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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-5, 9-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dell Vecchia 5,465,987.
In Re Claim 1, Dell Vecchia teaches an expandable hand truck: a frame (15, 19, 31, 33) having a base platform (15, 43) and a back (19) fixedly attached to the base platform, wherein the base platform extends in a substantially horizontal direction and the back extends in a substantially vertical direction when the expandable hand truck is in an upright position; (See Fig. 1) at least two wheels (13) fixedly mounted on the frame and positioned to be ground engageable; one or more first attachment features (23) on a first side of the back; and one or more second attachment features (23) on an opposing second side of the back, wherein the one or more first attachment features and the one or more second attachment features are each configured to engage a mating feature of a removable gullwing (17, 21, Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
In Re Claim 2, Dell Vecchia teaches wherein the back has a substantially planar surface facing the base platform. (Fig. 1 and 3)
In Re Claim 3, Dell Vecchia teaches wherein when the expandable hand truck is in an upright position, the base platform rests on a ground surface. (Fig. 1 and 3)
In Re Claim 4, Dell Vecchia teaches wherein the base platform lifts off the ground surface when the expandable hand truck is rotated onto the at least two wheels. (Fig. 1 and 3)
In Re Claim 5, Dell Vecchia teaches wherein the at least two wheels are mounted on a rear side of the frame. (Fig. 1 and 3)
In Re Claim 9, Dell Vecchia teaches a detachable tether extendable (25) from the first side of the back to the second side of the back to retain one or more containers on the expandable hand truck.
In Re Claim 10, Dell Vecchia teaches wherein the base platform is pivotably mounted to the back. (Fig. 1 and 3)
In Re Claim 11, Dell Vecchia teaches expandable hand truck assembly comprising: a main unit comprising: a frame (Fig. 1) having a base platform (43) and a back (19) fixedly attached to the base platform, wherein the base platform extends in a substantially horizontal direction and the back extends in a substantially vertical direction when the main unit is in an upright position; (Fig. 1) at least two wheels (13) fixedly mounted on the frame and positioned to be ground engageable; one or more first attachment features (23) on a first side of the back; and one or more second attachment features (23) on an opposing second side of the back; Fig. 1 and 3) a first gullwing (17) removably attachable to the main unit, the first gullwing comprising: a first upper support (17) affixed to a first lower support (37) ; and one or more first attachment members (23) mounted on the first upper support and couplable to the one or more first attachment features; (Fig. 1 and 3) and a second gullwing (21) removably attachable to the main unit, the second gullwing comprising: a second upper support (21) affixed to a second lower support (37) ; and one or more second attachment members (23) mounted on the second upper support and couplable to the one or more second attachment features. (Fig. 1)
In Re Claim 12, Dell Vecchia teaches wherein the one or more first attachment features and the one or more second attachment features are selected from the group consisting of slotted channels, spring-loaded keys, and hinges. (Fig. 1)
In Re Claim 13, Dell Vecchia teaches further comprising one or more fasteners (35) configured to rigidly secure the first lower support and the second lower support to the base platform of the main unit.
In Re Claim 14, Dell Vecchia teaches wherein when attached to the main unit, the first gullwing and the second gullwing are each pivotable to transition between a closed position and an open position. (Fig. 1)
In Re Claim 16, Dell Vecchia teaches wherein the first gullwing and the second gullwing are each attached to the main unit to form an expanded hand truck. (Fig. 1)
In Re Claim 17, Dell Vecchia teaches a method of using the expandable hand truck assembly of claim 11 comprising: attaching the first gullwing to the main unit by coupling the one or more first attachment features to the one or more first attachment members; (Fig. 1) and attaching the second gullwing to the main unit by coupling the one or more second attachment features to the one or more second attachment members to form an expanded hand truck. (Fig. 1)
In Re Claim 18, Dell Vecchia teaches securing the first lower support of the first gullwing and the second lower support of the second gullwing to the base platform of the main unit. (Using 35, See Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 19, Dell Vecchia teaches pivoting the first gullwing into an open position and pivoting the second gullwing into an open position. (See Fig. 1)
In Re Claim 20, Dell Vecchia teaches loading one or more containers onto the base platform, the first lower support, and/or the second lower support of the expanded hand truck, rotating the expanded hand truck onto the at least two wheels, and moving the one or more containers. (Column 1, Lines 12-25)
In Re Claim 21, Dell Vecchia teaches an expanded hand truck comprising: a main unit comprising: a frame having a base platform (43) and a back (19) fixedly attached to the base platform, wherein the base platform extends in a substantially horizontal direction and the back extends in a substantially vertical direction when the expanded hand truck is in an upright position; (Fig. 1) at least two wheels (13) fixedly mounted on the frame and positioned to be ground engageable; one or more first attachment features (23) on a first side of the back; and one or more second attachment features (23) on an opposing second side of the back; a first gullwing (17) coupled to the main unit, the first gullwing comprising: a first upper support (17) affixed to a first lower support (37); and one or more first attachment members (23) mounted on the first upper support and coupled to the one or more first attachment features; (Fig. 1 and 3) and a second gullwing (21) coupled to the main unit, the second gullwing comprising: a second upper support (21) affixed to a second lower support (37); and one or more second attachment members (23) mounted on the second upper support and coupled to the one or more second attachment features. (Fig. 1 and 3)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dell Vecchia and in view of Feick 2013/0328279.
In Re Claim 6, Dell Vecchia teaches the truck of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Dell Vecchia does not teach a vertically adjustable handle positioned on a top portion of the back.
However, Feick teaches a vertically adjustable handle (11) positioned on a top portion of the back.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to have the handle vertically adjustable in the truck of Dell Vecchia as taught by Feick with a reasonable expectation for success in order to adjust to taller payload or lower clearances.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dell Vecchia and in view of Henry 2005/0238466.
In Re Claim 7, Dell Vecchia teaches the truck of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Dell Vecchia does not teach at least two breaker wheels.
However, Henry teaches at least two breaker wheels (108).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add two breaker wheels in the truck of Dell Vecchia as taught by Henry with a reasonable expectation for success in order to help balance the truck.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dell Vecchia and in view of Midas et al. 2014/0145408.
In Re Claim 8, Dell Vecchia teaches the truck of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Dell Vecchia does not teach a footplate extending from a bottom rear side of the frame.
However, Midas et al. teach a footplate (40) extending from a bottom rear side of the frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a footplate in the truck of Dell Vecchia as taught by Midas et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order help an operator tilt the truck.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dell Vecchia and in view of Sanders et al. 4,726,602.
In Re Claim 15, Dell Vecchia teaches the truck of Claim 11 as discussed above.
Dell Vecchia does not teach wherein the first upper support is substantially perpendicular to the first lower support and the second upper support is substantially perpendicular to the second lower support.
However, Sanders et al. teach wherein the first upper support (22) is substantially perpendicular to the first lower support (26 left, Fig. 1) and the second upper support (22) is substantially perpendicular to the second lower support (26 Rt, Fig. 1) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use lower supports perpendicular to the upper supports in the truck of Dell Vecchia as taught by Sanders et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order increase capacity of the truck.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ceja, Schmidt and Kelley teach a frame, two wheels and a gullwing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652