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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/4/26 has been entered. Claim 5 has been canceled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-4, and 6-10 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/5/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Major et al. (U.S. 2,800,336), Applicant argues Major does not disclose “the steering apparatus operable both when the transporting apparatus is moving or stationary wherein an orientation of the wheels is changeable by a movement of the tiller arm while the transporting apparatus is in motion” because “Major requires bending over to move the tiller by hand or balancing on one foot to move it by foot” and in either case “it is not possible to continue moving the trolley while changing the orientation of the wheels” (see Remarks filed 6/4/26, Pages 5-11). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because the limitation “the steering apparatus operable both when the transporting apparatus is moving or stationary wherein an orientation of the wheels is changeable by a movement of the tiller arm while the transporting apparatus is in motion” is a functional limitation and is met by all devices that are capable of performing the recited function (MPEP 2114). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an operator would be capable of bending over and moving element 24 of Major with one hand while the other hand was holding the handle 11; and further because a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an operator would be capable of standing on one foot, moving the position of element 24 of Major with the other foot, and rolling and moving the apparatus with their hands on handles 11. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the steering apparatus of Major is operable both when the transporting apparatus is moving or stationary wherein an orientation of the wheels of Major is changeable by a movement of the tiller arm of Major while the transporting apparatus of Major is in motion because there is nothing in the claim that would prevent this functional limitation from being performed by multiple people. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that one person could be holding and moving the apparatus of Major by the handles 11 while another person was using element 24 of Major to move and steer the wheels of Major. 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. The limitation “the steering apparatus operable both when the transporting apparatus is moving or stationary wherein an orientation of the wheels is changeable by a movement of the tiller arm while the transporting apparatus is in motion” is a functional limitation and is met by all devices that are capable of performing the recited function (MPEP 2114), and as Major has been shown capable of performing the claimed limitation, Applicant’s arguments directed at this limitation are not found persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Major et al. (U.S. 2,800,336), Applicant argues “Major does not disclose a tiller arm, having a tiller arm handle proximate operationally to the handle fixed to the frame, for controlling the steering apparatus, wherein the tiller arm extends from the base plate generally up along the frame (see Remarks filed 6/4/26, Page 11). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Major discloses a tiller arm (23, 24), having a tiller arm handle (24) proximate operationally to the handle (11) fixed to the frame (10, 15, 16)(see Figs. 1-4 (element 24 is shown proximate operationally to element 11 which fixed to element 10, 15, and 16 as shown in Fig. 1 and as described in Col. 2, Lines 5-9)), for controlling the steering apparatus (19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)(see Figs. 1-4 and Col. 2, Line 40 - Col. 3, Line 21), wherein the tiller arm (23, 24) extends from the base plate (12) generally up along the frame (10, 15, 16)(see Figs. 1 and 4). In Figs. 1-4, element 23/24 is shown extending from element 12 and extending up and along element 10/15/16 consistent with the claimed invention when viewed in light of the specification. Support for the limitation in question is found in Figs. 1-5 of the instant disclosure where element 3 (the claimed tiller arm) is shown with a tiller arm handle (not numbered but shown at the upper end of element 3) which is proximate element 10 (the clamed handle fixed to frame 11); and the unlabeled handle at the end of element 3 is shown extending from element 1 (the claimed base plate) generally up and along element 11 (the claimed frame). Consistent with this, Major shows a tiller arm (elements 23, and 24) with a handle (element 24) which is proximate element 11 (see Fig. 1 where element 24 is shown proximate element 11); and element 23/24 is shown in Figs. 1-4 (especially Figs. 1 and 2) extending from element 12 generally up and along elements 10/15/16. Therefore, Major discloses the limitations in question and Applicant’s arguments directed at this limitation are not found persuasive and the rejection is maintained .
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Major et al. (U.S. 2,800,336), Applicant argues “Major does not disclose a clip, disposed on the frame, to reversibly engage the tiller arm in fixed reversible engagement with the frame” because “Applicant asserts that element 25 is a stud” and “not a clip” (see Remarks filed 6/4/26, Page 11). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant has not given a special definition to “clip” and therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the plain meaning of the word will be relied upon (MPEP 2173.01 I). Webster’s Dictionary defines “clip” as “any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook (“clip.” Merriam-Webster.com Merriam-Webster 2026. Web. 15 June 2026). Major discloses “To lock the wheel assemblies in the above described position there are provided a plurality of studs 25 which extend upwardly from the upper surface of the platform 15 which releasably engage the control lever 24 with sufficient force to prevent undesired movements thereof caused by force applied through the wheel assemblies 13 and 14, but which permit ready manipulation of the control lever by the hand or foot of a truck handler.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize elements 25 of Major, based on this description, as a type of device that grips/clasps and thereby as a type of clip. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Major discloses the limitations in question and Applicant’s arguments directed at this limitation are not found persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
With regards to the position that the apparatus of Major is inherently capable of performing the limitation “wherein an orientation of the wheels is changeable by a movement of the tiller arm while the transporting apparatus is in motion” Applicant has argued “Major makes clear that the hand truck is not capable of orientation of the wheels by movement of the tiller while the transporting apparatus is in motion” because Major discloses that “One of the important advantages of the invention resides in the fact that the control lever 24 for manipulating the wheel assemblies may be readily shifted by the foot of the truck handler, without impairing his grip upon the truck, while at the same time the wheel assemblies are substantially self-locking in one position against movement caused by forces imparted to the wheel assemblies during normal use of the truck” (see Remarks filed 6/4/26, Pages 11-12). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because this passage of Major is not evidence of the only capabilities of Major as Major states “the control lever 24 for manipulating the wheel assemblies may be readily shifted by the foot of the truck handler, without impairing his grip upon the truck” and “the wheel assemblies are substantially self-locking in one position against movement caused by forces imparted to the wheel assemblies during normal use of the truck”. As described above:
a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an operator would be capable of bending over and moving element 24 of Major with one hand while the other hand was holding the handle 11;
a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an operator would be capable of standing on one foot, moving the position of element 24 of Major with the other foot, and rolling and moving the apparatus with their hands on handles 11;
a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that one person could be holding and moving the apparatus of Major by the handles 11 while another person was using element 24 of Major to move and steer the wheels of Major;
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.
The limitation “the steering apparatus operable both when the transporting apparatus is moving or stationary wherein an orientation of the wheels is changeable by a movement of the tiller arm while the transporting apparatus is in motion” is a functional limitation and is met by all devices that are capable of performing the recited function (MPEP 2114), and as Major has been shown capable of performing the claimed limitation, Applicant’s arguments directed at this limitation are not found persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
With regards to the position that the apparatus of Major is inherently capable of performing the limitation “wherein an orientation of the wheels is changeable by a movement of the tiller arm while the transporting apparatus is in motion” Applicant has argued “Major discloses this the hand truck is self-locking, reinforcing the notion that the hand truck is not capable of orientation of the wheels by movement of the tiller while the transporting apparatus is in motion” pointing to Col 3, lines 10-21 of Major (see Remarks filed 6/4/26, Pages 11-13). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because this passage of Major is not evidence of the only capabilities of Major sating “In this manner the linkage is substantially self-locking” and “if desired the linkage may be rearranged by repositioning the arms 19 and 20 relative to the wheel assemblies 13 and 14 to provide the self locking condition when the wheel assemblies are oriented in other directions”.
a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an operator would be capable of bending over and moving element 24 of Major with one hand while the other hand was holding the handle 11, and that this would be capable of overcoming the “self-locking” mode described at Col. 3, Lines 10-21;
a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an operator would be capable of standing on one foot, moving the position of element 24 of Major with the other foot, and rolling and moving the apparatus with their hands on handles 11; and that this would be capable of overcoming the “self-locking” mode described at Col. 3, Lines 10-21;
a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that one person could be holding and moving the apparatus of Major by the handles 11 while another person was using element 24 of Major to move and steer the wheels of Major; and that this would be capable of overcoming the “self-locking” mode described at Col. 3, Lines 10-21;
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; and that this would occur outside of the “self-locking” mode described at Col. 3, Lines 10-21.
The limitation “the steering apparatus operable both when the transporting apparatus is moving or stationary wherein an orientation of the wheels is changeable by a movement of the tiller arm while the transporting apparatus is in motion” is a functional limitation and is met by all devices that are capable of performing the recited function (MPEP 2114), and as Major has been shown capable of performing the claimed limitation, Applicant’s arguments directed at this limitation are not found persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant has argued claims 2-4 and 6-10 are allowable for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1 (see Remarks filed 6/4/26, Pages 13-14). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1.
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)), having a tiller arm handle (24) proximate operationally to the handle (11) fixed to the frame (10, 15, 16)(see Figs. 1-4 (element 24 is shown proximate operationally to element 11 which fixed to element 10, 15, and 16 as shown in Fig. 1 and as described in Col. 2, Lines 5-9)), for controlling the steering apparatus (19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)(see Figs. 1-4 and Col. 2, Line 40 - Col. 3, Line 21), wherein the tiller arm (23, 24) extends from the base plate (12) generally up along the frame (10, 15, 16)(see Figs. 1 and 4 (element 23/24 is shown extending from element 12 and extending up and along element 10/15/16 consistent with the claimed invention when viewed in light of the specification (see Figs. 1-5 of the instant disclosure where element 3 is shown extending from element 1 and extending upward along element 11 in a manner consistent with the cited art))), and 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 arm (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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 6/19/26
Prosecution Insights