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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract is less than 50 words.
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.
Claim 7 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the movement stabilizer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 depends upon claim 2 which does not recite “a movement stabilizer”, however claim 6 does. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreted claim 7 to depend upon claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Buttazzoni (US 8910955 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Buttazzoni discloses a kitchen caddy (dolly assembly 10, 10’, 10”, 110, 110’, 200, and 200’, figs.1-16) comprising: a base (dolly assembly 200 with base 202, figs.11-13) having an operative surface (surface 204, figs.11-13) and an opposing underside (surface 206, figs.11-13); and a plurality of omnidirectional wheels (omnidirectional wheels 210, fiogs.11-13) connected to the underside so that the base is slidable in any direction along a supporting surface for the plurality of omnidirectional wheels (figs.11-13).
Regarding claim 2, Buttazzoni discloses wherein the base has a thickness of less than three and a quarter centimeter to support a kitchen equipment within a confined kitchen space (base 202 has five layers 212 which have each have a thickness range between 1/8 and ¼ inches meaning the total thickness is between 5/8” (1.5875 cm) and 5/4” (3.175 cm), base 202 forms a rigid structure to support objects including kitchen equipment within a confined space, column 15, lines 14-23).
Regarding claim 3, Buttazzoni discloses wherein each omnidirectional wheel is a spherical ball mounted inside a restraining fixture (roller ball of wheel 210 is in a restraining fixture as seen in figures 11-13).
Regarding claim 4, Buttazzoni discloses further comprising voids (pockets 208, figs.11-13) in the underside for embedding portion of each restraining fixture (restraining feature of wheel 210, figs.11-13).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hertaus (US 11457767 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Hertaus discloses a kitchen caddy (rolling tray 10, fiogs.1-4) comprising: a base (base of tray 10, figs.1-3) having an operative surface (support surface 20, figs.1-3) and an opposing underside (underside of surface 20, figs.3); and a plurality of omnidirectional wheels (rolling balls 60 and 40, figs.1-3, column 7, line 50-60) connected to the underside so that the base is slidable in any direction along a supporting surface for the plurality of omnidirectional wheels (figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Hertaus discloses wherein the base has a thickness of less than three and a quarter centimeter (distance between countertop 12 and support surface 20 is less than 1” (2.54cm) or ¾” (1.905cm), column 4 line 65-column 5 line 5) to support a kitchen equipment within a confined kitchen space (figs.1-4).
Regarding claim 8, Hertaus discloses further comprising a finger grip slot (aperture 56 in support surface 20, figs.1-3) formed in the operative surface.
Regarding claim 9, Hertaus discloses further comprising a finger grip insert (movement lever 50 and panel 59 are in the aperture 56, and user’s fingers contact panel 59 when placing a downward force on the movement lever 50, figs.1-3) embedded in the finger grip slot.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buttazzoni (US 8910955 B1) in view of Hoffman (US 3577620 A).
Regarding claim 5, Buttazzoni discloses the kitchen caddy of claim 3 but fails to disclose the spherical ball is supported by smaller ball bearings housing in the restraining fixture.
However, Hoffman discloses wherein the spherical ball (ball 15, figs.1-4) is supported by smaller ball bearings (balls 19, figs.1-4) housing in the restraining fixture (sleeve 16 and cup member 17 form the retraining fixture, figs.1-4).
Buttazzoni and Hoffman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ball casters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the wheel (210) of Buttazzoni with the ball caster (13) having smaller ball bearings (19) of Hoffman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been a simple substitution of one known ball caster for another obtaining predictable results of reducing friction, smother and quieter movement, increased lifespan, and more efficient and durable performance.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buttazzoni (US 8910955 B1) in view of Lipper (US 10051957 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Buttazzoni discloses the kitchen caddy of claim 2 but fails to disclose further comprising a movement stabilizer operatively associated with the underside, wherein the movement stabilizer is a foam element.
However, Lipper discloses a movement stabilizer (pad 280, figs.2-4) operatively associated with the underside (pads 280 are disposed on the underside of housing 215 of system 200, figs.2-4), wherein the movement stabilizer is a foam element (pad 280 is foam, figs.2-4, column 6, lines 23-25).
Buttazzoni and Lipper are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dollies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Buttazzoni with the pads of Lipper with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing the user to lock the dolly in one spot on a surface and unlock the dolly to move the dolly to another location.
Regarding claim 7 as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C 112(b) issue discussed above, Buttazzoni in combination with Lipper, Lipper discloses wherein the movement stabilizer is configured to reduce mobility (pads 280 contact surface 420 and reduce mobility, figs.2-4).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buttazzoni (US 8910955 B1) in view of Hertaus (US 11457767 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Buttazzoni discloses the kitchen caddy of claim 2, but fails to disclose further comprising a finger grip slot formed in the operative surface.
However, Hertaus discloses a finger grip slot (aperture 56 in surface 20, figs.1-3) formed in the operative surface.
Buttazzoni and Hertaus are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dollies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Buttazzoni with the aperture (56) of Hertaus with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allow the user to grasp and move the dolly more easily via the aperture.
Regarding claim 9, Buttazzoni in combination with Hertaus, Hertaus discloses further comprising a finger grip insert (movement lever 50 and panel 59 are in the aperture 56, and user’s fingers contact panel 59 when placing a downward force on the movement lever 50, figs.1-3) embedded in the finger grip slot.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertaus (US 11457767 B1) in view of Hoffman (US 3577620 A)
Regarding claims 3-5, Hertaus discloses the kitchen caddy of claim 2 and rolling balls (40 and 60, figs.1-3), but fails to disclose a restraining fixture.
However, Hoffman discloses a spherical ball (ball 15, figs.1-4) mounted inside a restraining fixture (sleeve 16 and cup member 17 form the restraining fixture, figs.1-4), voids (socket 12, figs.1) in the underside for embedding portion of each restraining fixture, and smaller ball bearings (balls 19, figs.1-4) housing in the restraining fixture (fig.1).
Hertaus and Hoffman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ball casters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the wheels of Hertaus with the ball caster (13) having smaller ball bearings (19) and housing embedding in socket (12) of Hoffman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been a simple substitution of one known ball caster for another obtaining predictable results of reducing friction, smother and quieter movement, increased lifespan, and more efficient and durable performance.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertaus (US 11457767 B1) in view of Lipper (US 10051957 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Hertaus discloses the kitchen caddy of claim 2 but fails to disclose further comprising a movement stabilizer operatively associated with the underside, wherein the movement stabilizer is a foam element.
However, Lipper discloses a movement stabilizer (pad 280, figs.2-4) operatively associated with the underside (pads 280 are disposed on the underside of housing 215 of system 200, figs.2-4), wherein the movement stabilizer is a foam element (pad 280 is foam, figs.2-4, column 6, lines 23-25).
Hertaus and Lipper are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dollies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertaus with the pads of Lipper with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing the user to lock the dolly in one spot on a surface and unlock the dolly to move the dolly to another location.
Regarding claim 7 as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C 112(b) issue discussed above, Hertaus in combination with Lipper, Lipper discloses wherein the movement stabilizer is configured to reduce mobility (pads 280 contact surface 420 and reduce mobility, figs.2-4).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No.12150596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed toward kitchen caddies with a base having an operative surface and an opposing underside; a plurality of omnidirectional wheels connected to the underside.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613