DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed December 10th, 2025, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection.
a. The applicant argues “As can be seen above, Chaney appears to be designed such that means 370 lifts the front of the unit so the cooler can be rolled on wheels 360, i.e., so the front of the cooler 100 is angled up and off the ground to facilitate rolling on wheels 360. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that Chaney teaches away from being modified to include “the wheels of the main body have a first diameter and the one or more rollers have a second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter,” which amended claim 1 recites, because doing so would add large wheels to Chaney that would be lifted off the ground and thus provide no benefit to the mobility of the cooler 100. The examiner disagrees, wherein adding wheels to the body of the cooler would make it easier for the user to maneuver the cooler along a hard surface without the obligation to lift a cooler filled with contents.
Response to Amendment
3. This office action is in response to the amendments and / or remarks filed on December 10th, 2025. Claim 7 is cancelled. Claims 1-6, and 8-20 remain pending and are currently being examined.
4. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
9. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney et al. (US 20110226003 A1), in view of Hoppe et al. (US 20170166352 A1), and further in view of Cohen (US 20050145458 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chaney et al. teaches a mobile utility module (100) comprising: a main body (115), the main body comprising: an upper surface (180); and a cavity (145) defined within the main body (115); and a drawer (120) comprising one or more rollers (360) positioned at a front (355) of the drawer (120), the drawer (120) configured to be received within the cavity (145) of the main body (115); wherein the drawer (120) is moveable between a storage position (as seen in Figures 4-5) and an extended position (as seen in Figures 3 and 11) in which the drawer (120) extends beyond the main body (115) and the one or more rollers (360) engage a ground surface (as seen in Figures 3 and 11). (Figs. 1-13; [0028]-[0031])
Chaney et al. does not teach a plurality of female couplers defined in the upper surface, or wheels coupled to the main body, or wherein the wheels of the main body having a first diameter and the one or more rollers have a second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter.
Regarding the female couplers, Hoppe et al. further teaches a plurality of female couplers (54) defined in an upper surface (134) of a container (18). (Figs. 5-6; [0033]-[0034])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take a mobile utility module as taught by Chaney et al., and provide for female couplers on an upper surface as taught by Hoppe et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for female couplers on the upper surface of a mobile utility module, in order for the mobile utility module to receive an additional utility module with corresponding couplers.
Regarding the varying wheel diameters, Cohen further teaches a mobile utility module (10) having wheels (32) coupled to the main body (10) wherein the wheels (32) of a main body (10) having a first diameter (as seen in Annotated Figure 6 below) and one or more rollers (33 in Annotated Figure 6 below) have a second diameter (as seen in Annotated Figure 6 below), and wherein the first diameter (as seen in Annotated Figure 6 below) is greater than the second diameter (as seen in Annotated Figure 6 below). (Fig. 6; [0042])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take a mobile utility module as taught by Chaney et al., modified above, and main body wheels with a larger diameter than rollers as taught by Cohen. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated for larger diameter rear wheels in order to enhance the stability of the luggage when the rollers are deployed.
PNG
media_image1.png
255
235
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
27
31
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
24
163
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein each of the plurality of female couplers is configured for engagement with male couplers of a utility module.
Hoppe et al. further teaches wherein each of the plurality of female couplers (54) is configured for engagement with male couplers (70) of a utility module (14).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take a mobile utility module as taught by Chaney et al., modified above, and provide for female couplers configured for engaging male couplers of a utility module as taught by Hoppe et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for female couplers on the upper surface of a mobile utility module, in order for the mobile utility module to receive an additional utility module with corresponding male couplers.
Regarding Claim 3, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above;
Chaney et al. further teaches wherein the one or more rollers (360) are wheels (wherein Chaney et al. teaches “Further, wheels 360 are preferably sized and positioned such that their outer circumference is flush with an exterior surface 340 of base 135 of the outer housing 115.”) (Figs. 3, 11; [0041])
Regarding Claim 4, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above;
Chaney et al. further teaches wherein the front (120) of the drawer (120) faces away (as seen in Figures 3 and 11) from the main body (115). (Figs. 3, 11; [0029])
Regarding Claim 5, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above;
Chaney et al. further teaches wherein the one or more rollers (360) extend below a bottom surface (240) of the drawer (120). (Wherein Chaney et al. teaches “Further, wheels 360 are preferably sized and positioned such that their outer circumference is flush with an exterior surface 340 of base 135 of the outer housing 115.”, and the drawer 120 is positioned within the base of the outer housing.) (Figs. 3, 11; [0035], [0041])
Regarding Claim 6, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 4 above;
Chaney et al. further teaches wherein the main body (115) further comprises a bottom surface (135) of the cavity (145), wherein the bottom surface (135) of the cavity (145) faces a bottom (240) of the drawer (120) in the storage position (as seen in Figs. 4-5). (Figs. 4-5; [0036])
Regarding Claim 8, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above;
Chaney et al. further teaches a latch assembly (385), the latch assembly (385) configured to resist movement (wherein Chaney et al. teaches “latches 385 enable inner housing, or drawer system, 120 to be selectably locked to outer housing 115 when the drawer system 120 is in the stowed position”) of the drawer (120) relative to the main body (115). (Figs. 4-5; [0048])
Regarding Claim 10, Chaney et al. teaches a rolling modular storage unit (100) comprising: a main body (115), the main body comprising: an upper surface (180); and a cavity (145) defined within the main body (115); and a drawer (120) comprising: a set of wheels (360) positioned at a front side (120) of the drawer (120), wherein the set of wheels (360) are movable between a storage position (as seen in Figure 1) and a deployed position (as seen in Figure 3); and a locking assembly (385), the locking assembly (385) configured to resist movement (wherein Chaney et al. teaches “latches 385 enable inner housing, or drawer system, 120 to be selectably locked to outer housing 115 when the drawer system 120 is in the stowed position”) of the drawer (120) relative to the main body (115); wherein the drawer (120) is positionable within the cavity (145) of the main body (115). (Figs. 1-13; [0028]-[0031], [0048])
Chaney et al. does not teach a plurality of female couplers defined in the upper surface; or a first set of wheels coupled to the main body.
Regarding the female couplers, Hoppe et al. further teaches a plurality of female couplers (54) defined in an upper surface (134) of a container (18). (Figs. 5-6; [0033]-[0034])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take a mobile utility module as taught by Chaney et al., and provide for female couplers on an upper surface as taught by Hoppe et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for female couplers on the upper surface of a mobile utility module, in order for the mobile utility module to receive an additional utility module with corresponding couplers.
Regarding wheels on the main body, Cohen et al. further teaches a mobile utility module (10) having wheels (100) coupled to the main body (10). (Fig. 1; [0036])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take a mobile utility module as taught by Chaney et al., and provide for wheels on a main body as taught by Cohen et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for wheels on a main body, in order for the user to conveniently maneuver the mobile utility module.
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney et al. (US 20110226003 A1), in view of Hoppe et al. (US 20170166352 A1), further in view of Cohen (US 20050145458 A1), and further in view of Eardley et al. (US 20070089954 A1)
Regarding Claim 15, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 10 above; wherein the front side of the drawer faces away from first set of wheels.
Wherein Chaney et al. teaches a drawer (120) facing away from a main body (115). (Figs. 3, 11; [0029])
Eardley et al. further teaches a drawer (20) facing away from a first set of wheels (100). (Figs. 1, 3; [0036])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take a mobile utility module as taught by Chaney et al., modified above, and provide for a drawer facing away from a first set of wheels as taught by Eardley et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a drawer facing away from a first set of wheels, in order for the user to have space to open the drawer.
Regarding Claim 16, Chaney et al. further teaches mobile utility module (100) comprising: a main body (115), the main body (115) comprising: an upper surface (180); and a cavity (145) defined within the main body (100); and a drawer (120) comprising: a set of wheels (360) positioned at a front of the drawer (120), wherein the set of wheels (360) can be deployed such that the wheels (360) are positioned between a ground surface (as seen in Figure 3) and the drawer (120). (Figs. 1-13; [0028]-[0031])
Chaney et al. does not teach a female coupler defined in the upper surface, the female coupler comprising: a back; a first sidewall; a second sidewall opposite the first sidewall; a first rib extending from the first sidewall towards the second sidewall; and a second rib extending from the second sidewall towards the first sidewall; wherein the female coupler is configured to slidably engage with a male coupler of another utility module; or a first set of wheels coupled to the main body.
Regarding the female couplers, Hoppe et al. further teaches a plurality of female couplers (54) defined in an upper surface (134) of a container (18), the female coupler comprising: a back (150); a first sidewall (146); a second sidewall (as seen in Figure 5) opposite the first sidewall (146); a first rib (142) extending from the first sidewall (146) towards the second sidewall (146); and a second rib (142) extending from the second sidewall (146) towards the first sidewall (146); wherein the female coupler (54a) is configured to slidably engage with a male coupler (70) of another utility module (14). (Figs. 5-6; [0031], [0033]-[0035])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take a mobile utility module as taught by Chaney et al., and provide a female coupler with ribs on an upper surface as taught by Hoppe et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide a female coupler on the upper surface of a mobile utility module, in order for the mobile utility module to receive an additional utility module with a corresponding male coupler.
Regarding Claim 17, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 16 above;
Chaney et al. further teaches wherein the drawer (120) further comprises a downward facing bottom surface (120), and wherein the second set of wheels (360) are positioned (wherein a portion of wheels 360 are positioned between the floor and the bottom surface 240 of the drawer 120) between the bottom surface (240) and the ground surface (as seen in Figure 3), when the drawer (120) extends (as seen in Figure 3) from the main body (115). (Fig. 3; [0041])
Regarding Claim 18, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 16 above;
Chaney et al. further teaches wherein the second set of wheels (360) engage the ground surface (as seen in Figure 3) when the drawer is extended from the main body. (Wherein Chaney et al. teaches “Further, wheels 360 are preferably sized and positioned such that their outer circumference is flush with exterior surface 340 of base 135 of outer housing 115. This enables cooler 100 to remain level when positioned on a substantially flat surface regardless of the position of the inner housing 120 relative to the outer housing 115”). (Fig. 3; [0041])
Regarding Claim 20, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 16 above; the drawer further comprising a latch assembly, the latch assembly comprising a latch extending from the drawer to engage the main body and resist movement of the drawer relative to the main body.
Chaney et al. further teaches the drawer (120) further comprising a latch assembly (385), the latch assembly (385) comprising a latch (385) extending from the drawer (120) to engage (at 470) the main body (115) and resist movement of the drawer (120) relative to the main body (110). (Figs. 4, 5, and 11; [0048]-[0049])
11. Claims 9, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney et al. (US 20110226003 A1), in view of Hoppe et al. (US 20170166352 A1), further in view of Cohen (US 20050145458 A1), and further in view of Van Hooreweder et al. (US 5147019 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; further comprising a brake coupled to the main body, wherein the brake is configured to engage a ground surface such that the brake resists movement of the wheels coupled to the main body.
Van Hooreweder et al. further teaches a brake (30) coupled to a main body (10), wherein the brake (30) is configured to engage a ground surface (via leg 42a) such that the brake resists movement of the wheels (12) coupled to the main body (10).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take a mobile utility module as taught by Chaney et al., modified above, and provide for a brake as taught by Van Hooreweder et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a brake for the mobile utility module in order to inhibit the motion of the module when the user desires for it to be stationary.
Regarding Claim 11, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 10 above except; further comprising a brake coupled to the main body, wherein the brake is configured to engage a ground surface such that the brake resists movement of the first set of wheels.
Van Hooreweder et al. further teaches a brake (30) coupled to a main body (10), wherein the brake (30) is configured to engage a ground surface (via leg 42a) such that the brake resists movement of the wheels (12) coupled to the main body (10).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take a mobile utility module as taught by Chaney et al., modified above, and provide for a brake as taught by Van Hooreweder et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a brake for the mobile utility module in order to inhibit the motion of the module when the user desires for it to be stationary.
Regarding Claim 19, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 16 above except; further comprising a brake coupled to the main body, wherein the brake extends from the main body to engage a ground surface to resist movement of the first set of wheels.
Van Hooreweder et al. further teaches a brake (30) coupled to a main body (10), wherein the brake (30) is configured to engage a ground surface (via leg 42a) such that the brake resists movement of the wheels (12) coupled to the main body (10).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take a mobile utility module as taught by Chaney et al., modified above, and provide for a brake as taught by Van Hooreweder et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a brake for the mobile utility module in order to inhibit the motion of the module when the user desires for it to be stationary.
12. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney et al. (US 20110226003 A1), in view of Hoppe et al. (US 20170166352 A1), further in view of Cohen (US 20050145458 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rodriguez (US 20210393007 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Chaney et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 10 above except; wherein the locking assembly further comprises a latch that engages an inner surface of the cavity to resist movement of the drawer.
Rodriguez further teaches wherein a locking assembly (30) further comprises a latch (40) that engages an inner surface of the cavity (80) to resist movement of the drawer (20). (Wherein Rodriguez teaches “The latches (40) are preferably present on at least two sides (50) of each drawer (20), and are configured to bind against sides of the body (10) to ensure adequate security”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to the mobile utility module, modified above, and substitute the exterior latches for interior latches as taught by Rodriguez. Wherein using simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; one would be motivated to substitute exterior latches for interior latches, in order to conceal the latching mechanism within the mobile utility system.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 13-14 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.
14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
15. Regarding Claim 13, Chaney et al. (US 20110226003 A1), in view of Hoppe et al. (US 20170166352 A1), further in view of Cohen (US 20050145458 A1), is considered the most relevant prior art of record. The prior art of record does not teach:
Wherein the second set of wheels are movable between the storage position in which the second set of wheels are adjacent to a bottom surface of the drawer and the deployed position in which the second set of wheels are extended away from the bottom surface of the drawer.
Since the prior art of record does not teach wheels deployable away from the bottom surface of a mobile utility system drawer, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
a. Lee et al. (KR 20170056946 A), teaches a multi-functioning travel bag.
b. Fales (US 1281923 A), teaches a storage cabinet.
17. 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR E 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R CAUDILL whose telephone number is (303)297-4349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30 MT.
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, NATHAN JENNESS can be reached on (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JUSTIN CAUDILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 10 April 2026
Prosecution Insights