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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-11 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 recites “two planar panel portions, a proximal planar portion and a distal planar end portion” in line 11. It is not clear whether this limitation requires two total planar portion or four total planar portions.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of castors positioned on each side beam, a forward castor on each of said at least five castors being a swivel castor, a rearward castor on each side beam being a non-swivel castor” in lines 15-16. It is not clear how many total castors are required.
Claims 2-11 are dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the add-on bed region” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 4 recites “the forward ends of the add-on dolly’s side beams” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 5 recites “the connection means” and “the forward ends of the add-on dolly’s side beams” which lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 7 recites “the pair of beams” but it is not clear to which beams the Applicant is referring.
Claim 8 recites “the pair of lead dolly beams” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 10 recites “the length” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
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 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poudrier (US 10,981,588 B1).
Consider claim 32. Poudrier teaches a high capacity dolly system comprising a forward dolly (at left side of fig. 3) and a rearward dolly (at right side of fig. 3), each dolly having a pair of side beams (14) with a recessed platform (66) extending therebetween, each side beam supporting a respective plurality of wheels (28), wherein the forward dolly and rearward dolly are connectable to form an extended bed defined by the recessed platform of the forward dolly and the recessed platform of the rearward dolly (see fig. 4), wherein the forward dolly has a tow bar (16) attached or attachable thereto for towing the connected forward and rearward dolly.
Consider claim 33. Poudrier teaches that the forward dolly has a forward crossing member (18) extending between the pair of side beams positioned above the recessed platform of the forward dolly and the rearward dolly has open ends (open top and bottom, see fig. 4).
Consider claim 34. Poudrier teaches that each of the platforms of the forward dolly and the rearward dolly comprising a pair of spaced apart horizontal plates (66).
Consider claim 35. Poudrier teaches that the forward dolly is connectable to the rearward dolly by a pair of pins (58) inserted into a pair of respective pin access openings (38).
Consider claim 36. Poudrier teaches that the pins inserted into the respective pin access openings define a pair of hinges (see fig. 6).
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 12 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poudrier (US 10,981,588 B1).
Consider claim 12. Poudrier teaches a high capacity dolly system comprising: a pair of side beam arrangements (14); a forward crossing portion (16) connecting respective forward ends of the pair of side beams; a bed platform system (66) spanning between the pair of side beam arrangements.
Poudrier does not explicitly teach the size of the side beam arrangements. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Poudrier’s side beam arrangements to have a length of at least 10 feet and to be spaced apart from one another by at least by about 2.4 feet, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Please see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). One would have been motivated to change the size of the side beam arrangements in order to adapt the dolly system to handle an article of a different size.
Poudrier does not explicitly teach that each of the side beam arrangements has at least seven castors. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify each of Poudrier’s side beam arrangements to have at least seven castors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). One would have been motivated to duplicate Poudrier’s castors in order to reduce ground pressure of the wheels or to support a heavier load.
Poudrier’s dolly system is capable of moving aircraft weighing in excess of 50,000 pounds and having a pair of landing gears with tandem wheels. Please see MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus claims and MPEP 2115 regarding article worked upon by an apparatus.
Consider claim 29. Poudrier teaches that the dolly system comprises a forward dolly (at left side of fig. 3) and a rearward dolly (at right side of fig. 3) connectable and disconnectable from each other (via 58), the forward and rearward dollies each having a respective pair of side beams (14).
Consider claim 30. Poudrier teaches that the forward and rearward dollies are connectable at a rearward end of the side beams of the forward dolly and at a forward end of the pair of side beams of the rearward dolly (via 58, see figs. 3 and 4).
Consider claim 31. Poudrier teaches that rearward ends of the side beams of the forward dolly are in an abutting relationship with forward ends of the side beams of the rearward dolly (see fig. 4).
Conclusion
There are currently no prior art rejections for claims 1-11.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The attached PTO-892 lists references which teach various dolly systems having beams, platforms, ramps, and/or casters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights