DETAILED ACTION
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 1-8 of this application are subject to examination.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Huang”
US Publication No. 2015/0084293 A1
“Huang et al.”
US Publication No. 2019/0200766 A1
“Lensing”
US Publication No. 2005/0161894 A1
“O’Donnell”
US Patent No. 10,328,570 B1
“Rogge et al.”
US Publication No. 2025/0083299 A1
Claim Construction in Examination
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Examiner’s Claim Construction
The following claim limitations are construed by the examiner to aid in examination:
Claim Limitation:
fixing device (claim 1)
Examiner’s Construction:
a pin that is movable into and out of engagement with a hole, and art-recognized equivalents thereof
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “device” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The corresponding structure identified in the specification is a pin that is movable into and out of engagement with a hole. A “fixing device” with essentially the same structure is illustrated in Fig. 8 of Huang and in Figs. 7-8 of Huang et al. Thus, the claimed “fixing device” is conventional.
Claim Limitation:
securing device (claim 1)
Examiner’s Construction:
a pin, tenon or bolt that is movable into and out of engagement with a hole, and art-recognized equivalents thereof
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “device” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The corresponding structure identified in the specification is a pin, tenon or bolt that is movable into and out of engagement with a hole. A “securing device” with essentially the same structure is illustrated in Fig. 8 of Huang and in Figs. 7-8 of Huang et al. Thus, the claimed “securing device” is conventional.
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.
GROUND 1: Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “each said engaging hole is fixedly engageable with the fixing device on the one of the long lateral sides of the frame” (ll. 18-19). This subject matter is indefinite because:
It encompasses a configuration in which the fixing device is engageable with plural engaging holes at the same time. Such a definition of the invention does not conform to the description of the invention in applicant’s specification. Applicant’s fixing device selectively engages one of the engaging holes depending upon the pivotal position of the platform.
The phrase “fixedly engageable” fails to accurately characterize the disclosed “fixing device” that is movable into and out of engagement with one of the engaging holes. Such a movable and releasable coupling member is distinct from a coupling member that “fixedly” couples components.
In claim 2, the term “a said securing device” (l. 7) is indefinite because the meaning of the article “a” contradicts the meaning of the article “said”. It is unclear whether this term refers back to a previously introduced securing device, or whether it is intended to introduce a new securing device that is the same as or similar to a previously introduced securing device.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
Suggested Amendments
In order to overcome the above rejection, the examiner suggests the following amendments:
In claim 1, amend “and each said engaging hole is fixedly engageable with the fixing device on the one of the long lateral sides of the frame” (ll. 18-19) to read “the fixing device engages a first one of the engaging holes when the platform is rotated to a first position, and the fixing device engages a second one of the engaging holes when the platform is rotated to a second position”.
In claim 2, change “a said securing device” (l. 7) to “a respective one of the securing devices”.
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
O’Donnell teaches a creeper having casters mounted on a rotatable bracket such that the casters can be rotated to and secured in two different positions.
Rogge et al. teaches a creeper with a platform that is releasably attached to a frame and casters that are releasably attached to legs extending from the frame. The creeper is converted from a raised position to a lowered position by inverting the frame, removing the platform and casters, and reattaching the platform and casters to respective opposite sides of the frame.
Lensing teaches a creeper with casters attached to legs extending from a frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if claims 1 and 2 are amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach a dual-purpose garage creeper, as defined in claim 1, including the following combination of claimed features: a securing device provided on each supporting leg; each caster base comprises a rotating portion pivotally provided on and able to be inverted with respect to a corresponding supporting leg, each said rotating portion is provided with two protruding blocks, each protruding block is provided with an engaging hole, the platform is pivotally provided on the frame via two pivot shafts and is rotatable about a rotation axis defined by the two pivot shafts, the platform has two opposite long lateral sides each provided with an engaging hole, and a fixing device provided on one of the long lateral sides of the frame is engageable (selectively) with each engaging hole.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to because:
In ¶ 0021, “The slanting extension of the slanting section 22” (ll. 15-16) is confusing and inconsistent with the rest of the description of the supporting legs 20. The section 22 is described as a slanting section (not an “extension”) whereas the section 23 is described as an extending section.
In ¶ 0024, “supporting legs 40” (l. 3) should read “supporting legs 20”.
In ¶ 0025, “to bring each securing device 24 out of engagement with the corresponding extending sections 23” (ll. 2-3) fails to accurately describe the structure illustrated in Fig. 7. The securing device 24 is not brought out of engagement with the extending section 23. Rather, the securing device 24 is brought out of engagement with the engaging hole 33 in one of the protruding blocks 32.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this application should be directed:
By Patent Center1: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail2 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 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).
2 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights