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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 12/10/2025 cancelled claim 17, and amended claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9. Claims 8-10, and 14-16 were previously withdrawn in response to a restriction requirement. Claims 1-16, and 18-20 are currently pending herein.
The amendment filed 12/10/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: New claim 21 and text added to Claim 1 does not appear to be supported by the disclosure as originally filed. Specifically, the term “unitary” (Claim 21) and “to render the creeper as mobile” (Claim 1, lines 12-13) does not occur in the original disclosure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments not rendered moot by the claim amendments have been addressed below.
On pages 7-9 of the response, Applicant states, regarding the O’Donnell 102 reference: “O'Donnell does not disclose a frame where the frame is adjustable between a first position of the frame and a flipped position of the frame….To the extent O'Donnell discloses a second configuration of the creeper, in addition to not disclosing a flipped position of a frame, O'Donnell also discloses that the second configuration is for storing the creeper.”
PNG
media_image1.png
266
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
418
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding these contentions, the Examiner maintains that the O’Donnell reference provides for the disputed claim limitations based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Specifically, while the O’Donnell reference does not specifically recite that the cited components provide for a "flipped position” it is clear from the disclosure and cited figures that the cited components are capable of a flipped position which would be capable of providing a mobile in-use configuration (See, e.g., O’Donnell: Fig.1-12; see above). One of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily interpret the disputed limitations to not as the Applicant argues. The storage position is only one position provided by the connection of the wheel assemblies, and would also for example furthermore still be “mobile” and “in-use” when the frame is “flipped” based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Applicants are reminded, that [t]he invention disclosed in [a] written description may be outstanding in its field, but the name of the game is the claim. In re Hiniker Co., 47 USPQ 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Specifically, if Applicants believe that an invention has differences over the prior art, particularly regarding configuration of the claimed elements, Applicants must find a way to convey this argument in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See, e.g., In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
Specification
The title of the invention contains a typo (“WTIH") and is objected to, and should therefore be rewritten.
The following title is suggested: CREEPER WITH RAISED POSITION AND LOWERED POSITION AND WITH HIDDEN HINGE ASSEMBLY
Drawings
The previous objections to the drawings are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the objections that remain are detailed below.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “respective barrel through hole” (Claim 4) and “bolt through hole” (Claim 6) must all be shown and labeled in the elected embodiment or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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 1-7, 11-13, and 18-21 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. Specifically, the term “unitary” and “to render the creeper as mobile” (Claim 1, lines 12-13) does not occur in the original disclosure.
The previous rejections to the claims under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the rejections that remain are detailed below.
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 1-7, 11-13, and 18-21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations: “first ends of the two ends…second ends of the two ends” (lines 5-8) which is unclear and therefore render the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-7, 11-13, and 18-21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations: “the legs” (line 3) and “the stems” (line 7 & 9) which are of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, the limitations appears to refer back to the limitation “legs” (line 2) and “a respective stem” although there is a lack of clarity regarding the number of legs/stems provided. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-7, 11-13, and 18-21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations: “to render the creeper as mobile” (lines 12-13) which is unclear and therefore render the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11-13, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Donnell (US 10,328,570 B2).
A creeper (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 100) providing a raised position and a lowered position for pads (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 109A+B), the creeper comprising:
a frame (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 105) including side rails at a first height (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 105);
legs (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 122) with a flat portion at a different height than the first height (See, e.g. Fig.1-12);
the legs including a respective through hole with two ends (See, e.g. Fig.1-12);
the through holes being capable of receiving a respective stem of a respective caster assembly within either of the two ends (See, e.g. Fig.1-12);
such that in a first position of the frame, first ends of the two ends of the through holes can receive the stems to provide the lowered position for the pads (See, e.g. Fig.1-12), and
in a flipped position of the frame, second ends of the two ends of the through holes can receive the stems to provide the raised position for the pads (See, e.g. Fig.1-12);
where the first position of the frame and the flipped position of the frame are both in-use configurations which allow the caster assemblies to render the creeper as mobile (See, e.g. Fig.1-12).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, O’Donnell discloses: the legs including an angled portion extending to the flat portion (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 122).
[Claim 11] Regarding Claim 11, O’Donnell discloses: the legs of the frame being devoid of inserts for receiving the stems (See, e.g. Fig.1-12), such that the stems are capable of being inserted directly into the through holes of the legs (See, e.g. Fig.1-12).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, O’Donnell discloses: the pads including a body pad (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 109A) secured to the frame by thumb bolts (See, e.g. Fig.1-12).
[Claim 13] Regarding Claim 13, O’Donnell discloses: the pads including a headrest pad (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 109B) and a body pad (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 109A), the creeper further comprising a hinge assembly (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 130) for adjusting the headrest pad between angular orientations relative to the body pad (See, e.g. Fig.1-12), where the hinge assembly is positioned entirely below the headrest pad and the body pad (See, e.g. Fig.1-12).
[Claim 18] Regarding Claim 18, O’Donnell discloses: the hinge assembly including a first bracket (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 130) attached to the headrest pad (See, e.g. Fig.1-12) and a second bracket (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 130) attached to the body pad (See, e.g. Fig.1-12).
[Claim 19] Regarding Claim 19, O’Donnell discloses: the frame including a middle crossrail (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 106), side rails (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 105), and a crossrail of a frame end assembly (See, e.g. Fig.1-12, 106), the hinge assembly being positioned within a space defined by the middle crossrail, the side rails, and the crossrail of the frame end assembly (See, e.g. Fig.1-12).
[Claim 20] Regarding Claim 20, O’Donnell discloses: where the crossrail of the frame end assembly is positioned to support the headrest pad (See, e.g. Fig.1-12).
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 2, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell and further in view of Plaza (US 5,527,051).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, O’Donnell fails to explicitly teach: the through holes including a respective caster mount with two ends; the respective caster mounts being capable of receiving the respective stems within either of the two ends.
However, Plaza teaches a similar creeper (See, e.g., Plaza: Fig.1-5, 12) wherein through holes receive a respective caster mount (See, e.g., Plaza: Fig.1-5, 62+36); the respective caster mounts being capable of receiving the respective stems within either of two ends (See, e.g., Plaza: Fig.1-5).
Plaza teaches that it is well known in the art of creeper design to provide caster mounts for the stems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the creeper taught by O’Donnell modified to provide the caster mounts such as taught by Plaza, for the purpose of conveniently and securing attaching the caster stems to the creeper within the through holes, thereby providing greater control and accuracy over the mounting and unmounting operation. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, the combination of O’Donnell in view of Plaza teaches: the caster mounts including a respective bolt with a bolt through hole with two ends capable of receiving the respective stem inserted in either of the two ends of the bolt through hole (See, e.g., Plaza: Fig.1-5, 62+36).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, the combination of O’Donnell in view of Plaza teaches: the bolts including a threaded portion and an unthreaded portion, the threaded portions extending beyond a surface of the frame and being mated with respective threaded caps (See, e.g., Plaza: Fig.1-5, 62+36+60).
Claims 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell in view of Plaza and further in view of Hines (US PG PUB 2007/0277350 A1).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 2, O’Donnell fails to explicitly teach: the caster mounts including a respective barrel with a respective barrel through hole with two ends capable of receiving the respective stem inserted in either of the two ends of the barrel through hole, the barrels having threaded ends which extend beyond the frame.
However, Hines teaches a similar caster mount (See, e.g., Hines: Fig.1-4) wherein the caster mounts including a respective barrel (See, e.g., Hines: Fig.1-4, 30+30a+30b) with a respective barrel through hole with two ends capable of receiving the respective stem inserted in either of the two ends of the barrel through hole (See, e.g., Hines: Fig.1-4), the barrels having threaded ends which extend beyond the frame (See, e.g., Hines: Fig.1-4, C).
Hines teaches that it is well known in the art of caster design to provide caster mounts with threaded barrels that extend beyond a frame. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the creeper taught by the combination of O’Donnell in view of Plaza modified to provide the caster mounts such as taught by Hines, for the purpose of conveniently and securing attaching the caster stems to the creeper within the respective through holes, thereby providing greater control and accuracy over the mounting and unmounting operation. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, the combination of O’Donnell in view of Plaza and Hines teaches: the threaded ends of the barrels being mated with threading of respective threaded caps (See, e.g., O’Donnell: Fig.1-in view of Hines: Fig.1-4).
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell.
[Claim 21] Regarding Claim 21, O’Donnell fails to explicitly teach: where the legs are unitary with respective crossrails of the frame.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of the invention, to modify the legs and crossrails of O’Donnell to be of a unitary construction, as a matter of obvious design choice in order to simplify the number of parts of the creeper and simplify the overall structure of the frame in order to add greater strength and rigidity. Moreover, Applicant should note that it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two or more pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."). MPEP2144.04(V).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613