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 2-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: The preambles state “The platform of claim […]” while the preamble of independent claim 1 states “A modular work or storage platform […]”. 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the third side member" in the . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should read “the third member” as previously introduced in claim 12, or the structure should have been introduced as “a third side member”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 16-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Furniss (US 10668870 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Furniss teaches a modular work or storage platform for mounting to a vehicle chassis or trailer comprising: a superstructure (Fig. 10 element 102) formed from a plurality of module portions operably secured to one another, at least two of the plurality of module portions each have a top (Shown in Fig. 7), the tops combining to form a top surface of the superstructure (Fig. 10 element 103).
Regarding Claim 2, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the tops that combine to form a top surface of the superstructure, the top surface configured to support a riding lawn mower (Fig. 10 element 103).
Regarding Claim 3, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses each of the plurality of module portions includes a same mounting structure for attachment of functional elements to the super structure (Fig. 8 shows the mounting structure the same for each module).
Regarding Claim 4, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 3 and further discloses the mounting structure includes a plurality of rows of mounting apertures, each row of the plurality of rows of mounting apertures includes at least one aperture in each of the plurality of module portions (Apertures shown in fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 5, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 4 and further discloses the rows of mounting apertures extend generally parallel to a center line of the superstructure that may be generally parallel to a center line of a truck or trailer frame to which the superstructure is mounted (Rows of apertures shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 6, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 3 and further discloses at least one functional element include one or more of the following: racks, cabinets, enclosures, dump bins, ladders, shelves, ramps and/or drawers (Drawers shown in Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 7, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses at least one of the plurality of module portions is generally cuboid in shape and has a central storage region that is accessible from a side of the superstructure when the super structure is attached to a vehicle or trailer (Fig. 10 shows the side access to the cuboid shaped modules).
Regarding Claim 8, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 7 and further discloses a door attached to the module portion to selectively close the central storage region (Fig. 10 element 106).
Regarding Claim 9, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses each of the module portions are independently formed from one another (Fig. 10 shows modules not monolithic structures).
Regarding Claim 10, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses each of at least two adjacent module portions define a central storage region, the central storage regions being separated by a same wall portion (Fig. 10 central storage region below element 103).
Regarding Claim 11, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses at least one of the plurality of module portions is generally cuboid in shape and has a central region that is accessible from a side of the superstructure when the super structure is attached to a vehicle or trailer (Fig. 10 element 106).
Regarding Claim 12, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the plurality of module portions includes a first module portion and a second module portion; the first module portion having a first top, a first bottom, and a first side member, the first top attaches to a top end of the first side member, the first bottom attached to a bottom end of the first side member in spaced apart fashion; the second module portion having a second top, a second bottom, and a second side member, the second top attaches to a top end of the second side member, the second bottom attached to a bottom end of the second side member in spaced apart fashion; a third member is connected to the first and second tops and is connected to the first and second bottom (Fig. 10 shows module portions having top and bottom members coupled together in spaced apart fashions).
Regarding Claim 16, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses a backbone mounted underneath the superstructure and providing additional rigidity to the superstructure (Fig. 10 elements 115).
Regarding Claim 17, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 16 and further discloses the backbone is configured to mount to the chassis of a vehicle or to the frame of a trailer (Shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 18, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the superstructure is mounted to a backbone, the backbone includes a first longitudinally extending trunk and a second longitudinally extending trunk extending parallel to the first longitudinally extending trunk, and the backbone includes a plurality of laterally extending ladder braces attached at a first end to the first trunk and at a second end to the second trunk (Fig. 10 left and right elements 115 have longitudinal elements and lateral elements).
Regarding Claim 19, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 18 and further discloses one of the ladder braces is aligned with an interface between two adjacent module portions (Shown in Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 21, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 3 and further discloses the mounting structures are formed in a raised portion of the module portions (Shown in Fig. 10).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furniss (US 10668870 B2) in view of Preiss (US 6550837 B1).
Regarding Claim 13, Furniss teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12.
Furniss fails to explicitly teach the first side member is a C-beam and the third side member is an I-beam.
However, Preiss teaches the first side member is a C-beam and the third side member is an I-beam (Fig. 5 shows end caps of modules having c-beams, forming I-beams when coupled).
Furniss and Preiss are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of modular vehicle storage. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connecting structures of Furniss to be the C/I-beams as disclosed by Preiss. Doing so would provide a secure structure and connection between the modules. C/I-beams are known in the art to be used in framing and connection structures and are not considered novel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights