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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “40” has been used to designate both a “cable manager” (Fig. 14) and a “power strip” (Figs. 13 and 15). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Paragraph 0010, Line 9. Replacing “the wherein the at least one power strip” with “the at least one power strip” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 7. Replacing “the assembly” with “the cart assembly” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al. (US 20050242534 A1) (hereinafter “Woods”) in view of Jackson (US 20190276062 A1) and further in view of Parent (US 5113546 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Woods teaches a cart assembly [Woods Fig. 1] comprising: a top, a front, a left side, a right side, and a back [Woods Figs. 1 and 5]; and the top including a top panel that defines a work surface [Woods Fig. 1; Paragraph 0025: “Top tray 48 of cover member 40 defines a work surface 58 on which office items such as papers, transparencies, pens, pencils, etc. may be placed.”]; but does not teach drawers or a folding table extension.
Jackson teaches the front including a plurality of drawers [Jackson Fig. 2; Jackson Paragraph 0019: “A second compartment 26 houses a plurality of drawers 28.”]; and at least one of the left side and the right side including a folding table extension [Jackson Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Characters 24b and 24c; Jackson Paragraph 0016: “first and second extensions 24b, 24c may be configured to pivot or otherwise move between stowed configurations and deployed configurations.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart assembly of Woods to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, drawers and a folding table extension in view of Jackson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Woods and Jackson because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing storage space while not intruding upon overall storage volume, and would enable multiple configurations for cart assembly use and storage, as recognized by Jackson [Jackson Paragraph 0029: “the storage space within a drawer 34 may be useful, but may not be so large as to significantly intrude upon the overall storage volume within a corresponding interior compartment 26”; Jackson Paragraph 00017: “in a stowed configuration, the first and/or second extensions 24b, 24c may extend downward along a corresponding end wall of an enclosure 16. This may minimize the overall length of an athletic trainer cart 12 during transport, storage, etc. Conversely, when a system 10 or an athletic trainer cart 12 thereof is in a deployed configuration, the first and/or second extensions 24b, 24c may extend horizontally away from an enclosure 16 so as to combine or cooperate with the main portion 24a in forming a longer examination table (e.g., a table sufficiently long for an athlete to lie thereon and be fully supported)”].
Woods further teaches at least one of the left side and the right side including one or more handles [Woods Fig. 1, Reference Character 72], but does not teach a back door or cable manager.
Parent teaches the back including a door that opens to provide access to a cord locker, the cord locker including: at least one cable manager [Parent Figs. 4 and 7, Reference Characters 52, 54, and 74; Parent Paragraph 6: “The rear wall 40 includes a pair of doors 52 and 54.”; Parent “Description”: “FIG. 4 is a perspective view of the back of a cart showing the rear doors open”; Parent Paragraph 11: “An electrical system is provided in association with the cart which includes an electric power cord coiled about a retractable reel which is plugable into a power supply.”; Parent Paragraph 8: “Electric power is brought to the cart via a cord whose plug 72 is seen in FIG. 4 and connects to a retractable-style reel 74 best seen in FIG. 7.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart assembly of Woods to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a back door and a cable manager in view of Parent. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Woods and Parent because this would have achieved the desirable result of optimizing space utility for power delivery for cart systems, as recognized by Parent [Parent Paragraph 11: “This powers the cart. A circuit is provided for activating a duplex outlet in association with the cart as well as the vacuum associated with the cart. Various indicator lights are provided.”].
Woods further teaches at least one power strip [Woods Fig. 5, Reference Character 70; Woods Paragraph 0028: “Electrical terminal 70 includes a plurality of electrical outlets to which electrical devices can be connected”]; wherein the at least one power strip may be plugged into an outlet outside of the cart assembly while the door is closed and excess cord from the at least one power strip may be looped around the at least one cable manager [Woods Fig. 5]; and wherein power from the at least one power strip is accessible through an opening in the top panel such that electronic equipment on or near the cart may be powered by the power strip while the door is closed [Woods Fig. 3, Reference Character 70]; but does not teach panels applied to drawers.
Jackson teaches a plurality of panels, each sized and shaped to be applied to one or more surfaces of the drawers, sides and back of the cart, the panels constructed of a material suitable to receive printed media [Jackson Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart assembly of Woods to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, panels applied to drawers in view of Jackson. It should be noted that while Jackson does not explicitly provide a motivation for using panels on the surfaces of the drawers, sides, and back of the cart, such panels would increase the strength of the cart, enclose a storage space within the cart, and provide security for items stored within the cart, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 2, Woods teaches the cart assembly of claim 1 wherein the top panel further defines at least one recessed tray [Woods Paragraph 0009: “The top tray of the cover member provides a work surface in both the first and second positions of the cover member, and is recessed to prevent items such as papers, transparencies, pens, pencils, etc., from falling off of the top tray.”].
Regarding Claim 3, Woods teaches the cart assembly of claim 1 wherein the top further includes an additional power strip [Woods Fig. 3, Reference Character 70 (typ)].
Regarding Claim 7, Woods teaches The cart assembly of claim 1 wherein the at least one power strip that the cord locker includes comprises a plurality of power strips [Woods Figs. 1, 5, and 6, Reference Character 70 (typ)].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al. (US 20050242534 A1) (hereinafter “Woods”) in view of Jackson (US 20190276062 A1), further in view of Parent (US 5113546 A), and further in view of Knoll et al. (US 8924258 B2) (hereinafter “Knoll”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent teaches a cart assembly comprising a top but does not teach a pole support. Knoll teaches the cart assembly of claim 1 wherein the top further includes a pole support attached to the top panel and usable to support a mounting pole extending upwardly from the top panel and constructed to provide an attachment point for accessories [Knoll Fig. 1, Reference Character 174; Knoll Paragraph 26: “Coupled to top panel 112 of cart frame 102 is a countertop 164 that supports a plurality of electronic devices. A support pole 174 is coupled to cart frame 102 and countertop 164 and extends from a top surface 165 of countertop 164 along an axis 175.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart assembly of the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a pole support in view of Knoll. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Woods, Jackson, Parent, and Knoll because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the user to use the accessories while standing on any side of the cart, as recognized by Knoll [Knoll Paragraph 30: “the user can stand on any side of cart frame 102 and can swing both mobile computing device 166 and printer 168 at the same time about axis 175 of support pole 174 for access by pushing only one of the mobile computing device 166 or the printer 168. In addition, no matter where the user is standing, at any point during the transaction, the user can swing both mobile computing device 166 and printer 168 at the same time about axis 175 to orient display screen 184 toward a customer who is purchasing products.”].
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent teaches a cart but does not teach a basket. Knoll teaches the cart assembly of claim 1 wherein at least one of the left side and the right side includes a basket [Knoll Paragraph 23: “free end 145 of shopping basket shelf 144 extends outwardly from exterior surface 146 of left side panel 110. Shopping basket shelf 144, when erected, is capable of providing a support surface for holding a shopping basket (not shown) that is to be emptied or unloaded of items.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart assembly of the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a basket in view of Knoll. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Woods, Jackson, Parent, and Knoll because this would have achieved the desirable result of being able to contain items and to be emptied while the user is using the mobile point-of-sale interface, as recognized by Knoll [Knoll Paragraph 23: “a shopping basket (not shown) that is to be emptied or unloaded of items].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al. (US 20050242534 A1) (hereinafter “Woods”) in view of Jackson (US 20190276062 A1), further in view of Parent (US 5113546 A), and further in view of Brennan (US 20070029746 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent teaches a cart assembly comprising a cable manager but does not teach a plurality of cable managers. Brennan teaches the cart assembly of claim 1 wherein the at least one cable manager comprises a plurality of cable managers [Brennan Fig. 3, Reference Characters 60 (typ) and 42 (typ); Paragraph 0011: “Mounted inside the main compartment are a pair of reel assemblies, each of which has a reel for holding a length of an electrical extension cord.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart assembly of the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a plurality of cable managers in view of Brennan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Woods, Jackson, Parent, and Brennan because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling convenient deployment of the cable as needed, as recognized by Brennan [Brennan Paragraph 0026: “to allow winding and unwinding of the cord 44 upon demand.”].
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al. (US 20050242534 A1) (hereinafter “Woods”) in view of Jackson (US 20190276062 A1), further in view of Parent (US 5113546 A), and further in view of Burr (US 4665836 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent teaches a cart assembly comprising a folding table extension but does not teach an interlocking feature. Burr teaches the cart assembly of claim 1 wherein the folding table extension comprises an interlocking feature that allows a distal end of the folding table extension to connect with an adjacent cart assembly [Burr Figs. 4, 5, and 8, interlocking feature comprising an Alignment Bar (Reference Character 20); Pegs (Reference Character 42); and Spaced Slots (Reference Characters 28 and 30); Burr Abstract: “First and second sectional tables may be abutted with their respective sets of inserts aligned. A slotted coupling link (20) having spaced slots (28, 30) with first and second ends in opposite ends of the link is utilized with thumb screws (42) which are threaded into the inserts. The screws pass through the slots for positioning the coupling link between a first, retracted, position in which it is completely positioned on the underside of one of the sectional tables and a second, extended, position in which it extends beneath both sectional tables and is secured by the thumb screws.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart assembly of the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an interlocking feature in view of Burr. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Woods, Jackson, Parent, and Burr because this would have achieved the desirable result of simplifying attachment and separation of folding table extensions, as recognized by Burr [Burr Abstract: “By simply removing or loosening the screws and sliding the coupling link out of engagement with one of the sectional tables, the tables can be separated”]. It should be noted that while the claimed invention applies to carts and Burr’s invention applies to tables, the structure and function of Burr’s invention with respect is relevant even in the absence of wheels that would make the table a cart. It should be further noted that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, G.).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent teaches a cart assembly comprising a folding table extension but does not teach pegs. Burr teaches the cart assembly of claim 8 wherein the interlocking feature comprises pegs proximate the distal edge of the folding table extension that are configured to mate with the one or more handles of the adjacent cart [Burr Figs. 4, 5, 7, and 8; Pegs: Reference Character 42 (typ); Handle: feature formed by peripheral flange Reference Character 19 (typ)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart assembly of the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, pegs in view of Burr. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Woods, Jackson, Parent, and Burr because this would have achieved the desirable result of simplifying connection and disconnection of the tables, as recognized by Burr [Burr Paragraph 9: “The tables are easily disconnected by removing the outer screws 42' in inserts 40' from the slots 28, loosening the remaining screws 42, securing the link and sliding the coupling link back in its retracted position, and then refastening the screws.”].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent teaches a cart assembly comprising a folding table extension but does not teach an alignment bar or handle cut outs. Burr teaches the cart assembly of claim 8 wherein the interlocking feature comprises pegs proximate the distal end of the folding table extension that are configured to mate with an alignment bar having handle cut outs on two opposing sides such that the interlocking feature of one cart can be attached to one of the two opposing sides and the interlocking feature of an adjacent cart can be attached to the other of the two opposing sides [Burr Figs. 4, 5, 7, and 8; Alignment Bar: 20; Handle Cut Outs: 40]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart assembly of the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an alignment bar having handle cut outs in view of Burr. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Woods, Jackson, Parent, and Burr because this would have achieved the desirable result of simplifying table connection, as recognized by Burr [Burr Paragraph 8: “the table edges are held closely together. Furthermore, this is achieved without requiring tightening of the screws which may be only finger-tight. This procedure effectively clamps the two table sections together as illustrated in FIGS. 6 and 8.”].
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent teaches a cart assembly comprising a folding table extension but does not teach a corner table attachment. Burr teaches the cart assembly of claim 8 wherein the interlocking feature comprises pegs proximate the distal end of the folding table extension that are configured to mate with a corner table attachment having handle cut outs on two adjacent sides such that the interlocking feature of a first cart can be attached to one of the two adjacent sides and the interlocking feature of a second cart can be attached to the other of the two adjacent sides, the two adjacent sides configured such that when the first cart, the second cart, and the corner table attachment are connected, the assembly fits in a corner of a room [Burr Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Character 12; Burr Paragraph 4: “the interconnecting apparatus of the present invention is similarly applied to the undersides of all of the tables of a set which may then be connected in accordance with the present invention.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart assembly of the combination of Woods, Jackson, and Parent to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a corner table attachment in view of Burr. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Woods, Jackson, Parent, and Burr because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling connection of tables for various configurations, as recognized by Burr [Burr Paragraph 3: “The interconnected sectional tables form a single larger and differently shaped table which can be readily modified in accordance with the desires of the user.”].
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond (US 3905662 A) in view of Jackson (US 20190276062 A1) and further in view of Burr (US 4665836 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 12, Richmond teaches a cart system [Richmond Fig. 2] comprising: a first cart and at least a second cart, [Richmond Fig. 2], but does not teach a plurality of drawers.
Jackson teaches each including: a front with a plurality of drawers [Jackson Fig. 2]; a left side, a right side, a folding table extension on one of the left side and the right side, and a top including a working surface [Jackson Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart system of Richmond to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a plurality drawers in view of Jackson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Woods and Jackson because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing storage space while not intruding upon overall storage volume, as recognized by Jackson [Jackson Paragraph 0029: “the storage space within a drawer 34 may be useful, but may not be so large as to significantly intrude upon the overall storage volume within a corresponding interior compartment 26”]. Richmond teaches a cart system but does not teach an interlocking feature.
Burr teaches one or more integrated handles on at least one of the left side and the right side, opposite the folding table extension an interlocking feature on a distal edge of the folding table extension that allows the first cart to be joined with the second cart [Burr Figs. 4, 5, and 8, Handle: Reference Character 19; Alignment Bar: Reference Character 20; Pegs: Reference Character 42; and Spaced Slots: Reference Characters 28 and 30]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart system of Richmond to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an interlocking feature in view of Burr. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richmond and Burr because this would have achieved the desirable result of simplifying attachment and separation of folding table extensions, as recognized by Burr [Burr Abstract: “By simply removing or loosening the screws and sliding the coupling link out of engagement with one of the sectional tables, the tables can be separated”]. It should be noted that while the claimed invention applies to carts and Burr’s invention applies to tables, the structure and function of Burr’s invention with respect is relevant even in the absence of wheels that would make the table a cart. It should be further noted that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, G.).
Regarding 13, the combination of Richmond and Jackson teaches a cart system but does not teach an interlocking feature that connects integrated handles. Burr teaches the cart system of claim 12 wherein the interlocking feature connects the table extension of the first cart with the one or more integrated handles of the second cart [Burr Figs. 4, 5, 7, and 8, Alignment Bar: 20; Handle Cut Outs: 40]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart system of the combination of Richmond and Jackson to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an interlocking feature in view of Burr. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richmond, Jackson, and Burr because this would have achieved the desirable result of simplifying table connection, as recognized by Burr [Burr Paragraph 8: “the table edges are held closely together. Furthermore, this is achieved without requiring tightening of the screws which may be only finger-tight. This procedure effectively clamps the two table sections together as illustrated in FIGS. 6 and 8.”].
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Richmond and Jackson teaches a cart system but does not teach an alignment bar. Burr teaches the cart system of claim 12 further comprising an alignment bar that connects the folding extension of the first cart to the folding table extension of the second cart [Burr Figs. 4, 5, 7, and 8, Alignment Bar: 20; Handle Cut Outs: 40]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart system of the combination of Richmond and Jackson to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an alignment bar in view of Burr. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richmond, Jackson, and Burr because this would have achieved the desirable result of simplifying table connection, as recognized by Burr [Burr Paragraph 8: “the table edges are held closely together. Furthermore, this is achieved without requiring tightening of the screws which may be only finger-tight. This procedure effectively clamps the two table sections together as illustrated in FIGS. 6 and 8.”].
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Richmond and Jackson teaches a cart system but does not teach a corner table attachment. Burr teaches the cart system of claim 12 further comprising a corner table attachment that connects the first cart at a right angle to the second cart [Burr Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Character 12]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart assembly of the combination of Richmond and Jackson to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a corner table attachment in view of Burr. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richmond, Jackson, and Burr because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling connection of tables for various configurations, as recognized by Burr [Burr Paragraph 3: “The interconnected sectional tables form a single larger and differently shaped table which can be readily modified in accordance with the desires of the user.”].
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Richmond and Jackson teaches a cart system but does not teach a support leg. Burr teaches the cart system of claim 15 wherein the corner table attachment includes a support leg [Burr Fig. 1, Support Legs extending from Corner Table: Reference Character 12]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart system of the combination of Richmond and Jackson to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a support leg in view of Burr. It should be noted that while Burr does not explicitly provide a motivation for the use of a support leg, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richmond, Jackson, and Burr because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing table stability and load capacity. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Richmond and Jackson teaches a cart system but does not teach handle cut outs. Burr teaches the cart system of claim 15 wherein the corner table attachment has handle cut outs that are spaced and oriented to mate with the interlocking features of the first cart and the second cart [Burr Figs. 7 and 8, Handle Cut Outs: Reference Character 40]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart system of the combination of Richmond and Jackson to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, handle cut outs in view of Burr. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richmond, Jackson, and Burr because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling connection of tables for various configurations, as recognized by Burr [Burr Paragraph 3: “The interconnected sectional tables form a single larger and differently shaped table which can be readily modified in accordance with the desires of the user.”].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond (US 3905662 A) in view of Jackson (US 20190276062 A1), further in view of Burr (US 4665836 A), and further in view of Parent (US 5113546 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Richmond, Jackson, and Burr teaches a cart system but does not teach a cable manager. Parent teaches the cart system of claim 12 wherein each of the first cart and the second cart includes at least one cable manager [Parent Figs. 1 and 4, Reference Characters 52, 54, 58, and 48; Parent Paragraph 6: “The rear wall 40 includes a pair of doors 52 and 54.”; Parent “Description” Paragraph 4: “FIG. 4 is a perspective view of the back of a cart showing the rear doors open”; Parent Paragraph 7: “the cart includes a floor portion 56 which defines a recess 58 into which the hose reel 48 fits.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart system of the combination of Richmond, Jackson, and Burr to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a cable manager in view of Parent. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cart assembly of Woods to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a cable manager in view of Parent. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richmond, Jackson, Burr, and Parent because this would have achieved the desirable result of optimizing space utility for power delivery for cart systems, as recognized by Parent [Parent Paragraph 11: “This powers the cart. A circuit is provided for activating a duplex outlet in association with the cart as well as the vacuum associated with the cart. Various indicator lights are provided.”].
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond (US 3905662 A) in view of Jackson (US 20190276062 A1) and further in view of Brennan (US 20070029746 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 19, Richmond teaches a modular cart system comprising a plurality of carts [Richmond Fig. 2], but does not teach drawers or a folding table extension.
Jackson teaches a plurality of drawers; and at least one folding table extension [Jackson Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modular cart system of Richmond to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a plurality of drawers and a folding table extension in view of Jackson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richmond and Jackson because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing storage space while not intruding upon overall storage volume, as recognized by Jackson [Jackson Paragraph 0029: “the storage space within a drawer 34 may be useful, but may not be so large as to significantly intrude upon the overall storage volume within a corresponding interior compartment 26”]. Richmond teaches a modular cart system but does not teach cable managers.
Brennan teaches a cord locker including a plurality of cable managers and at least one power strip [Brennan Figs. 3 and 5, Reference Characters 60 (typ), 42 (typ), and ); Brennan Paragraph 0011: “Mounted inside the main compartment are a pair of reel assemblies, each of which has a reel for holding a length of an electrical extension cord.”; Brennan Paragraph 0032: “A second, rear socket plate 86 is mounted in a middle portion 88 of the back wall 16”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modular cart system of Richmond to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, cable managers and a power strip in view of Brennan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richmond and Brennan because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling convenient deployment of the cable and power sockets as needed, as recognized by Brennan [Brennan Paragraph 0026: “to allow winding and unwinding of the cord 44 upon demand.”; Brennan Paragraph 0032: “The second socket plate 86 can carry one or more rear electrical socket units 87, such as 110-volt sockets, for connection of the electrically-powered equipment, when required.]. Richmond teaches a modular cart system but does not teach a plurality of panels.
Jackson teaches a plurality of panels, each sized and shaped to be applied to one or more surfaces of the drawers, sides and back of the cart, the panels constructed of a material suitable to receive printed media [Jackson Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modular cart system of Richmond to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, panels applied to drawers in view of Jackson. It should be noted that while Jackson does not explicitly provide a motivation for using panels on the surfaces of the drawers, sides, and back of the cart, such panels would increase the strength of the cart, enclose a storage space within the cart, and provide security for items stored within the cart, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Richmond teaches that each of the plurality of carts is connectable to at least another cart of the plurality carts to create a top working surface that spans the connected carts [Richmond “Detailed Description” Paragraph 1: “The conveyance 10, a preferred embodiment of which is illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2, is comprised of two cabinet halves 11 and 12, and top walls 13 and 14 of which function as a table.”].
Regarding Claim 20, Richmond teaches a modular cart system but does not teach a folding table extension. Jackson teaches the modular cart system of claim 19 wherein the top working surface includes the folding table extension of at least one cart [Jackson Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Characters 24b, 24a, and 24c; Jackson Paragraph 0016: “first and second extensions 24b, 24c may be configured to pivot or otherwise move between stowed configurations and deployed configurations.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modular cart system of the combination of Richmond and Brennan to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a top working surface and a folding table extension in view of Jackson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richmond, Brennan, and Jackson because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling multiple configurations for cart assembly use and storage, as recognized by Jackson [Jackson Paragraph 00017: “in a stowed configuration, the first and/or second extensions 24b, 24c may extend downward along a corresponding end wall of an enclosure 16. This may minimize the overall length of an athletic trainer cart 12 during transport, storage, etc. Conversely, when a system 10 or an athletic trainer cart 12 thereof is in a deployed configuration, the first and/or second extensions 24b, 24c may extend horizontally away from an enclosure 16 so as to combine or cooperate with the main portion 24a in forming a longer examination table (e.g., a table sufficiently long for an athlete to lie thereon and be fully supported)”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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 II, can be reached at 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 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613