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
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “having a hollow interior portions” appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-6 and 13-14 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. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Stating that the members are “of the type known as” does not further limit the claim in any substantive way.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehmeyer (US Pat. No. 4,715,474) in view of Ballou (US Pat. No. 3,676,972).
Regarding claim 1, Wehmeyer discloses a scaffolding cart, comprising a first end frame, the first end frame being substantially rectangular with four first corner portions, the first end frame comprising two first casters joined to the first end frame at two of the first corner portions, and four first connection members, each of the four first connection members located near one of the four first corner portions; a second end frame, the second end frame being substantially rectangular with four second corner portions, the second end frame comprising two second casters joined to the second end frame at two of the second corner portions, and four second connection members, each of the four second connection members located near one of the four second corner portions; and the first end frame and the second end frame being removably connected by a first scaffolding member and a second scaffolding member, wherein the first scaffolding member connectively engages two of the first connection members and two of the second connection members (see annotated fig below).
PNG
media_image1.png
697
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wehmeyer does not specifically disclose the second scaffolding member connectively engages two of the first connection members and two of the second connection members.
However, at least Ballou discloses first and second scaffolding members, where the second scaffolding member connectively engages two of the first connection members and two of the second connection members (at least fig annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
774
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a similar first and second scaffolding member arrangement on both sides to provide increased stability.
Regarding claim 3, Wehmeyer discloses wherein one of either the first end frame and the second end frame further comprises a handle for manually moving the scaffolding cart (any of rungs 18 may be used as a handle for manually moving the cart).
Regarding claim 9, Wehmeyer discloses wherein the scaffolding cart is a rectangular cuboid- shaped structure (at least fig 1).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehmeyer and Ballou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tatge (US Pub. No. 2003/0178253).
Regarding claim 2, Wehmeyer and Ballou disclose the invention except for specifically pointing out wherein one of the first casters and one of the second casters are fixed.
However, at least Tatge discloses the casters as lockable (see at least fig 1, para 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the technique of locking or fixed casters, since stability is of utmost importance to scaffolding units for safety and if wheels or casters are to be applied to the base for transport, it is essential to provide a means for locking or fixing their rotation during use to prevent unwanted movement which may result in injury.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehmeyer and Ballou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benson (US Pat. No. 8,590,921).
Regarding claim 4, Wehmeyer and Ballou disclose the invention except for specifically pointing out wherein one of either the first end frame and the second end frame further comprises a hitch member hingedly attached.
However, at least Benson discloses a cart wherein one of either the first end frame and the second end frame further comprises a hitch member hingedly attached (at least figs 1 and 5A, col 5, lines 34-43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the hitch technique of Benson since it would have provided a means to easily transport a heavy scaffolding cart by connection to a towing vehicle.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehmeyer and Ballou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wyse (US Pat. No. 5,152,371).
Regarding claim 8, Wehmeyer and Ballou do not specifically disclose further comprising a scaffolding board, the scaffolding board having a first end resting the first end frame and a second end resting on the second end frame.
However, at least Wyse discloses further comprising a scaffolding board, the scaffolding board having a first end resting the first end frame and a second end resting on the second end frame (at least 20 of fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the technique of boards resting on opposing ends of the frame, since such arrangement is well-known in the art of scaffolding and since it would distribute the load and provide a large working area for the operators as well as add rigidity to the frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 15-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art when taken alone or in combination does not appear to teach or fairly suggest at this time the combination of limitations of A scaffolding cart, comprising, a first end frame, the first end frame having four first corner portions, the first end frame comprising two first casters joined to the first end frame at two of the first corner portions, and four first scaffolding pins, each of the four first scaffolding pins joined to one of the four first corner portions; a second end frame, the second end frame having four second corner portions, the second end frame comprising two second casters joined to the second end frame at two of the second corner portions, and four second scaffolding pins, each of the four second scaffolding pins joined to one of the four second corner portions; the first end frame and the second end frame being removably connected by a first scaffolding member and a second scaffolding member, wherein the first scaffolding member connectively engages two of the first scaffolding pins and two of the second scaffolding pins and the second scaffolding member connectively engages two of the first scaffolding pins and two of the second scaffolding pins; and a hitch member hingedly attached to the first end frame. At least Reinoso ‘662 discloses a scaffolding unit with end frames and connecting members that engage the end frames (see figs). At least Weymeyer ‘474 discloses a scaffolding cart having casters at the lower end of the frame tubes (at least fig 1). And as noted above, Benson ‘921 discloses a rectangular cuboid cart with a folding hitch (see discussion above). However, it appears to Examiner that it would be impermissible hindsight to combine these references to attempt to teach A scaffolding cart, comprising, a first end frame, the first end frame having four first corner portions, the first end frame comprising two first casters joined to the first end frame at two of the first corner portions, and four first scaffolding pins, each of the four first scaffolding pins joined to one of the four first corner portions; a second end frame, the second end frame having four second corner portions, the second end frame comprising two second casters joined to the second end frame at two of the second corner portions, and four second scaffolding pins, each of the four second scaffolding pins joined to one of the four second corner portions; the first end frame and the second end frame being removably connected by a first scaffolding member and a second scaffolding member, wherein the first scaffolding member connectively engages two of the first scaffolding pins and two of the second scaffolding pins and the second scaffolding member connectively engages two of the first scaffolding pins and two of the second scaffolding pins; and a hitch member hingedly attached to the first end frame.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB B MEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-7.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached at 303.297.4337. 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.
JACOB B. MEYER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3613
/JACOB B MEYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights