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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 1, 6-7, and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-4, and 6-10 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Drawings have overcome every objection to the drawings set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 5/28/25.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome every objection to the claims previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 5/28/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has argued Major et al. (U.S. 2,800,336) does not disclose a clip “disposed on the frame” as required in amended claim 1 (see Remarks field 11/26/25, Page 10). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because Major discloses a frame at elements 10, 15, and 16 (elements 10, 15, and 16 are collectively a type of frame as shown in Figs. 1-4 and as described in Col. 2, Lines 5-14 and 21-30) and further discloses clips at elements 25 (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the two groups of element 25 shown in Figs. 2-4 are each types of clips as shown and as described at Col. 2, Lines 59-66 and Col. 3, Lines 4-6) which are disposed on frame (10, 15, 16)(see Figs. 2-4 and Col. 2, Lines 60-62). Therefore, Major discloses the limitations of claim 1 in question and the argument regarding the amended limitation of claim 1 is not found persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has argued Major et al. (U.S. 2,800,336) does not disclose “wherein an orientation of the wheels is changeable by a movement of the tiller while the transporting apparatus is in motion” as required in amended claim 1 (see Remarks field 11/26/25, Page 11). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because the limitation in question is anticipated by Major. Major discloses a transporting apparatus (Figs. 1-4) with wheels (3, 14, wheel assemblies - Col. 2, Line 22) and a tiller arm (23, 24 (elements 23 and 24 are collectively a type of tiller arm as shown in Figs. 1-4 and as described in Col. 2, Line 40 - Col. 3, Line 21)). Major further discloses wherein an orientation of the wheels (13, 14) is changeable by a movement of the tiller (23, 24) while the transporting apparatus (Figs. 1-4) is in motion as the structure of elements 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 is shown and described (in Figs. 1-4 and Col. 2, Line 40 - Col. 3, Line 21) as orientating elements 13, 14 by element 23, 24 and this is inherently capable of occurring when the apparatus of Figs. 1-4 is motion while transporting elements as per its intended function (described in Col. 1, Lines 15-18) or could happen even if the assembly of Figs. 1-4 is itself stationary but on a moving platform such as a trailer which was in motion. Furthermore, elements 13 and 14 are part of the apparatus of Figs. 1-4, and the described rotation of wheels 13, 14 through the ninety degrees (see Figs. 3 and 4 and specifically Col. 2, Lines 67-72) is itself a motion and meets the limitation in question as orientation of elements 13, 14 is shown/described changeable by movement of element 23, 24 (see Figs. 1-4 and Col. 2, Line 49 - Col. 3., Line 21) and this occurs while elements 13, 14 are themselves motion to reach the orientations. Therefore, Major discloses the limitations of claim 1 in question and the argument regarding the amended limitation of claim 1 is not found persuasive.
Applicant has argued claims 2-10 are allowable for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1 (see Remarks filed 11/26/25, Pages 11-12). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “the tiller” in lines 13-14 should be --the tiller arm--.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Major et al. (U.S. 2,800,336).
Re claim 1:
Major discloses a transporting apparatus (Figs. 1-4) for transporting materials or objects (Col. 1, Lines 15-18), including:
a frame (10, framework structure - Col. 2, Line 6; 16, members (for bracing) - Col. 2, Lines 28-30; 15, platform - Col. 2, Line 28 (elements 10, 15, and 16 are collectively a type of frame as shown in Figs. 1-4 and as described in Col. 2, Lines 5-14 and 21-30));
a handle (11, handle grips - Col. 2, Line 9) fixed to the frame (10, 15, 16)(see Fig. 1 and Col. 2, Lines 5-9);
an axle assembly (17, 18, U-shaped journal brackets - Col. 2, Line 33; 26, pivotal mount - Col. 2, Lines 21-22 (elements 17, 18, and 26 are collectively a type of axle assembly as shown in Figs. 1-4));
wheels (13, 14, wheel assemblies - Col. 2, Line 22);
a base plate (12, lifting board - Col. 2, Line 10) for supporting the materials during transport (see Fig. 1 and Col. 2, Lines 9-14);
a steering apparatus (19, 20, operating arms - Col. 2, Line 35; 21, 22, connecting links - Col. 2, Lines 38-39; 23, control bar - Col. 2, Line 43; 24, control lever - Col. 2, Line 46 (elements 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are collectively a type of steering apparatus as shown in Figs. 1-4 and as described in Col. 2, Line 31 - Col. 3, Line 21));
a tiller arm (23, 24 (elements 23 and 24 are collectively a type of tiller arm as shown in Figs. 1-4 and as described in Col. 2, Line 40 - Col. 3, Line 21)) for controlling the steering apparatus (19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)(see Figs. 1-4 and Col. 2, Line 40 - Col. 3, Line 21), the tiller arm (23, 24) spaced from sides (see Fig. 1 at element 10) of the frame (10, 15, 16)(see Figs. 1-4) and independently moveable from the frame (10, 15, 16)(see Figs. 1-4 and Col. 2, Line 40 - Col. 3, Line 21) and pivotable about pivot points (see Figs. 2-4 at 33 and 34 (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize types of pivot points are shown at elements 33 and 34)) on the steering apparatus (19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)(see Figs. 2-4 and Col. 2, Lines 40-48), the steering apparatus (19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24) operable both when the transporting apparatus is moving or stationary (see Figs. 1-4 and Col. 2, Lines 49 - Col. 3, Line 21) wherein an orientation of the wheels (13, 14) is changeable by a movement of the tiller (23, 24) while the transporting apparatus is in motion (see Figs. 1-4 and Col. 2, Line 49 - Col. 3, Line 21 (structure of elements 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 is shown and described inherently capable of orientating elements 13, 14 by element 23, 24 when the apparatus of Figs. 1-4 is in motion, and further as elements 13 and 14 are part of the apparatus of Figs. 1-4, the described rotation of wheels 13, 14 through the ninety degrees (see Figs. 3 and 4 and specifically Col. 2, Lines 67-72) is itself a motion and meets the limitation as orientation of elements 13, 14 is shown/described changeable by movement of element 23, 24 (see Figs. 1-4 and Col. 2, Line 49 - Col. 3., Line 21) and this occurs while elements 13, 14 are in motion); and
a clip (see Figs. 3-4 at 25 (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the two groups of element 25 shown in Figs. 2-4 are each types of clips as shown and as described at Col. 2, Lines 59-66 and Col. 3, Lines 4-6)), disposed on the frame (10, 15, 16)(see Figs. 2-4 and Col. 2, Lines 60-62), to reversibly engage the tiller arm (23, 24) in fixed reversible engagement with the frame (10, 15, 16)(see Figs. 2-4 and Col. 2, Lines 59-66 and Col. 3, Lines 4-6).
Re claim 2:
Major discloses the transporting apparatus (Figs. 1-4) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the steering apparatus (19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24) incorporates track rods (21, 22, connecting links - Col. 2, Lines 38-39) pivotable about spaced pivot points (31, 32 (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize elements 31 and 32 as types of spaced pivot points as shown in Figs. 3-4)) on the tiller arm (23, 24)(see Figs. 3-4).
Re claim 3:
Major discloses the transporting apparatus (Figs. 1-4) of claim 2 (as described above), wherein the steering apparatus (19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24) includes a rotating bar (23)(see Figs. 3-4).
Re claim 4:
Major discloses the transporting apparatus (Figs. 1-4) of claim 3 (as described above), wherein the rotating bar (23) engages the track rods (21, 22)(see Figs. 2-4).
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.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major et al. (U.S. 2,800,336), as applied to claims 4-5 above, in view of Konopa (U.S. 2008/0315541).
Re claims 6, 8, and 9:
Major discloses the transporting apparatus (Figs. 1-4) of claim 4 (as described above).
Major fails to disclose the apparatus further comprising a motor for propulsion (claim 6), nor wherein the motor is electric (claim 8), nor wherein the electricity is provided by a battery (claim 9).
Konopa teaches a transporting apparatus (10, motorized, wheel-driven, snowmobile cart - Para 120) comprising a motor (100a, 100b, motors - Para 126) for propulsion (see Fig. 1 and Para 126), wherein the motor is electric (Para 128 - "... motor 100 is ... powered by means of a battery pack 410...known ways of powering a motor, such as the gear motor used in this example. Gas, electric..."), and wherein the electricity is provided by a battery (410, battery pack - Para 128)(see Fig. 4 and Para 128).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the transporting apparatus of Major after that of Konopa (thereby including electric motor with a battery pack for propulsion in the transporting apparatus of Major in the way taught by Konopa) for the advantage of making moving of a loaded cart easy (Konopa; Para 126).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 7:
Major discloses the transporting apparatus (Figs. 1-4) of claim 5 (as described above), further incorporating a wheel bracket (17, 18) for the wheels (13, 14)(see Figs. 1-4).
Major fails to disclose wherein the wheel bracket engages the motor.
Konopa teaches a transporting apparatus (10, motorized, wheel-driven, snowmobile cart - Para 120) incorporating a bracket (Modified Fig. 3a above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of bracket for mounting element 50a as shown in Figs. 3a-3b and as described in Para 127)) for wheels (50z, wheel - Para 57) and the wheel bracket (Modified Fig. 3a above - A) engages a motor (100a, 100b, motors - Para 126)(see Figs. 3a-3b and Para 127).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the bracket of Major after that of Konopa (thereby including a motor to be engaged with the bracket of Major in the way taught by Konopa) for the advantage of making moving of a loaded cart easy (Konopa; Para 126).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major et al. (U.S. 2,800,336) in view of Konopa (U.S. 2008/0315541), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Menard (U.S. 2007/0269300).
Re claim 10:
Major/Konopa teaches the transporting apparatus (Major; Figs. 1-4) of claim 9 (as described above).
Major/Konopa fails to disclose or teach wherein the battery is rechargeable.
Menard teaches wherein a battery (56, battery pack - Para 22) is rechargeable (Para 22 - "... battery pack 56 comprises a 28V lithium-ion battery that may be detached and recharged...").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the battery of Major/Konopa after that of Menard (thereby making the battery of Major/Konopa rechargeable in the way taught by Menard) for the advantage of a battery which can be detached and recharged (Menard; Para 22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 12/5/25