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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai 6,938,905 and in view of Englert et al. 2020/0269895.
In Re Claims 1 and 2, Tsai teaches cart comprising: a base; (2) a pair of rear wheels (4) supporting the base; a handle (5) extending upward from the base, the handle including a horizontal handle, wherein the horizontal handle is fixed in a position substantially aligned with axles of the rear wheels. (Fig. 8)
Tsai does not teach a pair of tines extending forward of the base; a load wheel below forward ends of each of the pair of tines for raising and lowering the tine;
However, Englert et al. teach a pair of tines (114) extending forward of the base; a load wheel (116) below forward ends of each of the pair of tines for raising and lowering the tine; (Paragraph 40) and wherein the load wheels each include a hub motor (117) for powering the cart.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a pair of tines to the cart of Tsai as taught by Englert et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to transport pallets without manually lifting the pallets onto the cart.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai/Englert et al. and in view of Hinkle 2015/0246375.
In Re Claim 3, Tsai/Englert et al. teaches the cart of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Tsai/Englert et al. does not teach each of the pair of tines having a width of more than seven inches.
However, Hinkle teaches each of the pair of tines having a width of more than seven inches. (Paragraph 27, about 7 inches, a little more than 7 inches is about 7 inches)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use tines having a width of more than 7 inches in the cart of Tsai/Englert et al. as taught by Hinkle with a reasonable expectation for success in order to distribute the force on pallets in order to help pallets last longer.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai/Englert et al./Hinkle and in view of He et al. 2015/0102274.
In Re Claim 4, Tsai/Englert et al./Hinkle teaches the cart of Claim 3 as discussed above.
Tsai/Englert et al./Hinkle does not teach each of the pair of tines having a length that is more than fifty inches.
However, He et al. teach each of the pair of tines having a length that is more than fifty inches. (Paragraph 37)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use tines having a length of more than 50 inches in the cart of Tsai/Englert et al./Hinkle as taught by He et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to fit larger sizes of pallets and quantities onto the tine.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert et al. and in view of Abrahamson et al. 5,267,516
In Re Claims 14 and 16, Englert et al. teach in combination: a cart (110) having a first tine (114) and a second tine (114) extending forward of a base (112), the cart further including a load wheel (116) below forward ends of each of the first tine and the second tine for raising and lowering the first tine and the second tine; (Paragraph 40)
Englert et al. do not teach a first pallet supported directly on the first tine but not on the second tine, a second pallet supported directly on the first tine but not the second tine; and a third pallet supported directly on the second tine but not the first tine and a fourth pallet supported directly on the second tine but not the first tine.
However, Abrahamson et al. teach a first pallet (21, Fig. 3) supported directly on the first tine but not on the second tine, a second pallet (21, Fig. 3) supported directly on the first tine but not the second tine; (Column 3, Line 13-19)(Fig. 3) and a third pallet (21, Fig. 3) supported directly on the second tine but not the first tine and a fourth pallet (21, Fig. 3) supported directly on the second tine but not the first tine; (Column 3, Line 13-19) (Fig. 3) and a plurality of containers (10, Fig. 1) stacked on each of the first pallet, the second pallet, the third pallet and the fourth pallet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to support a first pallet directly on the first tine, a second pallet directly on the first tine, a third pallet directly on the second tine and a fourth pallet directly on the second tine in the combination of Englert et al. as taught by Abrahamson et al. with a reasonable expectation in order to contain loads in separate load units for logistical purposes but transport them in together for reducing trips.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert et al./Abrahamson et al. and further in view of Hummel et al. 2006/0032411.
In Re Claims 17 and 18 Englert et al./Abrahamson et al. teach the combination of Claim 16 as discussed above.
Englert et al./Abrahamson et al. do not teach wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth pallets includes a deck, a plurality of feet extending downward of the deck, and a peripheral lip extending upward about a periphery of the deck.
However, Hummel et al. teach wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth pallets includes a deck (18, 20), a plurality of feet (24) extending downward of the deck, and a peripheral lip (16) extending upward about a periphery of the deck; and wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth pallets includes openings (23) through the deck for receiving the feet of an identical pallet such that the first, second, third and fourth pallets are nestable when empty.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use pallets including a deck, feet and a peripheral lip in the cart of Englert et al./Abrahamson et al. as taught by Hummel et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to stabilize empty cart during transport.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and in view of Hinkle and in view of He et al.
In Re Claim 24, Tsai teaches a cart comprising: a base; (2) a pair of rear wheels (4) supporting the base; and a handle (5) extending upward from the base, the handle including a horizontal handle, wherein the horizontal handle is substantially aligned with axles of the rear wheels. (Fig. 8)
Tsai does not teach a pair of tines extending forward of the base, wherein each of the pair of tines has a width that is more than seven inches and a length that is more than fifty inches;
However, Hinkle teaches a pair of tines extending forward of the base, wherein each of the pair of tines has a width that is more than seven inches (Paragraph 27, about 7 inches, a little more than 7 inches is about 7 inches) and a load wheel (46, 47) below forward ends of each of the pair of tines for raising and lowering the pair of tines; (Paragraph 23)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use tines having a width of more than 7 inches in the cart of Tsai as taught by Hinkle with a reasonable expectation for success in order to distribute the force on pallets in order to help pallets last longer.
Tsai/Hinkle are silent concerning each of the pair of tines having a length that is more than fifty inches;
However, He et al. teaches a pair of tines having a length that is more than fifty inches; (Paragraph 37)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use tines having a length of more than 50 inches in the cart of Tsai/Hinkle as taught by He et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to fit larger sizes of pallets and quantities onto the tine.
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai/Englert et al. and in view of Gilliland et al. 5,595,259.
In Re Claims 31 and 32, Tsai/Englert et al. teach the cart of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Tsai/Englert et al. does not teach the horizontal handle having a lift control mounted thereto.
However, Gilliland et al. teach the horizontal handle having a lift control (82, 84) mounted thereto; and wherein the horizontal handle has a throttle control (90) mounted thereto.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a lift control to the cart of Tsai/Englert et al. as taught by Gilliland et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to consolidate controls to one space for ease of operator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 11-13, 25-30, 33 and 34 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 with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 24-34 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights