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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 6/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-25 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/17/2025
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,161,620 to Nicholson in view of US Patent Publication 2020/0063479 to Klassen.
Nicholson teaches
1. A food service cart comprising: at least one side panel (12); at least one door (16) removably coupled to the at least one side panel; and a removable hinge (generally described as 88 and connecting with 56, 90) disposed between the at least one side panel and the at least one door, wherein the hinge comprises a bore (openings that receives hinge pin 94) defined through a longitudinal length of the hinge
Nicholson does not expressly disclose the bore is located off center in the removable hinge portion.
Klassen teaches a socket (102) that receives a hinge (202). The hinge has an off center bore (204). A set screw (106) is tightened to prevent the rotation of the hinge.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cart of Nicholson by using the removable hinge structure with the off center bore as taught by Klassen to allow for easier adjustment.
Regarding claim 2, Nicholson and Klassen teaches
2. wherein the hinge is rotatable relative to the at least one door and the at least one side panel (Nicholson, as best seen in figures 11 and 12; Klassen, as best seen in figure 5 ).
Regarding claim 7, Klassen teaches
7. wherein the bore is configured to accommodate a hinge pin (201) therein.
For further clarification regarding claims 12, Nicholson in view of Klassen does not expressly disclose magnets in the doors. It is admitted prior art that it is well known in the art of cabinets and doors to use multiple magnets for latching. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice in the office action mailed 9/16/2025. See MPEP 2144.03
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cart of Nicholson in view of Klassen by adding magnets to the door as is known in the art to keep the latched in a position.
Regarding claim 14, Nicholson teaches
14. further comprising an internal volume (22) subdivided into a plurality of parts by a dividing wall (28 or divider as seen in figure 8) disposed therein.
Regarding claim 15, Nicholson teaches
15. further comprising a plurality of tray supports (24) disposed on the dividing wall and on an inside surface (Figure 3 and 8) of the at least one side panel.
Regarding claim 16, Nicholson teaches
16. wherein each of the plurality of parts of the internal volume comprises a flume (as best seen in figures 3, 8, and 5A ) defined therein.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,161,620 to Nicholson in view of US Patent Publication 2020/0063479 to Klassen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 7,284,393 to Macmillan.
Nicholson in view of Klassen discloses every element as claimed and discussed above except an end table.
Macmillan teaches a cart further comprising an expandable end table (25) coupled to the at least one side panel, wherein the end table forms a flush surface (due to the recess 27) with the at least one side panel when the end table is in a contracted position (as best seen in figure 5). wherein the end table comprises: a first bracket (figure 1); and an adjustable prop rod (29) coupled to the first bracket, wherein the prop rod is configured to removably couple to a second bracket (figure 1) disposed on the at least one side panel. wherein the at least one side panel comprises a recess (27) configured to accommodate a thickness (as best seen in figure 1) of the end table in order to form the flush surface.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cart of Nicholson in view of Klassen by adding an end table to the side as taught by Macmillan to increase counter space when needed.
For further clarification regarding claim 10, Nicholson in view of Klassen and Macmillan does not expressly disclose a rod indentation in a bottom surface. It is admitted prior art that it is well known in the art of tables and shelves to provide an indention for legs, braces, and supports for folding shelves and tables to provide a more compact folded position. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice in the office action mailed 9/16/2025. See MPEP 2144.03
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cart of Nicholson in view of Klassen and Macmillan to provide an indention for leg as is known in the art provide a compact folded position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/14/2026 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.
No objections to the Official notices were expressed and therefore the statements made are considered admitted prior art. Per 2144.03, “If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate.”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY MICHAEL AYRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30-8.
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, Dan Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/T.M.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 3637 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights