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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Cramer (US 9,073,473).
As concerns claim 1, Cramer (US 9,073,473) discloses a work trailer (Cramer – 10) comprising:
a trailer platform (Cramer – 11) having a length and width, and
a box (Cramer – 91, 92, 93) fixedly mounted on the platform, the box extending substantially the entire length of the platform but covering only a portion of the width of the platform, leaving an exposed strip of platform running the length of the platform on either side of the box.
PNG
media_image1.png
453
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 2, Cramer discloses the trailer of Claim 1 wherein the height of the trailer from the ground to a highest point is less than 8 feet. (Cramer – Column 3, lines 4-13 discuss wherein the height of the tool boxes 91 and 92 are at the height of the worktable, which is understood to be roughly 3 feet or 36”. As such, the top height of the mobile box 93 does not appear to exceed 8 feet, with the understanding that Figure 2A shows all elements with relative height.)
As concerns claim 3, Cramer discloses the trailer of Claim 1 wherein the width of the box is from about 3 to 6 feet. (As a standard trailer width is from 6-8.5 feet, and the box width as shown in Figure 5 is equal to half the width of the trailer, this measurement is understood to be anticipated.)
As concerns claim 4, Cramer discloses the trailer of Claim 3 wherein the platform is from about 4 to 9 feet wide. (As a standard trailer width is from 6-8.5 feet, this measurement is understood to be anticipated. Column 2, Lines 8-31)
As concerns claim 5, Cramer discloses the trailer of Claim 1 wherein the box (Cramer – 91, 92, 93) includes a plurality of box storage areas accessible from outside the trailer.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramer in view of Lenard et al (US 2014/0277791).
As concerns claim 9, Cramer discloses the trailer of Claim 1 further comprising an electrical system (Cramer – Abstract) comprising power outlets.
However, Cramer is silent about including a power bank and wiring providing electrical communication between the power bank, a power source, and power outlets in the box.
Lenard et al (US 2014/0277791) however teaches a trailer comprising an electrical system including a power bank and wiring providing electrical communication between the power bank, a power source, and power outlets in the box. (Lenard - At least paragraphs [0032]-[0039])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Cramer as taught by Lenard to include a power system including a power bank and wiring providing electrical communication between the power bank, a power source, and power outlets in the box, for the expected benefit of providing power for operation of power tools, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 10, the combination discloses the trailer of Claim 9 wherein the electrical system further comprises a breaker panel (Lenard – inside door 242).
As concerns claim 11, the combination discloses the trailer of Claim 9 wherein the wiring is routed through a frame of the box. (Lenard discloses in at least Paragraph [0030] wherein wiring is routed through the frame of the trailer.)
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramer in view of Ropp (US 6,817,653).
As concerns claim 12, Cramer discloses a work trailer (Cramer – 10) comprising:
a platform (Cramer – 11) having an upper surface, the platform comprising
a trailer hitch (Cramer – Figure 1, not labeled),
a platform frame (Cramer – at least 12) mounted on one or more wheeled axles (Cramer – Figure 1, not labeled), the platform frame providing a three-dimensional scaffold, and
a plurality of storage compartments (Cramer – 91, 92) within the scaffold, and
mounted on the platform frame, a box (Cramer – 93) comprising
a box frame mounted (via wheels and friction) on the upper surface of the platform.
Cramer fails to specify a plurality of bays secured within the box frame.
Ropp (US 6,817,653) teaches a plurality of bays (Ropp – 31, 32) secured within a box frame (Ropp – Figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
482
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Cramer as taught by Ropp to include the plurality of bays within a box frame for the expected benefit of providing more customizable storage options, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 13, the combination discloses the trailer of Claim 12 wherein the box-shaped frame (Cramer – 93) covers only a portion of the upper surface of the platform (Cramer – 11). (Cramer – Figure 1)
As concerns claim 14, the combination discloses the trailer of Claim 12 wherein all of the compartments and bays are accessible from outside of the work trailer. (Both Cramer and Ropp illustrate such accessibility in previously-cited figures)
As concerns claim 18, Cramer discloses the trailer of Claim 12 wherein the height of the trailer from the ground to a highest point is less than 8 feet. (Cramer – Column 3, lines 4-13 discuss wherein the height of the tool boxes 91 and 92 are at the height of the worktable, which is understood to be roughly 3 feet or 36”. As such, the top height of the mobile box 93 does not appear to exceed 8 feet, with the understanding that Figure 2A shows all elements with relative height.)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramer and Ropp and further in view of Andrews (US 6,435,646).
As concerns claim 15, the combination discloses the trailer of Claim 12 wherein the box-shaped frame is constructed of tubular members.
The combination fails however to specify wherein the trailer further comprises wiring extending through the tubular members from a power supply to outlets in the bays.
Andrews (US 6,425,646) teaches the placement of wiring (Andrews – 112) within a tubular frame (Andrews – at least 102) to connect a power supply (Andrews – power cord 93) to outlets. (Andrews – 86)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Andrews to include the running of electrical wiring through the tubular frame for the expected benefit of safely encapsulating wires out of the way for providing a cleaner and more efficient workspace, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramer and Ropp and further in view of Hilsman et al (US 7,913,856).
As concerns claim 16, the combination discloses the trailer of Claim 12 however fails to specify further comprising one or more tanks for liquid storage disposed within the platform frame.
Hilsman et al (US 7,913,856) teaches a trailer further comprising one or more tanks for liquid storage disposed within a frame (102). (Hilsman – at least Figure 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Hilsman to include one or more liquid tanks for the expected benefit of providing liquid accessibility for worksite operations, hygiene and tool cleaning, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramer in view of Ropp and further in view of Hughes (US 4,889,377).
As concerns claim 17, the combination discloses the trailer of Claim 12 wherein the box frame is configured on the platform frame to allow removal and replacement of the box.
Cramer fails to disclose wherein the box frame is bolted to the platform.
Hughes (US 4,889,377) teaches the use of bolts 22 to removably and replacebly secure a modular system 16 within a trailer / vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Hughes to provide the option of bolting or fastening the gang box of Cramer down for the expected benefit of avoiding it from sliding or rolling off the back of the trailer during transport, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramer in view of Ropp and further in view of Lenard.
As concerns claim 19, the combination discloses the trailer of Claim 12 further comprising an electrical system (Cramer – Abstract) comprising power outlets.
However, the combination is silent about including a power bank and wiring providing electrical communication between the power bank, a power source, and power outlets in the box.
Lenard et al (US 2014/0277791) however teaches a trailer comprising an electrical system including a power bank and wiring providing electrical communication between the power bank, a power source, and power outlets in the box. (Lenard - At least paragraphs [0032]-[0039])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Lenard to include a power system including a power bank and wiring providing electrical communication between the power bank, a power source, and power outlets in the box, for the expected benefit of providing power for operation of power tools, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 20, the combination discloses the trailer of Claim 19 wherein the electrical system further includes a 12V lighting system. (Lenard discloses lighting in at least Paragraphs [0032]-[0034] which is considered analogous to the claimed 12V lighting system)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As concerns claim 6, Cramer discloses the trailer of Claim 5 wherein the box comprises a rigid box frame (Cramer – each box 91, 92 and 93 have rigid frames) and the box storage areas comprise bays that are reconfigurably mounted on the rigid frame. (Cramer – 93 is referred to as a gang box and has wheels and is portable, making it reconfigurable)
Cramer fails to specify wherein the box storage areas within the rigid box frame are reconfigurable.
Chainey (US 9,127,872) illustrates wherein modular boxes may be moved or installed along a frame at different positions.
However, this does not adequately anticipate the claimed reconfigurability of the modular bays mounted on the rigid frame.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679