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 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 1-20 are 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.
Claim 1, line 1 introduces the element “at least one dolly”. Claim 1, line 3 then refers to “at least one dolly”. It is unclear if the “dolly” in line 3 is referring to the “dolly” in line 1 or is a separate “dolly”.
Claim 1, line 1 introduces the element “an object”. Claim 1, line 4 then refers to “an object”. It is unclear if the “object” in line 4 is referring to the “object” in line 1 or is a separate “object”.
Claim 2 states “the object is a vehicle”. Claim 4, dependent from claim 2 then states “the object is one of a human, a piece of furniture, a barrel, or a bin”. It is unclear how the object can be a vehicle and a human/furniture/barrel/bin at the same time.
Claim 10, line 1 introduces the element “at least one dolly”. Claim 10, line 3 then refers to “at least one dolly”. It is unclear if the “dolly” in line 3 is referring to the “dolly” in line 1 or is a separate “dolly”.
Claim 10, line 1 introduces the element “an object”. Claim 10, line 4 then refers to “an object”. It is unclear if the “object” in line 4 is referring to the “object” in line 1 or is a separate “object”.
Claim 14, line 1 introduces the element “at least one dolly”. Claim 14, line 3 then refers to “at least one dolly”. It is unclear if the “dolly” in line 3 is referring to the “dolly” in line 1 or is a separate “dolly”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first object" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11, dependent from claim 10, is verbatim claim 10, lines 16-18. Claims 19 is verbatim claim 5 (and both directly depend from claim 1) and claim 20 is verbatim claim 6 and both directly depend from claims 19 and 5, respectively. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-11, 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neumann (US 2005/0151336).
With respect to claim 1, Neumann discloses a multi-purpose dolly system (101) with at least one dolly (102) for transporting an object (paragraph 2), the multi-purpose dolly system comprising: at least one dolly (102); an object (‘large items’; paragraph 2) that is being transported; and at least one detachable pad (107; paragraph 25); the dolly comprising: a dolly base (102); at least three wheel attachment points (110; fig. 2A) wherein each attachment point is connected to a wheel capable of rotating around an axis; and at least one pad attachment area (144), wherein the pad attachment area is configured to be in communication with the at least one detachable pad (107); wherein the detachable pad (107) is configured to securely hold the object in place while the object is being transported (tie downs shown in fig. 10 are connected at 104 and strapped over the object that is sitting on the gripped cover 107 seen in figs. 9-10). (Figs. 1-10, paragraphs 4-31.)
With respect to claim 5-6 and 19-20, Neumann discloses the dolly base includes an anchor point (104) that can connect to an accessory, one of a tie-down strap, cargo basket, or an equipment (fig. 10). (Figs. 1-10, paragraphs 4-31.)
With respect to claim 9, Neumann discloses the detachable pad may be removed from the pad attachment area without the use of an external tool (paragraph 25 “fit removably over the substrate panel.sup.146 by stretching the cover panels over the edges of the substrate panel.sup.146”). (Figs. 1-10, paragraphs 4-31.) The claim limitation “detachable pad may be removed from the pad attachment area without the use of an external tool” is a product-by-process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.
With respect to claims 10-11, Neumann discloses a multi-purpose dolly system (101) with at least one dolly (102) for transporting an object (paragraph 2), the multi-purpose dolly system comprising: at least one dolly (102); an object (‘large items’; paragraph 2) that is being transported; and a first detachable pad (107; paragraph 25); and a second detachable pad (107; paragraph 25); the dolly comprising: a dolly base (102); at least three wheel attachment points (110; fig. 2A) wherein each attachment point is connected to a wheel capable of rotating around an axis; and a first pad attachment area (144), wherein the first pad attachment area is configured to be in communication with the first detachable pad (107); and a second pad attachment area (144), wherein the second pad attachment area is configured to be in communication with the second detachable pad (107); wherein the first and second detachable pads (107) are configured to securely hold the object in place while the object is being transported (tie downs shown in fig. 10 are connected at 104 and strapped over the object that is sitting on the gripped cover 107 seen in figs. 9-10). (Figs. 1-10, paragraphs 4-31.)
With respect to claim 14, Neumann discloses a multi-purpose dolly system (101) with at least one dolly (102), the multi-purpose dolly system comprising: at least one dolly (102); a first detachable pad (107; paragraph 25) having a first shape (fig. 5); and a second detachable pad (107; paragraph 25) having a second shape (fig. 5); the dolly comprising: a dolly base (102); at least three wheel attachment points (110; fig. 2A) wherein each attachment point is connected to a wheel capable of rotating around an axis; and a first pad attachment area (144), wherein the first pad attachment area is configured to be in communication with the first detachable pad (107); and a second pad attachment area (144), wherein the second pad attachment area is configured to be in communication with the second detachable pad (107); wherein the first and second detachable pads (107) are configured to securely hold the object in place while the object is being transported (tie downs shown in fig. 10 are connected at 104 and strapped over the object that is sitting on the gripped cover 107 seen in figs. 9-10). (Figs. 1-10, paragraphs 4-31.)
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 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.
Claims 2-3 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann in view of Symiczek (US 2008/0100015).
With respect to claims 2-3 and 17-18, Neumann is silent regarding the object is a vehicle. Symiczek teaches of the object is a wheeled vehicle (72). (Figs. 1-13C, paragraphs 36-70.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the object as described in Symiczek into the invention of Neumann with a reasonable expectation of success so that the vehicle can be moved fairly easily. (Paragraph 8.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann and Symiczek, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of King (US 8,668,211).
With respect to claim 4, Neumann, as modified, is silent regarding the object is one of a human, a piece of furniture, a barrel, or a bin. King teaches of the object is one of a human, a piece of furniture, a barrel, or a bin. (Figs. 1-21, col. 3, lines 35-67, cols. 4-8) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the object as described in King into the invention of Neumann, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to be strong enough to carry heavy furniture. (Col. 1,lines 38-42)
Claims 7-8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann in view of Kern et al. (US 5,921,566).
With respect to claims 7-8 and 12-13, Neumann is silent regarding the pad being of a flexible material. Johannsen teaches of the detachable pad (44) is made of a flexible material, such as rubber (col. 3, lines 19-48). (Figs. 1-4, col. 2, lines 28-67, col. 3, col. 4, lines 1-3.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the detachable pad is made of a flexible material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann in view of Takehara et al. (US 8,616,564).
With respect to claims 15-16, Neumann is silent regarding the first shape and the second shape are different. Takehara et al. teaches of support surfaces that can be comprised of two or more surfaces and of many different shapes (col. 4, lines 40-50); and the first shape is configured to conform to a first object (fig. 3, 20 ft container) and the second shape is configured to conform to a second object (fig. 3, 40 ft container). (Figs. 1-19D, cols. 4-10.) It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the pad of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Northcutt (US 7,275,752) discloses a similar dolly with the pad structure and wheel attachment point structure. The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights