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 Objections Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, line 6, “a second wheel” should say “the second wheel” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Morris (WO 2023220135 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Morris a container (container 600, figs.10-23) , comprising: a base (base 602, figs.10-23) including an outer wall (outer wall 619, figs.10-23) , an internal insulation layer (insulating layer between outer and inner walls, figs.10-23) , and an inner wall (inner wall 618, figs.10-23) ; a movable lid (lid 604, figs.10-23) connected to the base; a handle (handle 660, figs.10-23) connected to the base; a first wheel and a second wheel (wheels 670, figs.10-23) that are connected by an axle (axle 674, figs.10-23) extending through the base; and a suspension system (retention ring 675, grommet 676, bearings 677A, spacers 677B-C, figs.20A-B) , wherein the suspension system is connected to the outer wall and includes at least one ball bearing in association with the first wheel and the second wheel (bearings 677A, figs.20A-B) . Regarding claim 2, Morris discloses wherein the axle extends through an outer support structure and an inner support structure of the suspension system (axle 674 extends through the retention ring 675, grommet 676, bearings 677A, spacers 677B-C, figs.20A-B). Regarding claim 7, Morris discloses wherein the lid has a bottom surface facing an internal volume of the container, and the bottom surface of the lid has rectangular protrusion with a cargo net attached therefrom (lid 104 has protrusion as seen in figure 1C and 5A with clips 132 to hold net mesh accessory, figs.1C and 5A, paragraph [66]) . Regarding claim 8, Morris discloses wherein the lid is moveably connected to the base using a hinge (lid 604 is connected by hinge 616, figs.10-23) . Regarding claim 9, Morris discloses wherein the inner wall and the outer wall are made of injection molded plastic (base 602 and lid 604 are formed of a plastic material such as a thermoplastic, paragraph [95]) . Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 3 5 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by DeFrancia (US 20180015938 A1). Regarding claim 17 , DeFrancia discloses a container (cooler 100, figs.1-16) , comprising: a base (body 110, fig.1) including an outer wall ( cross section of body in figure 13 shows body 110 having an outer wall, fig.13 ) , an internal insulation layer (cross section of body in figure 13 shows body 110 having an insulating layer, fig.13) , and an inner wall ( cross section of body in figure 13 shows body 110 having an inner wall, fig.13 ) ; a movable lid (lid 120, figs.1 and 10) connected to the base; a handle (handle 115/210/310, figs.1-3, paragraph [0036]) connected to the base; and a handle release system (insert 220 is made of a friction material, paragraph [0036]) that is configured to apply friction on the handle when moved in at least one direction. Regarding claim 18, DeFrancia discloses wherein the system comprises at least one dampener (insert 220 is made of a friction material, paragraph [0036], figs.1-3) . Regarding claim 19, DeFrancia discloses wherein the dampener comprises silicone (is made of a friction material including silicon, paragraph [0036]) . 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) 3- 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris ( WO 2023220135 A1 ) in view of Kabalin ( US 20190216193 A1 ). Regarding claim 3, Morris discloses the container of claim 2 and the support structure has a central aperture for axle (figs.10-23), Morris fails to disclose the inner support structure is a plate. However, Kabalin discloses wherein the inner support structure is a plate (mounting plate 44, fig.5) . Morris and Kabalin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of containers . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morris with the mounting plate of Kabalin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of providing more support and stronger mounting assembly for the wheel assembly allowing the container to hold more weight. Regarding claim 4, Morris in combination with Kabalin, Kabalin discloses wherein the plate has a plurality of threaded apertures that are spaced radially about the central aperture and configured such that a plurality of screws can be used to mount the plate to the outer wall and the outer support structure to the plate (fasteners 46 attach base plate 42 to the mounting plate 44, fig.5) . Regarding claim 5 , Morris in combination with Kabalin discloses wherein the outer wall has one or more support walls configured to support the plate on an inner side of the outer wall of a wheel well (Morris, wheel well has one or more walls, figs.10-23) . Claim (s) 10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris ( WO 2023220135 A1 ) in view of Han ( US 20060027298 A1 ) . Regarding claim 10 , Morris a container (container 600, figs.10-23) , comprising: a base (base 602, figs.10-23) including an outer wall (outer wall 619, figs.10-23) , an internal insulation layer (insulating layer between outer and inner walls, figs.10-23) , and an inner wall (inner wall 618, figs.10-23) ; a movable lid (lid 604, figs.10-23) connected to the base; a handle (handle 660, figs.10-23) connected to the base; a first wheel and a second wheel (wheels 670, figs.10-23) that are connected by an axle (axle 674, figs.10-23) extending through the base; and a suspension system (retention ring 675, grommet 676, bearings 677A, spacers 677B-C, figs.20A-B) , wherein the first and a second wheel include a central hub (wheel 672, fig.20A) , and a tire (tire 671, fig.20A) . Morris fails to disclose an internal tire support structure. However, Han disclose s a central hub ( rim 2 /5 , fig.1 ), an internal tire support structure ( core 3, fig.1 ), and a tire ( tire 4, fig.1 ) . Morris and Han are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wheels . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morris with the wheel internal tire structure of Han with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of carrying heavy loads while having the wheel assembly remain lightweight. Regarding claim 12, Morris in combination with Han, Han discloses wherein the internal tire support structure comprises first and second internal tire support structure halves that are interchangeable and independently attached to the central hub (wheel core has sections 3a-d which are interchangeable and independent, figs.1-3) . Regarding claim 13, Morris in combination with Han, Han discloses wherein the internal tire support structure includes one or more protruding walls from an outer rounded surface (wheel core 3 has protruding walls from outer rounded surface, fig.2) . Regarding claim 14, Morris in combination with Han, Morris discloses wherein each wheel uses one or more ball bearings (bearings 677A, figs.20) that are restrained on the axle by a ring like clip (retention ring 675, figs.20) in a groove on the axle. Claim (s ) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFrancia (US 20180015938 A1) in view of In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 20, DeFrancia discloses wherein, when the handle is in an open position, a handle angle is defined between a handle support beam (legs 320 and 330 of handle 310, figs.1-3) and a vertical plane that is perpendicular to a ground plane (figs.1-3) . DeFrancia fails to disclose wherein the handle angle is between about 100 degrees and about 120 degrees. However, those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing said cart with a handle angle of between about 100 degrees and about 120 degrees would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Such a dimension would be desirable for allowing the handle to be easily grabbed by the user to pull the container . Providing a handle angle between about 100 degrees and about 120 degrees as described in the claim is as an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results, as such a modification would require a mere change size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Claim (s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFrancia (US 20180015938 A1) in view of Morris (WO 2023220135 A1). Regarding claim 21, DeFrancia discloses the container of claim 17 but fails to disclose the lid having a protrusion and cargo net. However, Morris discloses wherein the lid has a rectangular protrusion (lid 104 has protrusion as seen in figure 1C and 5A with clips 132 to hold net mesh accessory, figs.1C and 5A, paragraph [66]) that extends from a bottom surface of the lid, the rectangular protrusion at least partially defines a storage space with the bottom surface of the lid and a cargo net that is attached to the rectangular protrusion (lid 104 has protrusion as seen in figure 1C and 5A with clips 132 to hold net mesh accessory, figs.1C and 5A , paragraph [66]) . DeFrancia and Morris are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of containers . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeFrancia with the under-lid storage of Morris with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of providing separate storage space for items from the main storage area to protect the items. Regarding claim 22, DeFrancia in combination with Morris, Morris discloses wherein the cargo net comprises silicone (net is made from a flexible rubber, paragraph [66]) . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 6, 11, 15-16 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. Claim 6 depends upon claim 2 which is rejected, but claim 6 has the limitation of “wherein the outer support structure has a cylindrical wall and an angled surface that extends inwardly toward a first flat surface that has a central aperture configured to receive the axle”. The primary reference of Morris discloses support structures (retention ring 675, grommet 676, bearings 677A, spacers 677B-C). None of the support structures of Morris have the same structure as disclosed in claim 6. The prior art either taken alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 6. For the reasons above claim 6 has allowable subject matter. Claim 11 depends upon claim 10 which is rejected, but claim 11 has the limitation of “wherein the central hub has one or more protruding screw receivers configured to connect the central hub to the internal tire support structure ”. The teaching reference of Han discloses the internal tire support structure (3). Han also discloses splinters (222/52) on the central hub (2/5) to couple to the internal tire support structure and tire. Han fails to disclose the central hub having screw receivers. Modifying Han would be modifying a modifying reference and would be hindsight. For the reasons above claim 11 has allowable subject matter. Claim 15 depends upon claim 10 which is rejected, but claim 15 has the limitation of “ wherein the inner wall has a plurality of injection spacer walls that extend from a bottom surface of the inner wall that are configured to facilitate dispersion of insulation when manufacturing the internal insulation layer ”. Neither Morris nor Han discloses the limitations of claim 15. The prior art either taken alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 15. For the reasons above claim 15 has allowable subject matter. Claim 16 depends upon claim 15 giving it the same allowable subject matter as discussed above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6501 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Allen Shriver can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 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. /IAN BRYCE SHELTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3613