system” Col. 1, lines 27-29) teaches wherein the axle (8 Figs. 1, 2, and 4) is coupled to the same leg (2 Figs. 1-4) as the skid platform (surface of 7 Figs. 1, 3, and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage system of Borgatti as modified with the axle/skid platform/leg configuration as taught by Voegele for the purpose of having an alternate configuration of the storage system, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Referring to Claim 41: Borgatti as modified teaches system of claim 32, wherein the at least one guide bar (56 and 26 Fig. 2 of Tiramani) is configured to guide movement (112(b)) of the same one of the first leg or the second leg as the axle (112(b)) relative to the workbench.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472 A), Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A), and Tiramani (U.S. Patent No. 7,331,596 B2), as applied above in claim 32, and in further view of Busser (U.S. Patent No. 9,393,980 B2).
Referring to Claim 33: Borgatti as modified teaches the system of claim 32, but is silent on wherein the collapsible assembly comprises a nose plate and the skid platform is specifically removably coupled to the nose plate.
Busser, in an analogous storage system (10 and 20 Figs. 1-3) further comprising a skid platform (10 Figs. 1-3) removably coupled (shown in Figs. 1 and 3; Column 1, lines 60-62) to the similar configuration nose plate (18 Figs. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Borgatti as modified with the skid platform of Busser for the purpose of further enhancing the carrying capabilities of the hand truck by increasing the lifting surface area thus allowing to securely carry larger/oddly shaped objects.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472 A), Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A), Tiramani (U.S. Patent No. 7,331,596 B2), and Busser (U.S. Patent No. 9,393,980 B2), as applied above in claim 33, and in further view of Brunner et al. (WO2020003302A1).
Referring to Claim 34: Borgatti as modified teaches the teaches the system of claim 33, but is silent on wherein the skid platform includes a projection, and wherein the nose plate includes a groove configured to receive the projection in a snap-fit to couple the skid platform to the nose plate.
Brunner et al., in an analogous storage system, teaches a similar configuration skid platform (60 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B), a projection (82 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B), a similar configuration nose plate (28 Figs. 1A, 1B, 2B, 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B), a groove (80 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B) configured to receive (shown in Fig. 4B; Page 9, lines 9-11 of the attached original document) the projection (82 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B) in a snap-fit (Page 5, lines 13-14; Page 9, lines 9-11 of the attached original document) to specifically couple the similar configuration skid platform (60 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B) to the similar configuration nose plate (28 Figs. 1A, 1B, 2B, 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Borgatti as modified teaches the locking mechanism of Brunner et al. for the purpose of having an alternate quick-locking mechanism which prevents unintentional separation (Page 5, lines 15-17 of Brunner et al.).
Borgatti as modified is silent on the skid platform specifically including a projection and
the nose plate specifically including the groove.
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection/ groove locations of Borgatti as modified for the purpose of having an alternate configuration, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472 A), Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A), and Tiramani (U.S. Patent No. 7,331,596 B2), as applied above in claim 32, and in further view of Wohrle et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,199,135 A).
Referring to Claim 35: Borgatti as modified teaches the system of claim 32, but is silent on wherein the workbench includes a plurality of removably coupled modular table sections.
Wohrle et al., in an analogous storage system (1 Figs. 2, 8-10), wherein the similar configuration workbench (Column 2, lines 57-60) includes a plurality of removably coupled modular table sections (2 and 3 Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Borgatti as modified with the modular table sections of Wohrle et al. for the purpose of moving/ adjusting the modular table sections and fixing them at distances beneficial to accommodate different sized workpieces (Column 6, lines 43-46 of Wohrle et al.).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472 A), Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A), and Tiramani (U.S. Patent No. 7,331,596 B2), as applied above in claim 32, and in further view of Brunner et al. (WO2020003302A1).
Referring to Claim 36: Borgatti as modified teaches the system of claim 32, but is silent on the skid platform comprising a plurality of detents on a surface thereof, the system further comprising at least one storage container comprising a plurality of recesses on a lower side thereof corresponding to the plurality of detents of the skid platform such that the plurality of detents are coupleable with the plurality of recesses to prevent the storage container from sliding off the skid platform.
Brunner et al., in an analogous system, teaches a similar configuration skid platform (28 Figs. 1A, 1B, 2B, 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B), a plurality of detents (82 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B; “at least one locking latch” Page 5, line 7 from the bottom) on a surface thereof (surface of 60 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B),
the system further comprising at least one storage container (60/ 60A, 60B, 60C Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6C, and 6D), a plurality of recesses (80 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B) corresponding to the plurality of detents (82 Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B) such that the plurality of detents are coupleable (shown in Fig. 4B) with the plurality of recesses to prevent the storage container from sliding off the skid platform.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Borgatti as modified with the detent/ recess mechanism of Brunner et al. for the purpose of having a mechanism which prevents unintentional separation (Page 5, lines 15-17 of Brunner et al.).
Borgatti as modified is silent on skid platform specifically comprising a plurality of detents on a surface thereof and the at least one storage container specifically comprising a plurality of recesses specifically on a lower side thereof.
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection/ groove locations Borgatti as modified for the purpose of having an alternate configuration, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgatti (U.S. Patent No. 5,957,472 A), Voegele (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,718 A), and Tiramani (U.S. Patent No. 7,331,596 B2), as applied above in claim 32, and in further view of Harlan (U.S. Patent No. 6,131,926 A).
Referring to Claim 38: Borgatti as modified teaches the system of claim 32, but is silent on further comprising a storage container removably coupled to the skid platform.
Harlan, in an analogous hand truck assembly (12, 14, and 16 Figs. 1-3) teaches it comprising a storage container (16 Figs. 1-3) specifically removably coupled to the similar configuration skid platform (14 Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Borgatti as modified with the container and coupling mechanism of Harlan for the purpose of securing containers to the skid platform in the circumstance when the containers are loaded with heavy, oddly shaped objects which could slide (Column 3, lines 9-11 of Harlan) and fall off while maneuvering the hand truck.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723