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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “providing a stowable workstation according to Claim 1” in line 2 should be corrected as --providing [[a]]the stowable workstation according to Claim 1--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “providing a work system according to Claim 11” in line 2 should be corrected as --providing [[a]]the work system according to Claim 11--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 recites “coupling means configured to mount a tool to the mounting plate”. A review of the specification, para[0046] shows that the coupling means may include various mechanisms such as holes and/or pins that may cooperate with various fasteners, clamps, brackets, or magnetic attachments, and as seen in figures. Therefore, for examination purposes, the term, “coupling means configured to mount a tool to the mounting plate” has been interpreted to be holes and/or pins that may cooperate with various fasteners, clamps, brackets, or magnetic attachments or equivalents thereof, as best understood from the originally filed specification and drawings.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 1-7, 9-10, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brunner (US 2018/0001466 A1).
Regarding claim 1¸ Brunner (‘466) discloses a stowable workstation (fig1A), comprising: a tabletop 12 (para[0054]) having a work surface 20 (para[0055]), a stowing surface 22 (para[0054]), and a plurality of receiving apertures 60 (para[0059]) disposed in the tabletop 12; and a plurality of legs 14 (para[0054]) configured to be removably coupled to the tabletop 12 in a supporting position (fig1A) and in a stowed position (fig2A), the supporting position having the plurality of legs 14 coupled to the plurality of receiving apertures 60 of the tabletop 12 (fig1A), and the stowed position having the plurality of legs 14 coupled to the stowing surface 22 of the tabletop 12 (fig2A).
Regarding claim 2¸ Brunner discloses the stowable workstation of Claim 1, further including a plurality of snap fasteners 44 (para[0061], fig4B) coupled to the stowing surface 22 of the tabletop 12, the plurality of snap fasteners 44 configured to hold the plurality of legs 14 to the stowing surface 22 of the tabletop 12 when the plurality of legs 14 is in the stowed position (para[0061], fig2D).
Regarding claim 3¸ Brunner discloses the stowable workstation of Claim 2, wherein the stowing surface 22 includes a plurality of leg receptacles 42 (para[0061], fig4A) configured to receive the plurality of legs 12 when the plurality of legs 12 is in the stowed position (fig2D), the plurality of leg receptacles 42 disposed opposite the plurality of snap fasteners 44 (fig3C).
Regarding claim 4¸ Brunner discloses the stowable workstation of Claim 1, wherein each leg of the plurality of legs 12 includes a flanged end 50 (fig6A), the flanged end 50 configured to twist-lock into a receiving aperture of the plurality of receiving apertures 60 in the supporting position (figs5A,5B).
Regarding claim 5¸ Brunner discloses the stowable workstation of Claim 1, wherein the tabletop 12 includes a handle 30 (para[0056]) disposed along a sidewall of the tabletop 12 (fig2A).
Regarding claim 6¸ Brunner discloses the stowable workstation of Claim 5, wherein the handle 30 is configured to move between an extended position (fig2A) and a nonextended position (fig3D, para[0056], “a stow position”) relative to the sidewall of the tabletop 12.
Regarding claim 7¸ Brunner discloses the stowable workstation of Claim 1, wherein the work surface 20 includes indicia (para[0071]), the indicia including one of a predefined length measurement, a predefined angle measurement, and combinations thereof (para[0071]).
Regarding claim 9¸ Brunner discloses the stowable workstation of Claim 1, wherein the tabletop 12 includes a mounting plate 150 removably (fig9I) disposed to cover a passthrough of the tabletop 12.
Regarding claim 10, Brunner discloses the stowable workstation of Claim 9, wherein the mounting plate includes coupling means configured to mount a tool to the mounting plate (fig9N).
Regarding claim 17, Brunner disclose a method of using a stowable workstation, comprising: providing the stowable workstation according to Claim 1; and performing one of: coupling the plurality of legs 14 to the stowing surface 22 of the tabletop 12 (para[0061]), thereby placing the plurality of legs 14 in the stowed position (para[0061], fig2A); and coupling the plurality of legs 14 to the plurality of receiving apertures 60 of the tabletop 12, thereby placing the plurality of legs 14 in the supporting position
Regarding claim 18, Brunner discloses the method of Claim 17, further including performing one of: de-coupling the plurality of legs 14 from the stowing surface 22 of the tabletop 12; and de-coupling the plurality of legs 14 from the plurality of receiving apertures 60 of the tabletop 12 (para[0062]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8, 11-14, 16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner (US 2018/0001466 A1) in view of Bozzano (US 2018/0229358 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Brunner discloses the stowable workstation of Claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a toolbox to be removably coupled to the stowing surface of the tabletop. Bozzano (‘358) teaches a use of a toolbox 200 (abstract, para[0020]) to be removably coupled to a tabletop 230,270 (para[0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brunner to use a toolbox, as taught by Bozzano, for the purpose of carrying tools which can be used on a table top together.
Regarding claim 11¸ Brunner (‘466) teaches a work system, comprising: a stowable workstation (fig1A), comprising: a tabletop 12 (para[0054]) having a work surface 20 (para[0055]), a stowing surface 22 (para[0054]), and a plurality of receiving apertures 60 (para[0059]) disposed in the tabletop 12; and a plurality of legs 14 (para[0054]) configured to be removably coupled to the tabletop 12 in a supporting position (fig1A) and in a stowed position (fig2A), the supporting position having the plurality of legs 14 coupled to the plurality of receiving apertures 60 of the tabletop 12 (fig1A), and the stowed position having the plurality of legs 14 coupled to the stowing surface 22 of the tabletop 12 (fig2A). However, Brunner does not explicitly disclose a use of a rolling toolbox with the stowable workstation. Bozzano teaches a use of a rolling toolbox (abstract, fig1) including at least one wheel 750,755 (figs1,7, para[0035]); a hollow body 210,220,240 (fig3, para[0023]); and a lid 250 (figs3,4B) configured to be coupled to the hollow body 210,220,240, the lid 250 having a recess (fig4B) formed therein, the recess configured to receive a tabletop 230,270 (para[0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brunner to use a toolbox, as taught by Bozzano, for the purpose of carrying tools which can be used on a table top together.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Brunner and Bozzano teaches the work system of Claim 11, wherein the rolling toolbox (Bozzano) includes a handle (fig1, Bozzano) disposed on a side of the rolling toolbox.
Regarding claim 13¸ the combination of Brunner and Bozzano teaches the work system of Claim 11, wherein the at least one wheel 750,755 (Bozzano) includes a first wheel 750 and a second wheel 755 disposed on a lower end of the rolling toolbox (Bozzano, fig1).
Regarding claim 14¸ the combination of Brunner and Bozzano teaches the work system of Claim 11, wherein the recess formed in the lid is substantially rectangular in shape (Bozzano, figs3,4B)
Regarding claim 16¸ the combination of Brunner and Bozzano teaches the work system of Claim 11, wherein the lid of the rolling toolbox is configured to be coupled to the hollow body using a plurality of latches (para[0024], “one or more latches”, Bozzano).
Regarding claim 19¸ the combination of Brunner and Bozzano teaches a method of using a work system, comprising: providing the work system according to Claim 11; and performing one of receiving the tabletop of the stowable workstation into the recess of the lid (fig2, Bozzano), whereby the stowable workstation is loaded onto the rolling toolbox (fig2, Bozzano); and removing the tabletop of the stowable workstation from the recess of the lid, whereby the stowable workstation is unloaded from the rolling toolbox (fig4B, Bozzano).
Regarding claim 20¸ the combination of Brunner and Bozzano teaches the method of Claim 19, further including performing one of: coupling the plurality of legs 14 to the stowing surface 22 of the tabletop 12 prior to receiving the tabletop 12 of the stowable workstation into the recess of the lid (to insert the workstation onto the rolling toolbox); and de-coupling the plurality of legs 14 from the stowing surface 22 of the tabletop after removing the tabletop 12 of the stowable workstation from the recess of the lid (to use the workstation in the supporting position).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The subject matter of the claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of claim 15 not found was a use of the work surface of the tabletop of the stowable workstation configured to form a contiguous surface with a portion of the lid of the rolling toolbox; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 15 and any intervening claims of the instant invention
None of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights