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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, as shown in Figs. 1-16 and 20-31), including claims 1-6, 9-17, 19-38, 40-45, 48-56, 58-75 and 77-95 in the reply filed on July 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8, 18, 39, 46-47, 57, and 76 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-95 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-71 of copending Application No. 18/210,588 (reference application) in view of Brennan et al. (7,249,771). The reference application discloses the claimed transportation module and cart, but does not specifically claim a workstation. Brennan teaches another user-elevated transportation system including a gurney-like wheeled carriage (14) that transports a workstation work cell (25) mounted on its top. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the relevant art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the device claimed in the reference application to include a workstation work cell to dedicate the load carried by the cart to a working environment. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims are nearly identical except include the narrowing work cell.
Claims 1-95 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-94 of copending Application No. 18/234,965 (reference application) in view of Brennan et al. (7,249,771) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims are nearly identical except changing the preamble’s scope from a workstation work cell transportation system to a materials transportation system and the inclusion of the work cell’s hood/tool storage features. Brennan teaches another user-elevated transportation system including a gurney-like wheeled carriage (14) that transports a workstation work cell (25) mounted on its top. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the relevant art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the device claimed in the reference application to include a workstation work cell to dedicate the load carried by the cart to a working environment.
Claims 1-95 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-74 of copending Application No. 18/986,510 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims are nearly identical except changing the preamble’s scope from a workstation transportation system to a heavy construction tools transportation system.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Drawings
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 hood connected to the cart body (claim 32) must be shown 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 Objections
Claim 95 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“overhand” should be --overhang--. 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 80-81, 83, and 95 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.
Claims 80 and 95 (last clause) each recite the limitation "the cart-to-work cell coupling mechanism." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. Claim 81 is rejected as being dependent on claim 80.
Claims 83 recites the limitation "said hood." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
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 78, 80, 82, 84, and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fields (US 2006/0006628).
Regarding claims 78 and 84, Fields discloses a workstation transportation unit comprising a cart (10), and a workstation work cell (20),
wherein said cart (10) comprising a cart body (50) and at least one front wheel (40); said cart body comprising a front and a rear opposing sections, said front wheel mounted to said front section of said cart body (see e.g., Fig. 1);
said workstation work cell (20) comprising a plate member (bottom of work cell 20 in Fig. 6) comprising a first end, an opposite second end, a first lateral side and an opposite second lateral side, wherein said plate member having a top surface, a bottom surface, a width defined by said first and second lateral sides; said plate member extending longitudinally between said first and second ends; and a perimeter defined by said first and second ends and said first and second lateral sides (i.e., the bottom plate of the toolbox/work cell 20 includes each of these side/surfaces); a work cell frame (walls 26, see Fig. 7) connected to said plate member; and
a table (25) mounted atop of said work cell frame (26) and covering at least one storage compartment (“22” in Fig. 7); and wherein said plate member configured to detachably couple to said cart body (see e.g., Claim 4 of Fields describing that the bottom of the toolbox/work cell 20 is coupled to the cart 10).
Regarding claim 80 (as best understood)¸ Fields further discloses that cart body further comprising a cart platform (74, see Fig. 6) and a cart base (50); said cart platform having a top surface and a bottom surface; said cart base connected to said bottom surface of said cart platform (via height adjustment scissoring legs 72);wherein said plate member (bottom of work cell 20) configured to detachably couple to said cart platform by the cart-to-work cell coupling mechanism (see Claim 4 of Fields).
Regarding claims 82 and 87¸ Fields further discloses a tool carrier/device holder (80; see Fig. 3 showing a tool/device support), said carrier connected to one of said plate member, said work cell frame, said table, or said cart body (as shown in Fig. 3 the tool carrier is either mounted to the table top or the side wall/frame of the work cell 20).
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 1-6, 9-16, 19-25, 28, 31 40-45, 48-55, 58-64, 68, and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields in view of Ward (US 2007/0000057) and Myers et a. (6,431,319).
Regarding claims 1-2, 21, 40-41, and 60, Fields discloses a workstation transportation system with loading features, comprising a transportation module (72), a cart (20), and a materials transport work cell (25; see Figs. 6-7), wherein
said transportation module comprising:
a. a frame member (74) defining a longitudinal axis and having a front and a rear opposing ends;
b. a base member (50) comprising a plurality of ground wheels (40), said wheels configured for engaging and rolling over a supporting surface;
c. a lifting assembly (90, see ¶0027) connected between said base member (50) and said frame member (74); said lifting assembly configured to lift and lower said frame member relative to said base member;
said cart (20) comprising:
a cart body (70) and at least one front wheel (32, see Fig. 6); said cart body comprising a front and a rear opposing sections, said front wheel (32) mounted to said front section of said cart body; said cart body including a transportation module-to-cart coupling mechanism configured to detachably couple to said frame member (74) of said transportation module (72; see e.g., Claim 4 providing that the removable body uses a temporal support including rails and guides);
said workstation work cell comprising:
a plate member (e.g., plate 70 forms both the bottom of the workstation 25/24 and the top of the cart 20) comprising a first end, an opposite second end, a first lateral side and an opposite second lateral side, wherein said plate member having a top surface, a bottom surface, a width defined by said first and second lateral sides; said plate member extending longitudinally between said first and second ends; and a perimeter defined by said first and second ends and said first and second lateral sides (see Fig. 7 showing each of these features of a plate);
a work cell frame (e.g., walls 24) connected to the plate member (70), and a table (25) mounted atop of said work cell frame (24); said plate member configured to detachably couple to the underlying supporting surface (see Fig. 7 and ¶0030).
Fields’ transportation module does not have a front overhang or a rear leg member and because the work station work cell is integrated into the cart (20), there is no separate plate forming the bottom of the work cell frame that is detachably coupled to an underlying cart body.
Ward teaches a transportation system with loading features, comprising a transportation module, said module comprising:
a. a frame member (34) defining a longitudinal axis and having a front and a rear opposing ends, wherein said front end comprising an overhang member (44/49a) having an overhang portion (44) protruding downwardly below said frame member; said overhang portion having at least one approach wheel (50);
b. a base member (12) comprising a plurality of ground wheels (14), said wheels configured for engaging and rolling over a supporting surface;
c. a lifting assembly (150) connected between said base member (12) and said frame member (34); said lifting assembly configured to lift and lower said frame member relative to said base member; and
d. a leg member (162) comprising a leg body (166) and at least one loading wheel (164); said leg body having a first end and a second end; said first end connected to said frame member (see Fig. 10); and said loading wheel connected to said second end;
wherein the frame member (34) includes leg-receiving means (176, see Fig. 10a), so that said leg member (162) is operable to extend from and retract to said means.
Myers teaches another height-adjustable work system including a transportation module (13, see Fig. 3) with scissor- liftable frame member (24) and a cart (12) configured to be detachably coupled to the frame member (24). The cart (12) supports a separate load (15) on its top surface (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of Fields to include a front approach wheel overhang and deployable rear support leg as taught by Ward and to include a cart that is separate from a load it carries as taught by Myers resulting in a separate tool box/workstation and cart to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using an approach wheel on a gurney to aid in loading and unloading, using additional supports/legs for an elevated load to improve safety; and separating previously integrated elements) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport system that carry a load upon a top surface) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a device that is easier to load on a vehicle and which provides a transport system that is more modular and more readily disassembled).
Regarding claims 3 and 42, the leg assembly of Ward from the above combination further provides that said leg receiving means comprising a leg receiving assembly (176), said assembly comprising a pair of spaced apart linear slide rails (see Fig. 10) extending longitudinally, each of said rails having a medially facing track (see inwardly facing track groove in Fig. 10a); and wherein said first end of said leg body (166) mounted to said medially facing tracks by mounting means (174) having rotational axes (172); said tracks configured to translatably receive said leg body (see e.g., Fig. 11), so that said leg body operable to extend and retract from said tracks; and pivot about said rotational axes when extended.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 43-44, the leg assembly of Ward from the above combination further comprises leg body immobilizing means (see Fig. 12 and ¶0044) configured to secure said leg member in substantially vertical position; wherein the immobilizing means comprises at least one locking pin (e.g., rod 168) on said leg body (166) and at least one gravity latch (182) on said frame member, said gravity latch configured to releasably couple (via a notch, see ¶0044) to said pin (168) to secure said leg member in the substantially vertical position.
Regarding claims 6 and 45, the leg assembly of Ward from the above combination further provides that said leg body (166) is length-adjustable (see ¶0042).
Regarding claims 9-11 and 48-50, Fields discloses that its height adjustment mechanism (90) has a scissor configuration (see e.g., Figs. 5-6) and can be adjusted (e.g., screwed -- see ¶0027), but does not specifically disclose that its height adjustment mechanism (90) is manual or powered.
Ward further teaches that said lifting assembly (150) is a scissor lift (see Fig. 9) that is manual or electrically powered (see ¶0043).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of the Fields combination to use either a manual or powered lifting mechanism as taught by Ward to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (manual or powered lifting means on a scissor-type lift) for another (generic screwed lifting means on a scissor-type lift) to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 12-13, 16, 51-52, and 55, Fields does not disclose a user-engaged handle at the rear end of its frame.
Ward further teaches that a transportation module further comprises a handle (see the upwardly turned handles shown in Figs. 10 and 11) connected to said rear end of said frame member and that said handle includes at least one user engagement portion (e.g., the slot/opening adjacent to reference character “178” in Fig. 10 allows a user to engage the device by grasping the handle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of the Fields combination to include a rear frame handle with user-engagement portions as taught by Ward a to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing a handle to a user-manipulated wheeled vehicle) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport system that are user-manipulated) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 14-15 and 53-54, Fields further discloses that said frame member further comprising a platform member (e.g., the flat surface of frame 74 in Fig. 6 that hides portions of the lifting mechanism) extending longitudinally between said front and rear ends of said frame member and said platform member (74) comprising at least one through aperture (see end of ¶0024 describing how the work surfaces can include holes through the device’s surfaces).
Regarding claim 19 and 58, Fields further discloses that the height adjustment mechanism (90) allows for the transportation module (72) to collapse down such that any underhanging wheels (e.g., wheels 30 and 32 hanging below the cart 20 and frame 74, see Fig. 5) has a height that is equal to the height collapsed lifting assembly (see e.g., Fig. 4) such that all the wheels on the cart (30, 40, 45) engage the supporting surface (120).
Regarding claims 20 and 59, Fields further discloses that said frame member (74) having a length l1, and said base member (50) having a length l2, and wherein l1 > l2 (see Fig. 6 showing the frame 74 is longer than the wheeled base).
Regarding claims 22-23 and 61-62, as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 40, Fields discloses that the transportation module includes a transportation module-to-cart coupling mechanism (see e.g., Claim 4 providing that the removable body uses a temporal support including rails and guides) that couples to the underside of the cart. Further,
the Myers teachings incorporated into Fields above provide for the cart body (12) further comprising a cart platform (e.g., see Fig. 2) and a cart base (e.g., the side walls of cart 12, see Figs. 1-2); said cart platform having a top surface (shown in Fig. 2) and a bottom surface (e.g., the surface that sits atop frame 26); said cart base (side walls) connected to said bottom surface of said cart platform).
As discussed above with respect to claims 12-13, 16, 50-51, and 55, Fields does not disclose a user-engaged handle at the rear end of its frame.
Ward further teaches that a transportation module further comprises a handle (see the upwardly turned handles shown in Figs. 10 and 11) connected to said rear end of said frame member and that said handle includes at least one user engagement portion (e.g., the slot/opening adjacent to reference character “178” in Fig. 10 allows a user to engage the device by grasping the handle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of the Fields combination to include a rear frame handle with user-engagement portions as taught by Ward a to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing a handle to a user-manipulated wheeled vehicle) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport system that are user-manipulated) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 24 and 63, while Fields discloses a transportation to cart coupling mechanism, it does not disclose the particular structures associated with its coupling mechanism.
Myers teaches another scissor-type (16) lifting transportation module (13, see Fig. 3) that supports a cart (12 generally; see Fig. 1) on top of a frame (14), the cart comprising a cart body (12 generally, see Figs. 1 and 2) and at least one front wheel (38); said cart body having a front and a rear opposing sections; said front wheel mounted to said front section of said cart body; said cart body configured to detachably couple to said frame member of said transportation module (see e.g., Col. 5, lines 14-30) via a transportation-module-to-cart coupling mechanism (33) and said platform member/plate (24/24) of said transportation module (13) is configured to detachably mount to the cart body by having a plurality of apertures (for lock 33) extending therethrough (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of the Fields combination to include a cart interlocking system as taught by Myers to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using a aligned apertures to secure a load to an underlying support) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules that carry a load upon a top surface) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a system that transports a readily detachable load carrier/cart).
Regarding claims 25 and 64, Fields further discloses at least one tool carrier mounted to said plate member or said cart body (26, e.g., tool storage partitions 22, 24 in Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 28, 31, and 68, Fields further discloses the toolbox/work cell frame (20) comprises at least one storage compartment/mounting means (22, see e.g., Fig. 7 and/or mounting means 80; see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 77, Fields discloses a method for loading a transportation system comprising a transportation module (72), a cart (20) and a workstation work cell (25) to an elevated surface (see Fig. 2), the method comprising:
providing the system comprising the structures discussed above with respect to claim 1, the Fields combination provided for the recited system of a transportation module (72), cart (20), and workstation work cell (25), the claim mapping and motivation for combination from claim 1 above are incorporated herein to avoid repetition.
Fields further disclosing a method comprising:
coupling said plate member (25) of said workstation work cell to said cart body (26) of said cart (20);
coupling said cart body (26, via base 70) of said cart (20) to said frame member (74; see Fig. 6) of said transportation module (72);
advancing said system (10) along a supporting surface toward an elevated surface edge (65, see Fig. 2) via said plurality of ground wheels (40) of said base member (50);
lifting said frame member (74) relative to said base member (50) via said lifting assembly (90), so that any underhanging wheels (e.g., wheels 30) is elevated to a height exceeding a height of the elevated surface (see Fig. 2 showing the wheel 30 approaching the truck bed is above the elevated surface 65);
advancing said system (10) via said plurality of ground wheels (40) until said base member (50) is adjacent to an edge of the elevated surface and said approach wheel (e.g., wheel 30 in Fig. 2) is positioned above the elevated surface (65).
The Fields combination provides for a system having an extendable rear support leg (162). Ward teaches how the support leg (162) is used in loading a transportation module (10) and any load it is carrying onto an elevated surface including the steps of:
extending said leg member (162, from position shown in Fig. 11 to extended position shown in Figs. 1 and 10); so that said leg body has achieved substantially vertical position relative to the supporting surface;
securing said leg member in a position substantially vertical to the supporting surface (via immobilizing means shown in Fig. 12);
lowering said frame member relative to said base member via said lifting assembly until said approach wheel engages the elevated surface (implicit to the use of a lifting assembly is that the assembly can be lowered/adjusted to a desired height);
lifting said base member (12) relative to said frame member (34) via said lifting assembly (150), so that said ground wheels (14) have substantially aligned with the elevated surface;
advancing said transportation module via an approach wheel (50) and said loading wheel (164) until said ground wheels engaged the elevated surface;
retracting said leg member (162; see ¶0042 describing the use of the rear approach wheels 162/164 to allow for the transition/loading onto the elevated surface).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system and method of Fields to include a front approach wheel overhang and deployable rear support leg to support the system while loading as taught by Ward and to use a separate cart body/panel from the transported work cell bottom plate as taught by Myers to arrive at the claimed device and methodology with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using an approach wheel on a gurney to aid in loading and unloading and using additional supports/legs for an elevated load to improve safety; and separating otherwise integrated elements to allow for modularity and easier breakdown/transport) to known devices (e.g., elevatable transport system that raises a load up onto an elevated surface) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a device that is easier to load on a vehicle and which provides a more stable transport system during the loading process).
Claims 17 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields in view of Ward and Myers as applied to claims 1 and 40 above and further in view of Bishop et al. (7,140,055).
Regarding claims 17 and 56, Fields does not disclose that any of its wheels have a shock absorbing feature.
Bishop teaches another scissor-type lifting transportation module (see e.g., Fig. 16) wherein the wheels (see Fig. 6) can include a shock absorbing assembly (216).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of the Fields combination to have its wheels, including any auxiliary wheels, include shock absorbers as taught by Bishop to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., improving the ride/controllability of a wheeled vehicle by providing the wheels with a suspension/shock absorption system) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a module that more readily adapts to irregularities in the rolling surface).
Claims 26-27, 29-30, 32-38, 65-67, and 69-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields in view of Ward and Myers as applied to claims 1 and 40 above and further in view of Brennan et al. (7,249,771).
Regarding claims 26, 34-35, 65, and 71-72, while Fields discloses that the toolbox (20) includes a moveable lid/table (25) that covers equipment/tool storage (22), it does not disclose a hood feature.
Brennan teaches another scissor-type lifting transportation module (14) that supports a workstation work cell (212; see e.g., Figs. 10A-13), the work cell comprising a hood (e.g., 219 in Figs. 10A, 11; see also opened pair of hoods in Fig. 12B, hood “222” in Fig. 12A, and hood 221 in Fig. 13) that is coupled to the work cell frame (see Figs. 11 and 13), the table (see Fig. 10A, 12A, and 12B); wherein as shown in Fig. 12B, the hood can be formed having a roof/top and extensions (e.g., the downwardly directed hood walls that enlarge the hood’s covering capability).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of the Fields combination to include a hood attached to the top or side of the toolbox/work cell as taught by Brennan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing better access to the interior of the work cell via a hinged hood, while maintaining security and cleanliness) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules carrying a toolbox/work cell) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 27 and 66, Fields does not disclose a hood having tool storage means.
Brennan further teaches that the movable covering/hood (219, see Fig. 11) includes tool storage means (223).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of the Fields combination to include tool storage upon the movable hood as taught by Brennan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing additional storage capability in a work cell) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules carrying a toolbox/work cell) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (a work cell having more tool carrying/organization capacity).
Regarding claims 29-30 and 67, Fields does not disclose that its work cell frame or table includes at least one extendable platform.
Brennan further teaches that the work cell (212) includes a table-mounted extendable platform (219; see Fig. 10A) and/or a side wall frame-mounted platform (see Fig. 12B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of the Fields combination to include tool storage upon the movable hood as taught by Brennan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing additional storage capability in a work cell) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules carrying a toolbox/work cell) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (a work cell having more tool carrying/organization capacity).
Regarding claims 32 and 69, the Brennan hood from the above combination reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of the hood being connected to the cart body because all of the above hoods are indirectly connected to the cart’s body via the interconnection of the hood through the work cell’s walls/tabletops which are mounted upon the cart (see above discussion related to claims 26, 34-35, 65, and 71-72). Examiner notes that there does not appear to be any enabling disclosure providing for a more restrictive interpretation of the hood being directly connected to the cart as all embodiments disclosed in the instant specification have the hood mounted to the work cell, not directly to the cart.
Regarding claims 33 and 70, Fields does not disclose that its work cell includes a lock.
Brennan further teaches that the closable features (22, 20, 28) of a work cell can include the well-known expedient of a lock (see Col. 3, lines 62-63).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of the Fields combination to include a lock on the work cell’s hood as taught by Brennan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., securing a closure with a lock to prevent unauthorized access) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules carrying a toolbox/work cell with movable covers/closures) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 36, 38, 73, and 75, Fields does not disclose that its work cell includes a lighting feature.
Brennan further teaches that the work cell (212) includes a work cell mounted (either upon the table or side wall/frame) lighting feature (see Fig. 12A showing a lantern).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of the Fields combination to include a light on the work cell near the storage and/or working surface as taught by Brennan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing lighting for a work cell) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules carrying a toolbox/work cell) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 37 and 74, Fields does not disclose that its work cell includes a power source.
Brennan further teaches that the work cell (212) includes a power source (e.g., battery and/or generator see Col. 8, lines 46-48).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of the Fields combination to include a power source as taught by Brennan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing a source of electrical power to a mobile work cell to improve off-grid work capability) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules carrying a toolbox/work cell) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 79, 83, 85-86, 88-92, and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields in view of Brennan.
Regarding claims 79 and 90-91, while Fields discloses that the toolbox (20) includes a moveable lid/table (25) that covers equipment/tool storage (22), it does not disclose a hood feature.
Brennan teaches another scissor-type lifting transportation module (14) that supports a workstation work cell (212; see e.g., Figs. 10A-13), the work cell comprising a hood (e.g., 219 in Figs. 10A, 11; see also opened pair of hoods in Fig. 12B, hood “222” in Fig. 12A, and hood 221 in Fig. 13) that is coupled to the work cell frame (see Figs. 11 and 13), the table (see Fig. 10A, 12A, and 12B); wherein as shown in Fig. 12B, the hood can be formed having a roof/top and extensions (e.g., the downwardly directed hood walls that enlarge the hood’s covering capability).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of the Fields combination to include a hood attached to the top or side of the toolbox/work cell as taught by Brennan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing better access to the interior of the work cell via a hinged hood, while maintaining security and cleanliness) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules carrying a toolbox/work cell) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 83 (as best understood), Fields does not disclose a hood having tool storage means.
Brennan further teaches that the movable covering/hood (219, see Fig. 11) includes tool storage means (223).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of the Fields combination to include tool storage upon the movable hood as taught by Brennan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing additional storage capability in a work cell) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules carrying a toolbox/work cell) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (a work cell having more tool carrying/organization capacity).
Regarding claims 85-86, Fields does not disclose that its work cell frame or table includes at least one extendable platform.
Brennan further teaches that the work cell (212) includes a table-mounted extendable platform (219; see Fig. 10A) and/or a side wall frame-mounted platform (see Fig. 12B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of Fields to include tool storage upon the movable hood as taught by Brennan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing additional storage capability in a work cell) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules carrying a toolbox/work cell) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (a work cell having more tool carrying/organization capacity).
Regarding claims 88, the Brennan hood from the above combination reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of the hood being connected to the cart body because all of the above hoods are indirectly connected to the cart’s body via the interconnection of the hood through the work cell’s walls/tabletops which are mounted upon the cart (see above discussion related to claims 26, 34-35, 65, and 71-72). Examiner notes that there does not appear to be any enabling disclosure providing for a more restrictive interpretation of the hood being directly connected to the cart as all embodiments disclosed in the instant specification have the hood mounted to the work cell, not directly to the cart.
Regarding claims 89, Fields does not disclose that its work cell includes a lock.
Brennan further teaches that the closable features (22, 20, 28) of a work cell can include the well-known expedient of a lock (see Col. 3, lines 62-63).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of Fields to include a lock on the work cell’s hood as taught by Brennan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., securing a closure with a lock to prevent unauthorized access) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules carrying a toolbox/work cell with movable covers/closures) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 92 and 94, Fields does not disclose that its work cell includes a lighting feature.
Brennan further teaches that the work cell (212) includes a work cell mounted (either upon the table or side wall/frame) lighting feature (see Fig. 12A showing a lantern).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of Fields to include a light on the work cell near the storage and/or working surface as taught by Brennan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing lighting for a work cell) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules carrying a toolbox/work cell) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 93, Fields does not disclose that its work cell includes a power source.
Brennan further teaches that the work cell (212) includes a power source (e.g., battery and/or generator see Col. 8, lines 46-48).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of Fields to include a power source as taught by Brennan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing a source of electrical power to a mobile work cell to improve off-grid work capability) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules carrying a toolbox/work cell) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 81 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields in view of Myers.
Regarding claim 81, Fields does not disclose the particular structures associated with its coupling mechanism.
Myers teaches another scissor-type (16) lifting transportation module (13, see Fig. 3) that supports a cart (12 generally; see Fig. 1) on top of a frame (14), the cart comprising a cart body (12 generally, see Figs. 1 and 2) and at least one front wheel (38); said cart body having a front and a rear opposing sections; said front wheel mounted to said front section of said cart body; said cart body configured to detachably couple to said frame member of said transportation module (see e.g., Col. 5, lines 14-30) via a transportation-module-to-cart coupling mechanism (33) and said platform member/plate (24/24) of said transportation module (13) is configured to detachably mount to the cart body by having a plurality of apertures (for lock 33) extending therethrough (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the system of Fields to include a cart interlocking system as taught by Myers to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using a aligned apertures to secure a load to an underlying support) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules that carry a load upon a top surface) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a system that transports a readily detachable load carrier/cart).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 95 is 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 and to overcome the above claim objections and §112 issue.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not appear to disclose or otherwise fairly suggest a system as in claim 3 further comprising the claimed features of the transportation module-to-cart coupling mechanism with the recited bottom of the cart mating elements and top of the transportation module groove in its platform member in addition to all of the other recited elements and limitations.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
