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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figs. 4a and 4b, the reference character “25” has been amended to denote handle 13. While initially thought to be supported by the originally filed specification, there is no support for changing the member 25 to specifically be the handle 13. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This claim has been amended to now provide that the clamp is configured to lock the wheel when the handle is in either the retracted or extended positions. This limitation, however, is not disclosed in the originally written description or depicted in its drawing Figures. The original written description and drawings provided for features that were structurally confusing and an amendment was made to more clearly reflect that operation of the clamping mechanism. This correction, however, appears to go beyond the scope of the original disclosure as the pivoting members (now denoted 34) were never specifically associated with the handle. Upon a further review of the application, the examiner believes that the amendment to the drawings and specification that renumbered the original element “25” to be the handle 13 was a mistake that entered new matter into the application. This handle-mounted feature does not appear to be supported by the original patent application filing. To compound the issue associated with this new matter, the applicant has now amended the claims to not only claim that the clamp is actuated around the handle, but that this feature is a novel feature that operates whether the handle is extended or retracted. As there is no support for a handle-mounted actuator/member 34, there is no support for the actuator-activated clamp being operation in either of the handle’s positions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 27 have been considered but are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments are based on the assertion that the embodiment of Hansen that has the power source to be mountable upon a dolly somehow teaches away from such a power source being permanently mounted or integrated together with to such a dolly. The examiner disagrees with this argument. There is no recitation or suggestion in Hansen that the power source 10 must be detached (or even preferably be detached) from the dolly in order to function. The only citation the application applies to support their assertion of “teaching-away” is that Hansen provide for different embodiments where the protective framework used rubber feet to support that embodiment as somehow requiring that the device be dismounted from the disclosed dolly in order to sit upon these feet. The examiner disagrees with this position as there is simply no discussion in Hansen that can be reasonably interpreted to require or prefer that the device be dismounted from the wheeled dolly and that making the wheels permanent would somehow defeat the purpose of the Hansen device. The examiner maintains that the fact that Hansen also discloses another embodiment that does not include a dolly does not mean that Hansen teaches away from using the power source when it specifically provides for a dolly-mountable embodiment with no specific recitation of dismounting that power source in order to provide power.
Applicant also argues that there is no motivation to add a clamp on the wheels to hold the power source in place since Hansen “requires” (see above) the power source to stand on its feet directly on the ground. The examiner repeats that there is no indication in Hansen that the power source must be dismounted and maintains that locking a cart’s wheels is an obvious modification to improve stability and/or safety.
The applicant further argues that the Cole secondary reference, while providing for a pair of wheels and a retractable handle also provided for another embodiment that used a strap and multiple pivoting casters and that this alternative embodiment improved ease of transport. The examiner is not sure how the teachings of an embodiment that was not combined in the rejection bears on teaching away from combining the two-wheeled, telescoping handle integrated into a protective outer framework. That the integrated wheels can also have a brake does not reasonably appear to run contrary to making a device portable. The safety clamping system would not interfere with making the device roll (other than when engaged) or interfere with making the device’s handle collapsible.
The remaining arguments are related to the secondary references failing to provide for the features of the base Hansen reference, e.g., that Jeon does not have a power source, and in response to these arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the base reference only lacks a permanent mounting of its wheels, a foot instead of a base, and clamping wheel locks. The secondary references were introduced to show that similar carts include clamping wheel locks and integrate wheels and feet into a protective framework.
Lastly, the applicant indicated that the rejection of claims 3 and 31 included the combination of the Jeon reference. For these two claims, the Jeon reference was replaced with the Brewer reference. Both of these secondary reference teach two-wheeled carts/dollies that have a clamp-based wheel locking/braking system. The Jeon device clamps onto the wheels, while Brewer uses a brake disc on the axle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 21-23, 25 and 27-28, 30, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US 2019/0296290) in view of Jeon (KR 10233895, see previously provided machine translation) and Cole, Jr. et al. (US 2007/0024237).
Regarding claims 1-2, 25, 27, and 30, Hansen discloses a portable power source (10) moveable over a support surface, the portable power source comprising:
a power supply (54);
a frame including
a housing (14) at least partially surrounding the power supply, and
a roll cage (42) positioned outside of the housing (see e.g., Fig. 1 and ¶0039);
at least one wheel attached to the frame by an axle (see Fig. 17 showing a wheeled dolly 336 coupled to the frame via connectors 344), the power source (10) is arranged such that it is supported by the wheels and a base (340) while the portable power source is charging one or more external devices (see e.g., Col. 12, lines 12-17; further there is no indication that the power source 10 cannot function while mounted upon the dolly, therefore one skilled in the relevant art would appreciate that the power source is operable when mounted on the dolly and sitting upon the wheels and base);
a handle coupled to the frame (see Fig. 17 showing the frame-coupled wheeled dolly with a handle), the handle including a user engagement portion (e.g., the horizontally oriented upper portion) and at least one upright member (e.g., the vertically oriented portions that support the handle).
Hansen does not disclose that the wheels are permanently mounted to the frame, that the wheels can be locked in place, or that the wheeled frame has two feet.
Jeon teaches a two-wheeled manually operated wheeled transport having a frame (10) that supports a wheel and that the cart’s wheel can include a braking/locking feature that includes a clamp (e.g., the wheel-engaging brake pads of clamp 60; see Fig. 2, hereinafter denoted “60”) that moves from a clamped position where the arms (61) engage the rims of the wheel (see e.g., Fig. 2 and ¶0025) to a release position, the clamp (60) preventing rotation of the wheel in the clamped position, and the clamp allowing rotation of the wheel in the release position (see e.g., ¶0039 describing how the clutching mechanism 70 of Figs. 3-7 allow for the wheel clamp to be locked and unlocked/released).
Cole teaches another piece of power-related jobsite equipment having a framework with a roll cage (120) that surrounds and protects a housing (12; see e.g., Fig. 1 and ¶0025). The housing at least partially surrounding a power supply (87, see battery socket 86 in Fig. 5). The framework having permanently mounted wheels (160, see Fig. 8 and ¶0031) mounted to the frame. The opposite end of the framework’s roll cage has ground-engaging feet (124, see Fig. 8 and ¶0025). The framework also having a retractable handle (162) that is slidable relative to the frame between a retracted position and an extended position (see ¶0031 describing the handle as retractable and slidable on frame-mounted brackets 164).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable power source of Hansen to include a clamp-based wheel lock as taught by Jeon and to integrate the wheels and handle within the framework as taught by Cole to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., adding wheel locks to a rolling work cart and making an otherwise separate component, such as a dolly wheel and handle, integral) to known devices (e.g., wheeled work carts having tubular frameworks) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------a work cart that is more compact through part integration and making it more collapsible and which can be secured/locked at a desired location).
Regarding claims 4 and 32, the clamp of Jeon, as applied in the above combination, further comprises an actuator (e.g., arms 61/62) coupled to the clamp/pads (“60”) to selectively engage the wheel.
Regarding claims 5 and 33, as discussed in the above combination, the clamp of Jeon provides for a clutch (70) that selectively allows for the clamp to locked and unlocked from the wheel. The clutch (70) includes a return spring (75; see ¶0076) that biases the clamp toward the unlocked/original state.
Regarding claims 6 and 34, as discussed in the above combination, Jeon teaches that its wheel clamp assembly includes a clamp/brake pad (“60”) that is coupled to a first actuator (e.g., clamp arms 61/62 read upon a first actuator that moves the clamp “60” between the clamped and released positions). Jeon further teaches that the clamping assembly includes a second actuator (e.g., lever 42) that is attached to the clamp (“60”) via the wire (50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheel lock of the Hansen combination to further includes a hand lever/actuator that drives the wheel clamp as taught by Jeon to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation being to allow a user to clamp the wheels using a remote/hand operation rather than directly engaging the wheel-disposed clamp to improve usability and user comfort and safety.
Regarding claims 21-23¸ Hansen discloses that portable power source is configured to be operated on uneven support surfaces (e.g., a worksite, see ¶0004), and wherein the roll cage (42) is configured to protect and transport the power supply if it tips over (see ¶0039).
Regarding claim 28 (as best understood), the clamp braking/locking feature of Jeon from the above combination has a hand-actuator (40) mounted to the hand-graspable handle (30) of the cart. The actuator (40) is connected to and controls the clamp (60) via a flexible wire (50) that implicitly can be substantially any length to transfer the force applied at the actuator to the brake caliper/clamp.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake wire of the Hansen combination to use a brake wire to transfer the clamping force as taught by Jeon and to have sufficient length to reach its furthest adjustment position to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation being to ensure that the device’s brake is usable in all of its configurations.
Claims 3 and 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Brewer et al. (US 2018/0229745) and Cole.
Regarding claims 3 and 31, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Hansen discloses a portable power source moveable over a support surface, the portable power source comprising:
a power supply (54);
a frame including
a housing (14) at least partially surrounding the power supply, and
a roll cage (42) positioned outside of the housing (see e.g., Fig. 1 and ¶0039);
at least one wheel attached to the frame by an axle (see Fig. 17 showing a wheeled dolly 336 coupled to the frame via connectors 344), the power source (10) is arranged such that it is supported by the wheels and a base (340) while the portable power source is charging one or more external devices (see e.g., Col. 12, lines 12-17; further there is no indication that the power source 10 cannot function while mounted upon the dolly, therefore one skilled in the relevant art would appreciate that the power source is operable when mounted on the dolly and sitting upon the wheels and base);
a handle coupled to the frame (see Fig. 17 showing the frame-coupled wheeled dolly with a handle), the handle including a user engagement portion (e.g., the horizontally oriented upper portion) and at least one upright member (e.g., the vertically oriented portions that support the handle).
Hansen does not disclose that the wheels are permanently mounted to the frame, that the wheels can be locked in place, or that the wheeled frame has two feet.
Brewer teaches another manually-operated wheeled transport where a frame (e.g., rails 110, 112) supports a wheel (130) via an axle (508; see Fig. 12 and ¶0055). The cart can include a braking/locking feature that has an axle (508) including a brake disk (520 in Fig. 12, but denoted 517 in ¶0055) and includes a clamp (e.g., caliper 510, see ¶0057) that moves from a clamped position where the caliper engages the disk (517/520) of the axle (see e.g., ¶s 0057-0061 describing how the caliper selectively applies and releases a braking force to the disk) to a release position, the clamp (510) preventing rotation of the wheel in the clamped position, and the clamp allowing rotation of the wheel in the release position (see ¶s 0057-0061).
Cole teaches another piece of power-related jobsite equipment having a framework with a roll cage (120) that surrounds and protects a housing (12; see e.g., Fig. 1 and ¶0025). The housing at least partially surrounding a power supply (87, see battery socket 86 in Fig. 5). The framework having permanently mounted wheels (160, see Fig. 8 and ¶0031) mounted to the frame. The opposite end of the framework’s roll cage has ground-engaging feet (124, see Fig. 8 and ¶0025). The framework also having a retractable handle (162) that is slidable relative to the frame between a retracted position and an extended position (see ¶0031 describing the handle as retractable and slidable on frame-mounted brackets 164).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable power source of Hansen to include a clamp-based disk-based wheel lock as taught by Brewster and to integrate the wheels and handle within the framework as taught by Cole to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., adding wheel locks to a rolling work cart and making an otherwise separate component, such as a dolly wheel and handle to be integral/permanent) to known devices (e.g., wheeled work carts having tubular frameworks) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------a work cart that is more compact through part integration and collapsibility and which can be secured at a desired location).
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 STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights