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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6, 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 11 require “the fork extensions assembly”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is believed the detachable forklift assembly from claims 1 and 8 correspond to the fork extensions assembly of claims 4 and 11. The Examiner recommends amending claims 1 and 8 to recite “detachable fork extensions assembly” in place of “detachable forklift assembly”, as this terminology is consistent with the specification.
Claim 6 recites: “wherein the left vertical rail and right vertical rail of the main frame are mutually oriented at a ten-degree angle displacement from the plane of the bearing surface of the load plate.” The claimed angle is not understood. A 10 degree angle would result in the load plate nearly lying against the vertical rails. The angle is represented in Fig. 3 by reference character 4. The shown angle appears to be slightly obtuse. While the drawings are not held to being made to scale, those having ordinary skill in the art would not understand how the invention could be operable with the load plate lying nearly against the rails.
Claim 13 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim 8 recites: “What is claimed is an improvement to a manual hand truck of the type having a generally vertically-oriented support frame, an integral load plate, and two attached wheels, wherein the improvement comprises:
(a) a main frame, further comprising (i) a handlebar connected to inclined right and left vertical rails; (ii) an upper right load stabilizer; (iii) an upper left load stabilizer; (iv) a lower right load stabilizer; (v) a lower left load stabilizer; (vi) a bottom load brace bar; (vii) a lower protection plate; and (viii) a multi-use load plate”.
Claim 8 is formatted as a Jepson claim; please see MPEP 2129 III. and 37 CFR 1.75(e).
The claim is indefinite because the vertically-oriented support frame is in the part of the claim which describes conventional or known features (or admitted prior art), and the portion of the claim which lists the improvements describes features which appear to belong to the vertically-oriented support frame. All of the components listed in section (a) of claim 8 correspond to features which would reasonably be considered elements of the vertically-oriented support frame.
Which components belong to the vertically-oriented support frame? Because the vertically-oriented support frame is in the part of the claim which describes conventional/prior art features, are the components listed in section (a) of claim 8 intended to be admitted prior art as part of the frame? The confusion is compounded because a generally vertically-oriented support frame is not found in the specification.
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, 6, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belotti (US 9,969,411) in view of Wiff (US 2007/0289787) and Davis (US 7,104,555).
Regarding claim 1, Belotti teaches: a combination manual hand truck and electric mover, comprising:
(a) a main frame, further comprising (i) a handlebar (18); (ii) a right vertical rail (14); (iii) a left vertical rail (14); (iv) a center load brace bar (A); (v) an upper load brace bar (B); (vi) a lower load brace bar (C); (vii) a bottom brace bar (D); (vii) an upper right load stabilizer (E); (viii) an upper left load stabilizer (E); (ix) a lower right load stabilizer (F); (x) a lower left load stabilizer (F); (xi) a bottom load brace bar (54); (xii) a lower protection plate (22); and (xiii) a multi-use load plate (24);
(b) a lower support structure (50);
(c) two main drive wheels (26);
(d) a retractable securing strap (32);
(g) a positionable leg assembly (36) joined to the main frame; and
(i) a removable rolling attachment (40; the rolling attachment may be removed via disassembly).
Relevant elements are best shown in the annotated version of Fig. 3, below, and Figs. 1-6.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Belotti fails to teach a drive system (including a transaxle, batteries, and throttles, as claimed). Wiff teaches: a combination manual hand truck and electric mover comprising: (c) a transaxle, co-axially connected to two main drive wheels (see the alternative embodiment described in [0057]); (e) two replaceable batteries (115) having adequate wiring routed to operate the transaxle; and (f) left and right thumb throttles (175). See Figs. 4, 6, and 7. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the hand truck from Belotti with a drive system (including a transaxle, batteries, and throttles, as claimed), as suggested by Wiff. The motivation being: to provide propulsion which would ease operator strain when maneuvering heavy loads.
Belotti fails to teach a detachable forklift assembly. Davis teaches a hand truck having a detachable forklift assembly (290); see Fig. 1. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the hand truck from Belotti with a detachable forklift assembly, as suggested by Davis; the motivation being: to optionally facilitate support of special items such as wire coils or the like (see column 5, line 62 through column 6, line 3 from Davis).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the combination further teaches: wherein the left vertical rail and right vertical rail of the main frame are mutually oriented at a ten-degree angle displacement from the plane of the bearing surface of the load plate. See Fig. 2 from Belotti.
Should it be found that Belotti fails to teach the claimed angle: before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the left vertical rail and right vertical rail of the main frame are mutually oriented at a ten-degree angle displacement from the plane of the bearing surface of the load plate. Such a modification would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice, yielding the same predictable results, since such a modification would require a mere change in shape of a prior art device. A change in shape is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 8, Belotti teaches: an improvement to a manual hand truck of the type having a generally vertically-oriented support frame, an integral load plate, and two attached wheels, wherein the improvement comprises:
(a) a main frame, further comprising:(i) a handlebar (18) connected to inclined right and left vertical rails (14); (ii) an upper right load stabilizer (E); (iii) an upper left load stabilizer (E); (iv) a lower right load stabilizer (F); (v) a lower left load stabilizer (F);(vi) a bottom load brace bar (54); (vii) a lower protection plate (22); and (viii) a multi-use load plate (24);
(b) a lower support structure (50);
(c) two main drive wheels (26);
(f) a positionable leg assembly (36) joined to the main frame; and
(h) a removable rolling attachment (40; the rolling attachment may be removed via disassembly).
Relevant elements are best shown in the annotated version of Fig. 3, above, and Figs. 1-6.
Belotti fails to teach a drive system (including a transaxle, batteries, and throttles, as claimed). Wiff teaches: a combination manual hand truck and electric mover comprising: (c) a transaxle, co-axially connected to two main drive wheels (see the alternative embodiment described in [0057]); (e) two replaceable batteries (115) having adequate wiring routed to operate the transaxle; and (f) left and right thumb throttles (175). See Figs. 4, 6, and 7. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the hand truck from Belotti with a drive system (including a transaxle, batteries, and throttles, as claimed), as suggested by Wiff. The motivation being: to provide propulsion which would ease operator strain when maneuvering heavy loads.
Belotti fails to teach a detachable forklift assembly. Davis teaches a hand truck having a detachable forklift assembly (290); see Fig. 1. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the hand truck from Belotti with a detachable forklift assembly, as suggested by Davis; the motivation being: to optionally facilitate support of special items such as wire coils or the like (see column 5, line 62 through column 6, line 3 from Davis).
Regarding claim 13 as best understood, the combination further teaches: wherein the left vertical rail and right vertical rail of the main frame are parallel, and mutually oriented at a ten-degree angle displacement from the plane of the load plate. See Fig. 2 from Belotti.
Should it be found that Belotti fails to teach the claimed angle: before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide wherein the left vertical rail and right vertical rail of the main frame are parallel, and mutually oriented at a ten-degree angle displacement from the plane of the load plate. Such a modification would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice, yielding the same predictable results, since such a modification would require a mere change in shape of a prior art device. A change in shape is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 7 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.
Claims 4, 9-12, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2 and 9 describe features relating to the lower support structure. The lower support structure from Belotti does not read on the limitations as claimed, and it would not be obvious to modify Belotti to read on claim 2 or 9.
Claims 3 and 10 describe features relating to the positionable leg assembly. The positionable leg assembly from Belotti does not read on the limitations as claimed, and it would not be obvious to modify Belotti to read on claim 3 or 10.
Claims 4 and 11 describe features relating to the fork extensions assembly. The fork extensions assembly from Belotti does not read on the limitations as claimed, and it would not be obvious to modify Belotti to read on claim 4 or 11.
Claims 5 and 12 describe features relating to the rolling attachment. The rolling attachment from Belotti does not read on the limitations as claimed, and it would not be obvious to modify Belotti to read on claim 5 or 12.
Claims 7 and 14 describe the wiring between drive components/controls. The wiring from Wiff does not read on the limitations as claimed, and it would not be obvious to modify the combination to read on claim 7 or 14.
None of the prior art, alone or in combination, anticipates or renders obvious the subject matter of claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, and 14. To modify any of the prior art of record to arrive at the invention set forth by claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14 would be unobvious and improper hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art made of record relates to hand trucks having features relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA K FRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5403. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M, T, F.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4324. 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.
/EMMA K FRICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613