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 .
Status of the Claims
The reply filed on 9/24/2025, amended claims 1, 6, 8-13, and 15-20. Claims 4-10 are currently pending herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections to the claims under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections to the claims under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-9, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US 11,027,760 B1) in view of Fairchild et al. (US 5,884,924 – previously cited art).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Day discloses: A wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 2), comprising:
a tub (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 4) supported by two handle shafts (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 6+6’), each handle shaft having a handle at one end (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 90+90’), an axis (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A), and supported by a respective leg (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 12), each leg having a bottom portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 24+24’) comprising a bottom portion center line (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A);
a wheel guard (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 8) connecting the two handle shafts distal each handle shaft handle (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A);
an axle mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 22+22’) on each handle shaft located between the wheel guard and leg (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A); an axle (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 20) traversing between each handle shaft axle mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A); a wheel (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 10) mounted on the axle (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A); and wherein the axle is held inside the axle mounts by a pin clip passing through an axle slot (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 68+70).
Day fails to explicitly teach: each bottom portion center line is laterally disposed externally of the handle shafts.
However, Fairchild teaches a similar wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 10) wherein a tub (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 20) is supported by two handle shafts (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 51+52), and supported by a respective leg (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 41+42), each leg having a bottom portion (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 41+42) comprising a bottom portion center line and each bottom portion center line is horizontally exterior to the handle shafts (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5).
Fairchild teaches that it is well known in the art of wheelbarrow design to provide the legs with a bottom portion center line that is laterally disposed externally of the handle shafts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Day modified with the legs bottom portion center line laterally disposed externally of the handle shafts such as taught by Fairchild, for the purpose of conveniently allowing the wheelbarrow to have a wider and more stable contact with the ground during use, and beneficially reducing the chances of inadvertently dumping the wheelbarrow load as a result of the tub tipping sideways when coming into contact with the ground (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5; col.3, Ln.35-42: “The legs are welded to the frame and angle outward so they are in vertical alignment with the sides of the tray to provide a wider and more stable base.”). Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Day in view of Fairchild teaches: wherein each leg bottom portion is parallel to a ground surface upon which the wheelbarrow rests (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, 12+24).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Day in view of Fairchild teaches: further comprising a handle brace (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 74+26+18) wherein each leg comprises a front portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 12); and wherein each leg front portion is attached to its respective handle shaft and to the handle brace (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Day in view of Fairchild teaches: further comprising a second handle brace (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 72+26+18) wherein each leg comprises a rear portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 12); and wherein each leg rear portion is attached to its respective handle shaft and to the second handle brace (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Day in view of Fairchild teaches: further comprising a stabilizer (See, e.g., Day :Fig.1-5A, near 24).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Day in view of Fairchild teaches: wherein the stabilizer comprises: a stabilizer bottom portion having a center line (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A), the stabilizer bottom affixed to the leg of the wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A);
a stabilizer top tab having a center line (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A), the stabilizer top tab affixed to the leg of the wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A);
a stabilizer upright portion intermediate of the stabilizer top tab and stabilizer bottom portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A); and wherein the stabilizer upright portion forms an angle with the stabilizer bottom portion of at least 30 degrees (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Day in view of Fairchild teaches: wherein the leg bottom portion center line and stabilizer bottom portion center line are parallel to each other (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Day in view of Fairchild teaches: further comprising a stabilizer grip (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Day in view of Fairchild fails to explicitly teach: wherein the stabilizer grip is comprised of plastic.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of the invention, to modify the stabilizer surface of Day to use a plastic surface near the stabilizer grip, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07 (citing: In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)). Moreover, use of plastic would have been desirable because it provides added protection to the stabilizer while still being a cheap and resilient material that is easy to clean and/or replace.
[Claim 20] Regarding Claim 20, Day discloses: A wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 2), comprising:
a tub (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 4) supported by two handle shafts (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 6+6’), each handle shaft having a handle at one end (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 90+90’), an axis, and supported by a respective leg (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 12), each leg having a bottom portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 24+24’) comprising a bottom portion center line (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A); and
a stabilizer (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, near 24), the stabilizer comprising: a stabilizer bottom portion having a center line (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A), the stabilizer bottom affixed to a leg of the wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A); a stabilizer top tab having a center line (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A), the stabilizer top tab affixed to a leg of the wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A); a stabilizer upright portion intermediate of the stabilizer top tab and stabilizer bottom portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A); and wherein the stabilizer upright portion forms an angle with the stabilizer bottom portion of at least 30 degrees (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A).
Day fails to explicitly teach: each bottom portion center line is laterally disposed externally of the handle shafts.
However, Fairchild teaches a similar wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 10) wherein a tub (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 20) is supported by two handle shafts (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 51+52), and supported by a respective leg (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 41+42), each leg having a bottom portion (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 41+42) comprising a bottom portion center line and each bottom portion center line is horizontally exterior to the handle shafts (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5).
Fairchild teaches that it is well known in the art of wheelbarrow design to provide the legs with a bottom portion center line that is laterally disposed externally of the handle shafts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Day modified with the legs bottom portion center line laterally disposed externally of the handle shafts such as taught by Fairchild, for the purpose of conveniently allowing the wheelbarrow to have a wider and more stable contact with the ground during use, and beneficially reducing the chances of inadvertently dumping the wheelbarrow load as a result of the tub tipping sideways when coming into contact with the ground (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5; col.3, Ln.35-42: “The legs are welded to the frame and angle outward so they are in vertical alignment with the sides of the tray to provide a wider and more stable base.”). Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
Claims 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US 11,027,760 B1) in view of Fairchild et al. (US 5,884,924 – previously cited art) and further in view of Van Zandt (US 11,970,197 B2).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Day in view of Fairchild teaches: where wherein the wheel guard comprises: a front portion having an axis; a rear portion having an axis (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, 8).
The combination of Day in view of Fairchild fails to explicitly teach: an intermediate portion between the front portion and rear portion; wherein an angle formed between the axis of the front portion and the axis of the rear portion is less than 175 degrees.
However, Van Zandt teaches a similar wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Van Zandt: Fig.1-42, 83) wherein a wheel guard (See, e.g., Van Zandt: Fig.1-42, 50) comprises an intermediate portion (See, e.g., Van Zandt: Fig.1-42, 67) between the front portion and rear portion (See, e.g., Van Zandt: Fig.1-42); wherein an angle formed between the axis of the front portion and the axis of the rear portion is less than 175 degrees (See, e.g., Van Zandt: Fig.1-42).
Van Zandt teaches that it is well known in the art of wheelbarrow design to provide the wheel guard with an intermediate portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Day modified with the wheel guard intermediate portion such as taught by Van Zandt, for the purpose of conveniently allowing a user to incrementally transition the wheelbarrow into contact with the ground during use, and beneficially “reducing the chances of inadvertently dumping the wheelbarrow load as a result of the structure 147 forward of the wheels coming in contact with the ground and having an increased chance of operating the wheelbarrow with improved posture” (See, e.g., Van Zandt: Fig.1-42; col.7, Ln.35-39). Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 11] Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Day and Fairchild in view of Van Zandt teaches: the angle formed between the wheel guard front portion axis and the wheel guard rear portion axis is between 12 and 24 degrees (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A in view of Van Zandt: Fig.1-42, 50).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Day and Fairchild in view of Van Zandt teaches: wherein the wheel guard further comprises a wheel guard handle grip (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, 8 in view of Van Zandt: Fig.1-42, 74) that is parallel to a ground surface upon which the wheelbarrow rests (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, 8 in view of Van Zandt: Fig.1-42, 74).
[Claim 13] Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Day and Fairchild in view of Van Zandt teaches: further comprising a bolt and respective nut and the leg comprises a leg rear portion wherein the tub, a handle shaft, a leg rear portion, and a handle brace are all connected by the bolt and respective nut (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, 36+40).
[Claim 14] Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Day and Fairchild in view of Van Zandt teaches: further comprising a second bolt and respective nut and the leg comprises a leg front portion wherein the tub, a handle shaft, a leg front portion, and a handle brace are all connected by the second bolt and respective nut (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, 34+40).
[Claim 15] Regarding Claim 15, Day teaches: A wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 2), comprising: a tub (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 4) supported by two handle shafts (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 6+6’), each handle shaft having a handle at one end (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 90+90’), an axis (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A), and supported by a respective leg (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 12), each leg having a bottom portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 24+24’) comprising a bottom portion center line (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A); and a wheel guard (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 8) connecting the two handle shafts distal each handle shaft handle (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A), the wheel guard comprising: a front portion having an axis (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 8); a rear portion having an axis (See, e.g., Fig.1-5A, 8).
Day fails to explicitly teach: each bottom portion center line is laterally disposed externally of the handle shafts.
However, Fairchild teaches a similar wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 10) wherein a tub (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 20) is supported by two handle shafts (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 51+52), and supported by a respective leg (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 41+42), each leg having a bottom portion (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5, 41+42) comprising a bottom portion center line and each bottom portion center line is horizontally exterior to the handle shafts (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5).
Fairchild teaches that it is well known in the art of wheelbarrow design to provide the legs with a bottom portion center line that is laterally disposed externally of the handle shafts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Day modified with the legs bottom portion center line laterally disposed externally of the handle shafts such as taught by Fairchild, for the purpose of conveniently allowing the wheelbarrow to have a wider and more stable contact with the ground during use, and beneficially reducing the chances of inadvertently dumping the wheelbarrow load as a result of the tub tipping sideways when coming into contact with the ground (See, e.g., Fairchild: Fig.1-5; col.3, Ln.35-42: “The legs are welded to the frame and angle outward so they are in vertical alignment with the sides of the tray to provide a wider and more stable base.”). Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
Day further fails to explicitly teach: an intermediate portion between the front portion and rear portion; wherein an angle formed between the axis of the front portion and the axis of the rear portion is less than 175 degrees.
However, Van Zandt teaches a similar wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Van Zandt: Fig.1-42, 83) wherein a wheel guard (See, e.g., Van Zandt: Fig.1-42, 50) comprises a transition portion (See, e.g., Van Zandt: Fig.1-42, 67) intermediate of the front portion and rear portion (See, e.g., Van Zandt: Fig.1-42); wherein the angle formed between the axis of the front portion and the axis of the rear portion is less than 175 degrees (See, e.g., Van Zandt: Fig.1-42).
Van Zandt teaches that it is well known in the art of wheelbarrow design to provide the wheel guard with an intermediate portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Day modified with the wheel guard intermediate portion such as taught by Van Zandt, for the purpose of conveniently allowing a user to incrementally transition the wheelbarrow into contact with the ground during use, and beneficially “reducing the chances of inadvertently dumping the wheelbarrow load as a result of the structure 147 forward of the wheels coming in contact with the ground and having an increased chance of operating the wheelbarrow with improved posture” (See, e.g., Van Zandt: Fig.1-42; col.7, Ln.35-39). Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 16] Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Day and Fairchild in view of Van Zandt teaches: further comprising a stabilizer (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, near 24), the stabilizer comprising: a stabilizer bottom portion having a center line (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, near 24), the stabilizer bottom affixed to the leg of the wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, 12); a stabilizer top tab having a center line (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A), the stabilizer top tab affixed to the leg of the wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, 12); a stabilizer upright portion intermediate of the stabilizer top tab and stabilizer bottom portion (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, near 24); and wherein the stabilizer upright portion forms an angle with the stabilizer bottom portion of at least 30 degrees (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A).
[Claim 17] Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Day and Fairchild in view of Van Zandt teaches: wherein the wheel guard transition portion is closer to a ground surface upon which the wheelbarrow rests than the wheel guard front portion and the wheel guard rear portion (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, 8 in view of Van Zandt: Fig.1-42, 50).
[Claim 18] Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Day and Fairchild in view of Van Zandt teaches: wherein the wheel guard front portion axis forms a positive angle from a level surface between 1 and 15 degrees (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, 8 in view of Van Zandt: Fig.1-42, 50).
[Claim 19] Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Day and Fairchild in view of Van Zandt teaches: wherein the wheel guard rear portion axis forms a negative angle from a level surface of between 8 and 16 degrees (See, e.g., Day: Fig.1-5A, 8 in view of Van Zandt: Fig.1-42, 74).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613