DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Paragraph 0002, Line 1. Replacing “addresses” with “address” is suggested.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Paragraph 0058, Line 9. Replacing “dampen” with “damp” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 7. Replacing “coupled to the plurality of coupling slots” with “coupled to a coupling slot of the plurality of coupling slots” is suggested.
punctuation in Line 13. Replacing “thereby coupling the top panel to the left sidewall, right sidewall and back panel” with “thereby coupling the top panel to the left sidewall, right sidewall, and back panel” is suggested. (Emphasis added.)
punctuation in Line 14. Replacing “coupling of floor panel, right sidewall, left sidewall, rear panel and top panel” with “coupling of floor panel, right sidewall, left sidewall, rear panel, and top panel” is suggested. (Emphasis added.)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 3. Replacing “surface of thereof” with “surface thereof” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 2. Replacing “cartsystemmobile workstation” with “mobile workstation” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 26-29 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. The term “easy movement” in Claim 1 (two occurrences in Claim 1: one occurrence in Line 1 and one occurrence in Line 4) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy movement” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree; a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of this examination, the term “easy movement” will be construed in both occurrences as “movement”.
Claims 8-11 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. The term “similar handle structure” in Claim 8, Line 4 is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree; a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of this examination, the term “similar handle structure” will be construed as “handle structure”. It should be noted that Claims 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (See “Allowable Subject Matter” below.)
Claims 19-25 and 31 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. The terms “smooth rolling casters” and “easy repositioning and movement” in Claim 19, Line 5, are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “smooth rolling casters” and “easy repositioning and movement” are not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the respective requisite degrees; a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of this examination, the term “smooth rolling casters” will be construed as “rolling casters”, and the term “easy repositioning and movement” will be construed as “repositioning and movement”. It should be noted that independent Claim 19 and dependent Claims 20-25 and 31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. (See “Allowable Subject Matter” below.)
Claim 23 is 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. The term “easy-to-clean” in Claim 23, Line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy-to-clean” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree; a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of this examination, the phrase “an easy-to-clean antimicrobial material” will be construed as “an antimicrobial material”.
Claim 26 is 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. The term “easy-to-clean” in Claim 26, Line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy-to-clean” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree; a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of this examination, the phrase “an easy-to-clean antimicrobial material” will be construed as “an antimicrobial material”.
Claim 27 is 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. The term “easy-to-clean” in Claim 27, Line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy-to-clean” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree; a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of this examination, the phrase “an easy-to-clean antimicrobial material” will be construed as “an antimicrobial material”.
Claim 30 is 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. The term “easy-to-clean” in Claim 30, Line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy-to-clean” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree; a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of this examination, the phrase “an easy-to-clean antimicrobial material” will be construed as “an antimicrobial material”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sofy et al. (US 9079596 B2) (hereinafter “Sofy”) in view of Youngs et al. (US 20050194871 A1) (hereinafter “Youngs”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Sofy teaches a cart assembly configured for easy movement along a supporting surface [Sofy Fig. 1], comprising: a floor panel supporting a plurality of smooth rolling casters on a bottom side thereof to accommodate easy movement along the supporting surface, the floor panel further having a plurality of coupling slots on a top surface thereof [Sofy Figs. 1 and 4, Reference Characters 64, 60, and 34; Sofy Paragraph 31: “the upward face 52 of the base 50 defines a pair of openings 64 that have a rectangular shape that extend therein between two of the affixing posts 58 for removeably receiving the projections 38 of the bottoms 30 of the panels 22 for aligning the base 50 with the panels 22.”]; and a left sidewall, a right sidewall, and a back panel, each supported by and coupled to the plurality of coupling slots on the top side of the floor panel [Sofy Fig. 4, Reference Characters 60 and 34], but does not teach an interlocking tongue and groove structure.
Youngs teaches the left sidewall and the right sidewall each interlocking with the back panel via an interlocking tongue and groove structure to thereby create a rigid connection therebetween without additional connectors; a top panel that defines a work surface on an upper surface thereof, the top panel further having a plurality of grooves on a bottom side thereof to receive an upper edge of the left sidewall, an upper edge of the right sidewall and an upper edge of the back panel, thereby coupling the top panel to the left sidewall, right sidewall and back panel, wherein the coupling of floor panel, right sidewall, left sidewall, rear panel and top panel alone creates a rigid structure and defines an interior space [Youngs Figs. 2, 3, 7, 7A, 10, and 26, Reference Characters 41, 42, 87, 88, 71, and 72]. 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 Sofy to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an interlocking tongue and groove structure in view of Youngs. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sofy and Youngs because this would have achieved the desirable results of minimizing the need for separate fasteners, providing shelf adjustability, and decreasing production tooling requirements, as recognized by Youngs [Youngs Paragraph 0004: “minimizing the need for separate fasteners.”; Youngs Paragraph 0005: “It is desirable to adjustably support shelves in different locations and in different orientations in cabinets at the same time, it is desirable to minimize the number of different holes and shelf brackets in order to minimize the number of parts and die-features required.”].
Sofy further teaches a plurality of drawers movably supported by the left sidewall and the right sidewall and fully positioned within the interior space when in a closed position and extending outwardly from the interior space when in an open position [Sofy Figs. 1, 3, and 5, Reference Characters 80, 66, and 22].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sofy et al. (US 9079596 B2) (hereinafter “Sofy”) in view of Youngs et al. (US 20050194871 A1) (hereinafter “Youngs”) and further in view of Woods et al. (US 20050242534 A1) (hereinafter “Woods”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Sofy and Youngs teaches a cart assembly comprising a top panel but does not teach a recessed tray. 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.”]. 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, comprising a top panel, of the combination of Sofy and Youngs to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a recessed tray in view of Woods. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sofy, Youngs, and Woods because this would have achieved the desirable result of preventing items from falling off of the top tray, as recognized by Woods [Woods Paragraph 0009: “to prevent items such as papers, transparencies, pens, pencils, etc., from falling off of the top tray.”].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sofy et al. (US 9079596 B2) (hereinafter “Sofy”) in view of Youngs et al. (US 20050194871 A1) (hereinafter “Youngs”) and further in view of Jackson (US 20190276062 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Sofy and Youngs teaches a cart assembly but does not teach a folding table assembly. Jackson teaches the cart assembly of claim 1 further comprising at least one folding table extension coupled to the right sidewall or the left sidewall [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 the combination of Sofy and Youngs 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 Sofy, Youngs, and Jackson because this would have achieved the desirable results 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)”].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sofy et al. (US 9079596 B2) (hereinafter “Sofy”) in view of Youngs et al. (US 20050194871 A1) (hereinafter “Youngs”) 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 Sofy and Youngs teaches a cart assembly but does not teach a mounting pole. Knoll teaches the cart assembly of claim 1 further comprising 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 Sofy and Youngs to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a mounting pole in view of Knoll. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sofy, Youngs, 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 Sofy and Youngs teaches a cart but does not teach a basket. Knoll teaches the cart assembly of claim 1 further comprising a basket coupled to at least one of the left sidewall or the right sidewall [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 Sofy and Youngs 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 Sofy, Youngs, 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 Sofy et al. (US 9079596 B2) (hereinafter “Sofy”) in view of Youngs et al. (US 20050194871 A1) (hereinafter “Youngs”) and further in view of Parent (US 5113546 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Sofy and Youngs teaches a cart assembly comprising a back panel but does not teach a door. Parent teaches the cart assembly of claim 1 wherein the back panel further comprises a door therein to provide access to the interior space [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” Paragraph 4: “FIG. 4 is a perspective view of the back of a cart showing the rear doors open”]. 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 Sofy and Youngs to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a back panel door in view of Parent. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sofy, Youngs, and Parent because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling access to the housing interior without using the front or side doors, as recognized by Parent [Parent Claim 1: “said back panel including door means for access to the interior of the housing forming means”].
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sofy et al. (US 9079596 B2) (hereinafter “Sofy”) in view of Youngs et al. (US 20050194871 A1) (hereinafter “Youngs”) and further in view of Norman et al. (US 10045829 B1) (hereinafter “Norman”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Sofy and Youngs teaches a cart assembly comprising a floor, sidewalls, a back, and a top but does not teach an antimicrobial material. Norman teaches the cart assembly of claim 1 wherein the floor, left sidewall, right sidewall, back panel, and top are all formed from an easy-to-clean antimicrobial material [Norman Fig. 1, Reference Character 12; Norman Paragraph 20: “One or more surfaces of the chassis 12, such as the top surface 36 or the handle 50, may be constructed of an antimicrobial material and/or completely or partially coated with an antimicrobial material. The antimicrobial material may be any material that inhibits the growth of pathogenic microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, yeast, and algae”]. 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 Sofy and Youngs to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, antimicrobial material in view of Norman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sofy, Youngs, and Norman because this would have achieved the desirable results of preventing infection, extending cart lifespan, and controlling odors, as recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be noted that while Norman does not provide an explicit motivation for using antimicrobial materials, the use of antimicrobial materials for the reasons stated above is well known 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.).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sofy et al. (US 9079596 B2) (hereinafter “Sofy”) in view of Youngs et al. (US 20050194871 A1) (hereinafter “Youngs”), further in view of Jackson (US 20190276062 A1), and further in view of Norman et al. (US 10045829 B1) (hereinafter “Norman”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Sofy, Youngs, and Jackson teaches a cart assembly comprising a floor, sidewalls, a back, and a top but does not teach an antimicrobial material. Norman teaches the cart assembly of claim 3 wherein the floor, left sidewall, right sidewall, back panel, top and extendable shelf are all formed from an easy-to-clean antimicrobial material [Norman Fig. 1, Reference Character 12; Norman Paragraph 20: “One or more surfaces of the chassis 12, such as the top surface 36 or the handle 50, may be constructed of an antimicrobial material and/or completely or partially coated with an antimicrobial material. The antimicrobial material may be any material that inhibits the growth of pathogenic microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, yeast, and algae”]. 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 Sofy, Youngs, and Jackson to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, antimicrobial material in view of Norman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sofy, Youngs, Jackson, and Norman because this would have achieved the desirable results of preventing infection, extending cart lifespan, and controlling odors, as recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be noted that while Norman does not provide an explicit motivation for using antimicrobial materials, the use of antimicrobial materials for the reasons stated above is well known 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.).
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sofy et al. (US 9079596 B2) (hereinafter “Sofy”) in view of Youngs et al. (US 20050194871 A1) (hereinafter “Youngs”) and further in view of Gyemant et al. (WO 2005106153 A1) (hereinafter “Gyemant”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Sofy and Youngs teaches a cart assembly comprising drawers but does not teach printability. Gyemant teaches the cart assembly of claim 1 wherein the drawers each have a drawer front panel which is configured to allow an image to be printed thereon via sublimation printing [Gyemant Paragraph 0052: The protective panels 100 having a building panel 102 of wood or wood composite protective panel or door as described above can be incorporated into many items, such as a drawer front”; Gyemant Paragraph 0015: “the invention comprises a method for fabricating a protective panel apparatus, having an image disposed on at least one surface thereof, comprising the steps of: providing at least one building panel; providing at least one protective sheet; affixing the at least one building panel to the at least one protective sheet; applying at least one receptor coat to an outer surface of the at least one building panel; transferring an image onto the at least one receptor coat.”; Paragraph 0020: “The step of transferring an image onto the at least one receptor coat may be accomplished by one of the following processes: dye sublimation; ink transfer; direct printing; non-contact printing; preprinting saturated paper.”]. 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 Sofy and Youngs to allow, with a reasonable expectation of success, the use of sublimation printing in view of Gyemant. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sofy, Youngs, and Gyemant because this would have achieved the desirable result of decreasing image printing costs, as recognized by Gyemant [Gyemant Paragraph 0080: “The availability of digitally printed dye sublimation transfer material 1016 allows short runs, demonstrations, prototype manufacture and proofing using this process to be relatively inexpensive.”].
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Sofy and Youngs teaches a cart assembly comprising drawers but does not teach an outer layer. Gyemant teaches the cart assembly of claim 28 wherein the drawer fronts have a multilayer construction, and wherein an outer layer is configured to receive the image, and where the outer layer is removable [Gyemant Paragraph 0006: “the invention comprises a protective panel apparatus, which in turn comprises at least one building panel; and at least one non-metallic protective sheet affixed at least indirectly, to the at least one building panel.”; Gyemant Paragraph 0008: “The protective panel apparatus may further comprise at least one layer or coating, fabricated from at least one material from the group consisting of: urethane foam; graphite; wire mesh; an electromagnetically opaque coating; a fire resistant coating or layer; a coating or layer resistant to chemical attack; a radiation resistant coating or layer.”; Gyemant Paragraph 0015: “the invention comprises a method for fabricating a protective panel apparatus, having an image disposed on at least one surface thereof, comprising the steps of: providing at least one building panel; providing at least one protective sheet; affixing the at least one building panel to the at least one protective sheet; applying at least one receptor coat to an outer surface of the at least one building panel; transferring an image onto the at least one receptor coat.”; Gyemant Paragraph 0020: “The step of transferring an image onto the at least one receptor coat may be accomplished by one of the following processes: dye sublimation; ink transfer; direct printing; non-contact printing; preprinting saturated paper.”]. 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 Sofy and Youngs to feature, with a reasonable expectation of success, multilayer construction and outer layer removability in view of Gyemant. It should be noted that while Gyemant does not provide an explicit motivation for this construction, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sofy, Youngs, and Gyemant because this would have achieved the desirable results of increasing ease of printing the (flat, hardware-free, removable) drawer fronts, and enabling drawer component parts e.g., drawer fronts, to be individually produced by specialists, e.g., sublimation printers, prior to drawer assembly. 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.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (a) Claim 1 is rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112”, above) and if (b) Claim 7 is rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Sofy et al. (US 9079596 B2) (hereinafter “Sofy”), Youngs et al. (US 20050194871 A1) (hereinafter “Youngs”), and Parent (US 5113546 A) teaches a cart assembly comprising a back panel but does not teach an interior wall.
The prior art does not teach or suggest the cart assembly of claim 6 further comprising an interior wall coupled to the right sidewall and the left sidewall to divide the interior space into a front space configured to receive the plurality of drawers and a rear locker accessible via the door, wherein the interior wall is coupled to both the left sidewall and the right sidewall via a tongue and groove connection. The closest reference, Norman et al. (US 10045829 B1) (hereinafter “Norman”), teaches an interior wall coupled to the right sidewall and the left sidewall to divide the interior space into a front space configured to receive the plurality of drawers and a rear locker [Norman Fig. 9; Norman Paragraph 10: “FIG. 9 is a back perspective view of the cart of FIG. 1 with a back wall removed to illustrate components housed therein;”; Norman Paragraph 31: “a power strip 86 or other collection of power outlets may be plugged into or electrically coupled to the power source 26 and then fixed and presented through an opening of the back wall 38 of the chassis 12”], but does not teach a door, or that the interior wall is coupled to both the left sidewall and the right sidewall via a tongue and groove connection.
Claims 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to (a) overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112”, above) and to (b) include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Sofy et al. (US 9079596 B2) (hereinafter “Sofy”), Youngs et al. (US 20050194871 A1) (hereinafter “Youngs”), and Jackson (US 20190276062 A1) teaches a cart assembly comprising a top panel and a folding table extension but does not teach a handle structure.
The prior art does not teach or suggest the cart assembly of claim 3 further comprising a handle structure formed at one end of the top panel, and wherein the folding table extension comprises an interlocking structure on a bottom surface of thereof that allows a distal end of the folding table extension to removably interconnect with a similar handle structure of an adjacent cart assembly without the need for additional connectors. The closest reference, Jackson, teaches 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.”], but does not teach a handle structure formed at one end of the top panel, and wherein the folding table extension comprises an interlocking structure on a bottom surface of thereof that allows a distal end of the folding table extension to removably interconnect with a similar handle structure of an adjacent cart assembly without the need for additional connectors.
Claims 12-18 and 30 are allowed. The following is the examiner’s statement of reason for allowance: The prior art does not teach or suggest all elements of Claim 12; Claims 13-18 and 30 are dependent on Claim 12. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 12, Richmond (US 3905662 A) teaches a mobile workstation configured to create a reconfigurable expanded work surface, the mobile workstation comprising: a first cart and a second cart, each comprising: a floor panel supporting a plurality of casters [Richmond Figs. 2 and 6]; but does not teach tongue and groove connections.
Youngs et al. (US 20050194871 A1) (hereinafter “Youngs”) teaches a left sidewall, a right sidewall, and a rear panel coupled to the floor panel, the rear panel coupled to the left sidewall and the right sidewall via tongue and groove connections, and a top coupled to the left sidewall, the right sidewall, and the rear panel, the top having an upper working surface and an integrated handle at one end thereof [Youngs Figs. 2, 3, 7, 7A, 10, and 26, Reference Characters 41, 42, 87, 88, 71, and 72]. 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 mobile workstation of Richmond to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an interlocking tongue and groove structure in view of Youngs. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richmond and Youngs because this would have achieved the desirable results of minimizing the need for separate fasteners, providing shelf adjustability, and decreasing production tooling requirements, as recognized by Youngs [Youngs Paragraph 0004: “minimizing the need for separate fasteners.”; Youngs Paragraph 0005: “It is desirable to adjustably support shelves in different locations and in different orientations in cabinets at the same time, it is desirable to minimize the number of different holes and shelf brackets in order to minimize the number of parts and die-features required.”].
Richmond teaches a mobile workstation but does not teach a folding table extension.
Jackson (US 20190276062 A1) teaches a folding table extension coupled to one of the left sidewall or the right sidewall [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 modular workstation of Richmond 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 Richmond and Jackson because this would have achieved the desirable results of providing storage space and would enable multiple configurations for cart assembly use and storage, as recognized by Jackson [Jackson Paragraph 0003: “store his or her tools, supplies, etc.”; 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)”].
Richmond teaches a mobile workstation but does not teach interlocking features on a folding table extension that obviate the need for additional connectors.
The prior art does not teach or suggest a first interlocking feature on a distal edge of the folding table extension configured to be removably joined with a corresponding second interlocking feature on the second cart without the need for additional connectors, thereby removably coupling the first cart to the second cart, wherein the top of the first cart, the top of the second cart and the folding table extension thus create the expanded work surface. The closest reference, Richmond, teaches that each of the plurality of carts is removably connectable to at least another cart of the plurality carts in a manner to create the expanded working surface that spans the connected carts [Richmond Figs. 1, 2, 6, Reference Characters 34, 37, and 38] but does not teach removable connection in a manner that does not require additional connectors.
Claims 19-25 and 31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112”, above). The following is the examiner’s statement of reason for allowance: The prior art does not teach or suggest all elements of Claim 19; Claims 20-25 and 31 are dependent on Claim 19. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 19, Richmond (US 3905662 A) teaches a modular workstation having an expanded working surface, the modular workstation comprising: a plurality of carts, with each of the plurality of carts comprising: a cart body made up of a plurality of panels supported by a plurality of smooth rolling casters to allow for easy repositioning and movement; a top supported by the plurality of panels [Richmond Figs. 1, 2, and 6, Reference Characters 34, 37, and 38]; but does not teach a folding table extension or drawers.
Jackson (US 20190276062 A1) teaches at least one folding table extension removably attached to a sidewall of the cart body; and a plurality of drawers supported by the cart body, with each drawer having a drawer face; wherein the drawer faces and the plurality of panels have printed media to be printed thereon [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 modular workstation of Richmond 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 Richmond and Jackson because this would have achieved the desirable results of providing storage space and would enable multiple configurations for cart assembly use and storage, as recognized by Jackson [Jackson Paragraph 0003: “store his or her tools, supplies, etc.”; 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)”].
Richmond teaches a modular workstation comprising a plurality of carts but does not teach the plurality of carts being removably connectable without additional connectors.
The prior art does not teach or suggest that each of the plurality of carts is removably connectable to at least another cart of the plurality carts in a manner to create the expanded working surface that spans the connected carts and in a manner that does not require additional connectors. The closest reference, Richmond, teaches that each of the plurality of carts is removably connectable to at least another cart of the plurality carts in a manner to create the expanded working surface that spans the connected carts [Richmond Figs. 1, 2, 6, Reference Characters 34, 37, and 38] but does not teach removable connection in a manner that does not require additional connectors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 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
Prosecution Insights