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 .
Drawings
The replacement sheets of drawings, filed March 2, 2026, have been approved by the examiner. However,
The drawings are objected to because the vertically extending slot in the mounting bracket (not plate as is claim 20) has not been numbered.
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.
Specification
The substitute specification, filed March 2, 2026, has been entered into the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For claim 12, it is unclear how the knuckle pivots relative to the mounting plate. There is no pivot mechanism shown or disclosed between the members. For claim 13, it is unclear how the back of the column is reconfigurable to accept devices. This is not discussed in any detail in the specification or shown in the figures. For claim 20, the mounting plate does not include a vertically extending slot for mounting the monitor, the mounting bracket is the feature with the slot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mifsud (2017/0141597). Mifsud teaches a portable work station (Fig. 1), the portable work station comprising: a base (a; see annotated figure below), wherein the base includes a plurality of wheels (b) for moving the portable work station within an environment; a column (6) extending from the base, wherein a mounting plate (2) is disposed at an end of the column distal from the base; a battery pack (3) accommodated by the column, wherein the battery pack is operable to electrically power one or more electronic devices disposed at the portable work station (paragraph 0001); wherein the column comprises a single-piece back (f), and wherein the battery pack (3) and one or more electronic components (5) are attached to the single-piece back and accommodated within the column (via portion c of 5 located within column); and a monitor (paragraph 0002) removably mounted with the station (at d), wherein the battery pack is operable to electrically power the monitor.
For claim 6, Mifsud further teaches that the battery pack is electrically connected to an electrical outlet (4) accessible exterior the column, and wherein the battery pack supplies electrical power to the electrical outlet to electrically power the one or more electronic devices disposed at the work station.
For claim 7, Mifsud further teaches that the monitor is removably mounted at the mounting plate (see Fig. 1 where monitor is removed). Its power cord would extend between the battery pack/docketing station and the monitor for electrically powering the monitor via the docking station (at 19).
For claim 8, Mifsud further teaches that the electrical outlet comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) a USB-C type outlet (paragraphs 0026,0027), (ii) a USB- A type outlet (paragraphs 0026,0027) and (iii) a triplex type outlet.
For claim 11, Mifsud further teaches that the mounting plate comprises a handle portion (e) configured to be grasped by a user when the user moves the portable work station within the environment.
For claim 13, Mifsud further teaches that a single-piece back (f) that is reconfigurable, as best understood (having station 5 removed and installed), to accept the one or more electronic components, and wherein the one or more electronic components comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) one or more power supplies that convert AC to DC power, (ii) one or more batteries that can be daisy-chained, (iii) a USB-A type DC connecting point (paragraphs 0026,0027), (iv) a USB-C type DC connecting point (paragraphs 0026,0027), (v) one or more constant voltage transformers for powering monitors, (vi) 10aIEC cord attachment, (vii) one or more inverters for converting DC power to AC power for high-wattage monitors and (viii) one or more AC power outlets.
For claim 16, Mifsud further teaches that the mounting plate is removable from the end of the column distal from the base (by disassembling the work station).
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mifsud (2017/0141597) in view of Goldberg (2008/0116327). As sated above, Mifsud teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a portable work station with a column. For claim 2, Mifsud fails to teach a work surface removably mounted along the column. Goldberg teaches a work surface (50) removably mounted along a column (via holes 26 in column 21 with bracket assembly and fasteners shown in Fig. 4a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work station of Mifsud by adding holes in the column to accommodate the bracket and worksurface taught by Goldberg, to provide additional workspace or storage space on the station.
For claim 3, Mifsud in view of Goldberg further teaches that the column comprises a plurality of mounting structures disposed along the column between the base and the end of the column distal from the base, and wherein the plurality of mounting structures are configured to mount the work surface at corresponding positions along the column.
For claim 4, Goldberg teaches numerous holes in the column that are capable of supporting plural work surfaces. It has been held that merely duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 Therefore, it would have been obvious to employ plural work surfaces on the column. Goldberg further teaches slots (88) for adjustable fastener attachments. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the column of Mifsud in view of Goldberg by using slots in place of the holes, to allow slight adjustments of the work surface(s) while attached to the column.
For claim 5, Mifsud in view of Goldberg further teaches that the battery pack, with a user device disposed at the work surface, is operable to electrically power the user device (paragraphs 001,002 of Mifsud).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mifsud (2017/0141597) in view of Mensing et al (WO2023056144). As stated above, Mifsud teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 6, including a column with a power system.
For claim 9, Mifsud fails to teach an inverter in the column with the power system. Mensing teaches the use of an inverter (paragraph 0117) with its power system (90). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work station of Mifsud by adding an inverter, such as is taught by Mensing, within the column for use between the battery and outlets, to allow the conversion of DC power from the battery pack to AC power supplied to the electrical outlet.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mifsud (2017/0141597) in view of Rossini (2007/0001413). As stated above, Mifsud teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a base. For claim 14, Mifsud fails to teach that the base has a metal base platform. Rossini teaches a metal plate (31; paragraph 0015) on a base. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work station of Mifsud by adding metal plate, such as is taught by Rossini, on the base, to provide additional storage on the work station.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mifsud (2017/0141597) in view of Christensen (2023/0090013). As sated above, Mifsud teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a portable work station with a mounting plate having a knuckle supporting a monitor removably mounted with the station. Although it is could be assumed that the monitor attachment portion of the knuckle on the mounting plate of Mifsud inherently enables the monitor to be tilted relative to the column, no detail of the knuckle is discussed. Christensen teaches a knuckle (100) having a tilting mechanism (104) for a monitor. The mounting bracket (102) of the knuckle includes a vertically extending slot (102). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work station of Mifsud by having a tilting mechanism and raising and lowering mechanism as part of its knuckle, such as is taught by Christensen, to allow optimum positioning of the monitor on the work station.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mifsud (2017/0141597) in view of Schermerhorn (7,640,866). As sated above, Mifsud teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a portable work station with wiring between the monitor and power station. For claim 17, Mifsud fails to specifically teach that electrical wiring is routed to a back of the column to enable a clean, untangled front to the work station. Schermerhorn teaches a cable sleeve (66) between a monitor and terminal (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work station of Mifsud by adding a cable sleeve, such as is taught by Schermerhorn, between the monitor and power station, to enable a clean, untangled front to the work station.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mifsud (2017/0141597) in view of in view of Yuan et al (D1,001,798). As stated above, Mifsud teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a monitor removably mounted with the station. For claim 18, Mifsud fails to teach that the monitor comprises two monitors removably mounted at the mounting plate and stacked relative to one another at the mounting plate. Yuan teaches a monitor (b see annotated figure below; Figs. 6 and 9) comprises two monitors mounted at a mounting plate (a) and stacked relative to one another at the mounting plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work station of Mifsud by using first and second monitors, such as is taught by Yuan, in place of the single monitor presently used, to provide an additional screen for use with the work station.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mifsud (2017/0141597) in view of Christensen (2023/0090013) and Goldberg (2008/0116327). Mifsud teaches a portable work station (Fig. 1), the portable work station comprising: a base (a; see annotated figure below), wherein the base includes a plurality of wheels (b) for moving the portable work station within an environment; a column (6) extending from the base, wherein a mounting plate (2) is disposed at an end of the column distal from the base wherein the mounting plate includes a knuckle (d) and a handle portion (e), and wherein the handle portion is configured to be grasped by a user when the user moves the portable work station within the environment; a battery pack (3) accommodated by the column (via c of 5), wherein the battery pack is operable to electrically power one or more electronic devices disposed at the portable work station; wherein the column comprises a single-piece back (f), and wherein the battery pack and one or more electronic components (3,5) are attached to the single-piece back and accommodated within the column (portion c of 5 is located within column); and a monitor (paragraph 0002) removably mounted with the station (at d), wherein the battery pack is operable to electrically power the monitor. Although it is could be assumed that the monitor attachment portion of the knuckle on the mounting plate of Mifsud inherently enables the monitor to be tilted relative to the column, no detail of the knuckle is discussed. Christensen teaches a knuckle (100) having a tilting mechanism (104) for a monitor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work station of Mifsud by having a tilting mechanism as part of its knuckle, such as is taught by Christensen, to allow optimum positioning of the monitor on the work station.
Second, Mifsud fails to teach a work surface removably mounted along the column. Goldberg teaches a work surface (50) removably mounted along a column (via holes 26 in column 21 with bracket assembly and fasteners shown in Fig. 4a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work station of Mifsud by adding holes in the column to accommodate the bracket and worksurface taught by Goldberg, to provide additional workspace or storage space on the station.
For claim 22, Mifsud in view of Christensen and Goldberg further teaches that the column comprises a plurality of mounting structures disposed along the column between the base and the end of the column distal from the base, and wherein the plurality of mounting structures are configured to mount the work surface at corresponding positions along the column.
For claim 23, Goldberg teaches numerous holes in the column that are capable of supporting plural work surfaces. It has been held that merely duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 Therefore, it would have been obvious to employ plural work surfaces on the column of Mifsud in view of Christensen and Goldberg. Goldberg further teaches slots (88) for adjustable pin attachment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the column of Mifsud in view of Christensen and Goldberg by using slots in place of the holes, to allow slight adjustments of the work surface while attached to the column.
For claim 24, Mifsud in view of Christensen and Goldberg further teaches that
the battery pack is electrically connected to an electrical outlet (4 of Mifsud) accessible exterior the column, and wherein the battery pack supplies electrical power to the electrical outlet to electrically power the one or more electronic devices disposed at the work station.
PNG
media_image1.png
829
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
447
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
627
531
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
Claim 10 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Addressing the drawing objection concerning the vertical slot in the mounting plate: the examiner contends that although this feature is discussed on the mounting bracket (not plate) in the specification and appears to be shown in Fig. 14, the slot has not been numbered in the drawings.
Addressing the 112, first paragraph rejections: as stated above for claim 12, it is still unclear how the knuckle pivots relative to the mounting plate. There is no pivot mechanism shown or disclosed between the members. From the figures, the knuckle is only mounted to the top of the plate.
PNG
media_image4.png
455
543
media_image4.png
Greyscale
For claim 13, it is still unclear how the back of the column is reconfigurable to accept devices. This is not discussed in any detail in the specification or shown in the figures. It is unclear if there are alternate back plates or if the back plate can be attached in a reverse configuration. For claim 20, the mounting plate does not include a vertically extending slot for mounting the monitor, the mounting bracket is the feature with the slot.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm 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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
Wilkens
April 22, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights