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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 08/05/2024 has/have been taken into account.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 10/28/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 11-12, and 19 have been amended; No claims have been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that: “However, Johnson, alone or in combination with Mahoney, offers no teaching or suggestion of "wherein an angle between the at least one support rod and the receiver is lesser than or equal to 50°" as recited in Applicant's amended claims 1 and 11. Therefore, for at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant submits that claims 1 and 19, are patentable over Johnon, alone or in combination with Mahoney.” – The examiner respectfully disagrees. Mahoney discloses in its specification, a receiver that is angled at an angle between 80 and 85 degrees, which is supported by Fig. 2 which shows the post at this stated angle and as such it is clear the drawings can be relied upon to depict relative angles of the invention. Figure 2 also shows support rods at an angle of approximately 60 degrees with respect to the base plate and as such when modified by the support rods of Mahoney, the angle between said rods and the vertical receiver would be approximately 30 degrees, which reads on the claim.
Additionally, the amendment has overcome the objections and 112 rejections set forth in the previous action.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 7,445,184) in view of Mahoney (US 3,752,476).
Regarding Claim 1, Johnson discloses a mobile painting system for painting components, the mobile painting system comprising: a base unit comprising: a base plate (Johnson: Fig. 1; 64) having an upper side and a lower side; a receiver (Johnson: Fig. 1; 68) disposed on the upper side of the base plate; a vertical mast (Johnson: Fig. 1; 50) having an upper end and a lower end, wherein the lower end of the vertical mast is mechanically connected to the upper side of the base plate via the receiver; at least one movable bracket (Johnson: Fig. 1; 20) disposed on the vertical mast, wherein the at least one movable bracket is configured to translate along a vertical axis of the vertical mast and rotate about the vertical axis of the vertical mast; at least one holding arm (Johnson: Fig. 1; 30) movably coupled to the at least one movable bracket; and a mobile unit (Johnson: Fig. 1; 62, 66) disposed on the lower side of the base plate, the mobile unit configured for moving the mobile painting system between locations.
Johnson fails to disclose at least one support rod, each having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is mechanically connected to the receiver and the second end is mechanically connected to the upper side of the base plate; and wherein an angle between the at least one support rod and the receiver is lesser than or equal to 50°. However, Mahoney teaches at least one support rod (Mahoney: Fig. 2; 89), each having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is mechanically connected to a receiver (Mahoney: Fig. 2; 45) and the second end is mechanically connected to an upper side of a base plate (Mahoney: Fig. 2; 86); and wherein an angle between the at least one support rod and the receiver is lesser than or equal to 50° (Mahoney: Fig. 2; shows claimed angle, see response to arguments for further explanation).
Johnson and Mahoney are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. support stands. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the receiver and base plate in Johnson with the support rods from Mahoney, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional members connected between the receiver and base plate that increase the lateral stability of the receiver (Mahoney: Col. 4, Ln. 53-65), thereby improving the strength of the system.
Regarding Claim 2, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 1, wherein the at least one support rod (Mahoney: Fig. 2; 89) is mechanically connected to the receiver (Johnson: Fig. 1; 68) and the upper side of the base plate via welding.
Regarding Claim 3, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 2, wherein the at least one support rod (Mahoney: Fig. 2; 89) further comprises four support rods.
Regarding Claim 4, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 3, wherein any two adjacent support rods of the four support rods (Mahoney: Fig. 2; 89) are equidistant from each other.
Regarding Claim 5, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 4, wherein the receiver (Johnson: Fig. 1; 68) is a hollow column configured to house a portion of the vertical mast (Johnson: Fig. 1; 50).
Regarding Claim 9, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 1, wherein the at least one movable bracket (Johnson: Fig. 1; 20) further includes: a bracket column (Johnson: Fig. 1; 24) configured to fit around the vertical mast, the bracket column configured to have a diameter greater than a diameter of the vertical mast; an arm length adjuster (Johnson: Fig. 1; 22) disposed on the bracket column, wherein the at least one holding arm (Johnson: Fig. 1; 30) is movably coupled to the arm length adjuster, the at least one holding arm including a first end, a second end and an arm column; and at least one compression screw thread disposed on the bracket column, the at least one compression screw thread configured to articulate with a compression screw (Johnson: Col. 3, Ln. 19-22).
Regarding Claim 10, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 9, wherein the at least one holding arm (Johnson: Fig. 1; 30) is configured to be movable along a horizontal axis of the arm length adjuster (Johnson: Fig. 1; 22).
Regarding Claim 11, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 10, wherein the arm length adjuster (Johnson: Fig. 1; 22) further includes a second compression screw thread, the second compression screw thread configured to articulate with a second compression screw (Johnson: Fig. 1; 26) to stabilize the at least one holding arm with the arm length adjuster.
Regarding Claim 16, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 1, wherein the mobile unit (Johnson: Fig. 1; 62, 66) comprises: at least one support leg (Johnson: Fig. 1; 62) having a proximal end and distal end, the proximal end, mechanically connected to the lower side of the base plate; and at least one lockable caster (Johnson: Fig. 1; 66) mechanically connected on the distal end of the at least one support leg.
Regarding Claim 17, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 16, wherein the at least one lockable caster (Johnson: Fig. 1; 66) further includes: a swivel bracket; a rotatable wheel attached to the swivel bracket; and a wheel brake disposed on the swivel bracket, wherein the wheel brake is configured to move between an engaged and disengaged position, and wherein the wheel brake is configured to restrict movement of the rotatable wheel in the engaged position (Johnson: Col. 5, Ln. 17-19).
Regarding Claim 19, Johnson discloses a mobile painting system for painting panels, the mobile painting system comprising: a base unit comprising: a base plate (Johnson: Fig. 1; 64) having an upper side and a lower side; a receiver (Johnson: Fig. 1; 68) disposed on the upper side of the base plate; a vertical mast (Johnson: Fig. 1; 50) having an upper end and a lower end, wherein the lower end of the vertical mast is mechanically connected to the upper side of the base plate via the receiver; eight movable brackets (Johnson: Fig. 1; 20; Col. 3, Ln. 56-57; discloses more than two) disposed on the vertical mast, wherein each of the eight movable brackets is configured to translate along a vertical axis of the vertical mast and rotate about the vertical axis of the vertical mast independent of each of other movable brackets; at least one holding arm (Johnson: Fig. 1; 30) movably coupled to each of the eight movable brackets; and a mobile unit (Johnson: Fig. 1; 62, 66) disposed on the lower side of the base plate, the mobile unit configured for moving the mobile painting system between locations, the mobile unit comprising: four support legs (Johnson: Fig. 1; 62), each having a proximal end and distal end, the proximal end of each of the four support legs mechanically connected to the lower side of the base plate; and a lockable caster (Johnson: Fig. 1; 66) mechanically connected to the distal end of each of the four support legs.
Johnson fails to disclose four support rods, each having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is mechanically connected to the receiver and the second end is mechanically connected to the upper side of the base plate; and wherein an angle between the each of the four support rods and the receiver is lesser than or equal to 50°. However, Mahoney teaches four support rods (Mahoney: Fig. 2; 89), each having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is mechanically connected to a receiver (Mahoney: Fig. 2; 45) and the second end is mechanically connected to an upper side of a base plate (Mahoney: Fig. 2; 86); and wherein an angle between the each of the four support rods and the receiver is lesser than or equal to 50° (Mahoney: Fig. 2; shows claimed angle, see response to arguments for further explanation). [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation.]
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 7,445,184) in view of Mahoney (US 3,752,476) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Perkins (US 1,593,415) and Yang et al. (US 6,260,488).
Regarding Claim 6, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 5, wherein the vertical mast (Johnson: Fig. 1; 50) comprises: a hollow upper portion including a closed end; a hollow lower portion, the hollow lower portion comprising the portion of the vertical mast housed by the receiver (Johnson: Fig. 1; 68).
Johnson fails to disclose a hollow lower core having a closed end and an open end; the hollow lower core comprising the portion of the vertical mast housed by the receiver. However, Perkins teaches a hollow lower core (Perkins: Fig. 1-2; 1) having a closed end (Perkins: Fig. 1-2; 11) and an open end; the hollow lower core comprising the portion of the vertical mast housed by the receiver.
Johnson and Perkins are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area, e.g. support stands. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom end of the mast and receiver in Johnson with the closed end and connection from Perkins, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means of connecting the extreme lower end of the mast to receiver by turning until snug, while also more evenly distributing strain on the standard to the base (Perkins: Pg. 1, Ln. 43-64), thereby providing a resilient connection that can be secured without bending down to the base.
Furthermore, Johnson fails to disclose a hollow upper core including an open end; a hollow lower core including an open end; a connector configured to connect the hollow upper core and the hollow lower core, the connector including a first end, a second end and a slot disposed along a vertical axis of the connector. However, Yang teaches a standard having a hollow upper core (Yang: Fig. 4; 28) including an open end; a hollow lower core (Yang: Fig. 4; 30) including an open end; a connector (Yang: Fig. 4-5; 32) configured to connect the hollow upper core and the hollow lower core, the connector including a first end, a second end and a slot (Yang: Fig. 4-5; 44 or 46) disposed along a vertical axis of the connector.
Johnson and Yang are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area, e.g. support stands. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vertical mast in Johnson with the open ends and connector connection from , with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a mast that can be adjusted to a desired height via multiple parts while also resisting separation between the parts, thereby improving the adjustability of the mast without compromising reliability (Yang: Col. 5, Ln. 48-67; Johnson: Col. 4, Ln. 40-43).
Regarding Claim 7, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 6, further including a restrictor (Yang: Fig. 4; 68) disposed on the open end of the lower core (Yang: Fig. 4; 38), wherein: the first end of the connector (Yang: Fig. 4-5; 32)is configured to fit into the open end of the hollow upper core (Yang: Fig. 4; 28); the second end of the connector is configured to fit into the open end of the hollow lower core; and the slot (Yang: Fig. 4-5; 46) is configured to receive the restrictor when the second end of the connector is fit into the open end of the hollow lower core.
Regarding Claim 8, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 7, wherein the closed end of the hollow lower core includes a screw (Perkins: Fig. 1-2; 11) configured to articulate with at least one screw thread disposed on the upper side of the base plate (Johnson: Fig. 1; 64).
Claims 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 7,445,184) in view of Mahoney (US 3,752,476) as applied to claims 11 and 19 above, and further in view of Deshler (US 9,358,564).
Regarding Claim 12, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 11, but fails to disclose at least one holding arm further including a hook extension with a proximal end and a distal end, wherein: the proximal end of the hook extension is mechanically connected to the first end of the at least one holding arm; and the distal end of the hook extension is configured for holding the components to be painted.
However, Deshler teaches at least one holding arm (Deshler: Fig. 2, 4; 30) further including a hook extension (Deshler: Fig. 2, 4; 35, 38) with a proximal end (Deshler: Fig. 2, 4; 35) and a distal end (Deshler: Fig. 2, 4; 38), wherein: the proximal end of the hook extension is mechanically connected to the first end of the at least one holding arm; and the distal end of the hook extension is configured for holding the components to be painted.
Johnson and Deshler are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area, e.g. support stands. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holding arms in Johnson with the hook extensions from Deshler, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the system with a means of engaging apertures in a part such that it can be held to further prevent blocking or shadowing the part during the painting process (Deshler: Fig. 1; Col. 5, Ln. 8-11).
Regarding Claim 13, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 12, wherein the distal end (Deshler: Fig. 2, 4; 38) of the hook extension includes a shallow L-shaped protrusion configured for holding the components to be painted (Deshler: Fig. 5; shows protrusion able to rotate between shallow and deep configurations).
Regarding Claim 14, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 12, wherein the distal end (Deshler: Fig. 2, 4; 38) of the hook extension includes a deep L-shaped protrusion configured for holding the components to be painted (Deshler: Fig. 5; shows protrusion able to rotate between shallow and deep configurations).
Regarding Claim 15, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 12, wherein the distal end (Deshler: Fig. 2, 4; 38) of the hook extension includes a U-shaped protrusion configured for holding the components to be painted.
Claim 20 is rejected, as set forth in the rejection of claims 12-15.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 7,445,184) in view of Mahoney (US 3,752,476) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Leibman (US 6,055,704).
Regarding Claim 18, Johnson, as modified, teaches the mobile painting system of claim 17, wherein the swivel bracket is attached to the distal end of the at least one support leg (Johnson: Fig. 1; 62).
Johnson fails to explicitly teach a swivel bracket that is attached to the distal end of the at least one support leg via a connector screw articulated through a connector screw thread and wherein the swivel bracket is configured to be rotatable about a vertical axis of the connector screw. However, Leibman teaches a swivel bracket (Leibman: Fig. 1; 106) that is attached via a connector screw (Leibman: Fig. 1; 122) articulated through a connector screw thread (Leibman: Fig. 1; 132) and wherein the swivel bracket is configured to be rotatable about a vertical axis of the connector screw.
Johnson and Leibman are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area, e.g. improving relocation/mobility of devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the casters in Johnson via a screw and screw thread as taught by Leibman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means of attaching the casters securely to the legs that requires no additional fasteners (Leibman: Col. 7, Ln. 32-45), thereby lowering the number of loose parts required for assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631