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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on January 15, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18/342847 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 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. It is unclear how the panels are interlocking along the edges. This feature is not shown in the figures or discussed in any detail in the specification.
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 1-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wise (1,002,950) in view of DeMars (2014/0306584) and Brunner (2015/0376917). Wise teaches a station and bar (Fig. 1) comprising: a space frame (Fig. 3), the space frame constructed to provide structure for the attachment of interlocking outer panels (12,13,19), said space frame forming a load bearing structure constructed and arranged to transfer loads to other portions of the space frame to increase weight capacity and rigidity to the station, a bar panel (21) secured to a spine portion (Fig. 2) of the space frame such that loads applied to the bar panel are transferred through the space frame and distributed to other portions of the station, a plurality of interlocking panels (12,13, as best understood) secured to a plurality of rib members (3), the rib members secured to the spine (via 20) of the space frame, the panels interlocked at least along the edges and secured to the space frame to create a hybrid structure.
Wherein the space frame includes a base assembly (8, 9, 2, 14) secured to a bottom portion of the ribs. For claim 1, Wise fails to teach panels that are interlocking and made of polymeric material. DeMars teaches a plurality of interlocking/interconnected polymeric/plastic panels (132,134,136,152; paragraph 0145). 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 station of Wise by using alternate panels thereon, i.e. using the polymeric/plastic interlocking panels of DeMars in place of the panels presently used, to provide a light weight and an easily assembled panel structure on the station and to provide easily replaceable panel sections on the station. Then Wise in view of DeMars fails to teach outrigger beams with wheels. Brunner teaches a housing/station having outrigger beams (202,204) with a plate portion (214,264), box portion (210,260) and wheels (205-208). 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 station of the Wise in view of DeMars by adding outrigger beams with wheels, such as is taught by Brunner, there under, to make the station mobile. The wheel assembly would replace the feet (9) presently used at the bottom of the station of Wise.
For claims 4-6, Wise in view of DeMars and Brunner fails to specifically teach dually wheels with caster wheel assemblies as part of the wheels; however, this type of wheel assembly is well-known in the art and would have been an obvious substitution for the wheels presently used, for personal preferences, etc. Furthermore, these wheels are functional equivalents and therefore would work equally well on the station of Wise in view of DeMars and Brunner.
For claim 13, the base assembly of Wise in view of DeMars and Brunner includes a cross grid comprising at least two longitudinal members (2, front and back members of Wise) and at least two cross members (2, side members and 14), the longitudinal members and the cross members secured together in a suitable manner to transfer load from the ribs to the base assembly.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wise (1,002,950) in view of DeMars (2014/0306584) and Brunner (2015/0376917), as stated above, and further in view of Uffner (2007/0186341). For claims 11 and 12, Wise in view of DeMars and Brunner fails to that the wheels include manually operated brakes. Uffner teaches wheels with manually operated brakes (122,130). It would have been an obvious substitution to use the wheels of Uffner for the wheels presently used in Wise in view of DeMars and Brunner, to keep the station locked in the desired position on the floor/ground. Furthermore, these wheels are functional equivalents and therefore would work equally well on the station of Wise in view of DeMars and Brunner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Addressing the arguments concerning the 112, first paragraph rejection: the examiner contends that because interlocking panels exist in many configurations (as admitted by the applicant in pages 8-9 of the arguments), the silence of the specification and figures to which type of connection is being used between the panels causes confusion to how the station in this invention is assembled. Therefore, the rejection is being maintained. Contrary to what is stated in the arguments, the interlocking panel walls are not discussed or shown. The argument figures directed to are to the drawer front and its side panels, with a clear view of the connection not visible and discussed, and to the base panel and bottom surface attachments, also not clearly shown or discussed.
Addressing the arguments concerning Wise (1,002,950) in view of DeMars (2014/0306584) and Brunner (2015/0376917): the examiner argues that the phrase “space frame” does not in-an-of-itself impart structural limitations. There are many structures referred to as space frames, all with various constructions. For example, the frame of Kubik et al (5,220,765) teaches a similar rectangular frame to that of Wise, i.e. both having upper and lower grids with interconnecting members there between, and refers to it as a space frame. The frame of Wise would also transfer loads between its members, as interconnected frame do. It is contended that Wise in view of DeMars teaches the limitations for the structure as presently described in the claims; and therefore, teaches a “space frame” (even though the term was not in use at the time when Wise was issued). There is nothing in the specification or claims that implies that the panels hold up the space frame members or are required to make it a complete and usable structure. Therefore, that the frame of Wise is self-standing with the panels attached thereon does not teach away from the claimed station and does provide a complete and usable structure when used together. Furthermore, since the frame of Wise is made of metal and the panels of DeMars are made of plastic, a hybrid structure is provided. The definition of hybrid is simply something made by combining two different elements. Dictionary.com There is nothing about this term or found in any limitations in the claims that states that one element, i.e. the frame, needs the other, i.e. the panels, to be held in its assembled condition. As for the wheel assembly taught by Brunner, the examiner contends that since there is a housing situated on top of the wheel assembly, to employ this assembly under the station housing of Wise would not have been beyond the skill on one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the reference of DeMars is only being used for its teaching of interlocking panels in a station, as best understood (see 112, first paragraph above). The reference of Brunner is only being used for its teaching of outrigger beams with a plate portion, box portion and wheels used under a housing. That DeMars and Brunner do not include a frame that transfers weight is irrelevant to the combination. The reference of Wise teaches the other features, including the frame and general panels. Furthermore, as stated above, it would have been obvious to use alternate panels on Wise, i.e. using the interlocking plastic panels of DeMars in place of the panels presently used, to provide an easily assembled panel structure on the station and to provide easily replaceable panel sections on the station. 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 station of the Wise in view of DeMars by adding outrigger beams with wheels, such as is taught by Brunner, there under, to make the station mobile.
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 JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
Wilkens
January 29, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637