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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 13 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the inventions are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct in that the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus such as by hand.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 13 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “wherein the set of ground-contacting wheels of the hand truck are powered by are powered by a battery in the hand truck.” The examiner suggests amending to --wherein the set of ground-contacting wheels of the hand truck are powered by a battery in the hand truck.--.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AllConsult LTD DE 202005009537 U1.
PNG
media_image1.png
310
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
AllConsult discloses a material transport system, comprising: a pallet (10) having front and rear ends, and wherein the rear end of the pallet includes a mechanical coupling (58/60; 82/84; 91/95); a hand truck (80, 90) with a set of ground-contacting wheels (Fig. 7, 86/88; Fig. 10, 90) and a front end with a lift bar (82; 92) adapted for removeable attachment to the mechanical coupling (58/60; 82/84; 91/95) on the rear end of the pallet (Figs. 6-13); wherein the pallet includes a set of front wheels (40) and a conveyor belt (50, 52; Fig. 2-4) disposed on front and rear rollers (44, 46); and wherein the lift bar on the hand truck has a lower position (Fig. 1) wherein the pallet is level and the hand truck is used to transport the pallet in a rolling motion on the front wheels on a ground surface, and an upper position (Fig. 3) wherein the rear end of the pallet is lifted to unload material from the conveyor belt to a ground surface.
As for claim 2, AllConsult discloses wherein the weight of material on the conveyor belt (50 is capable of causing the material to be unloaded due to gravity when the lift bar is in the upper position (Fig. 3).
As for claim 10, AllConsult discloses wherein the pallet (10) only includes a set of front wheels (40) and no rear wheels (see Figs. 1-2).
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, 8-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AllConsult LTD DE 202005009537 U1 in view of AllConsult LTD DE 202006014414 U1 (Hereinafter AllConsult ‘414) and Magoto et al. US 5752584.
PNG
media_image2.png
342
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
AllConsult discloses all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein the pallet includes an electrical power source causing the conveyor belt to move through the activation of a user control. However, AllConsult ‘414 teaches a pallet (12) coupled to a hand truck (14) wherein the pallet includes an electrical power source (46) causing the conveyor belt (26) to move through the activation of a user control (not shown).
PNG
media_image3.png
134
896
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Magoto further teaches a pallet truck having a user control handle (30) with control inputs (40) for controlling a pallet truck. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify and/or substitute the hand truck of AllConsult with an electrically powered user-controlled pallet as taught by AllConsult ‘414 and Magoto in order to provide a means of electrically assisting in the lifting and lowering, steering movement and loading/unloading of an object to the pallet.
PNG
media_image4.png
294
720
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for claim 4, the modified AllConsult teaches wherein the lift bar on the hand truck is a powered lift bar driven by a battery (AllConsult ‘414 and Magoto, 100) in the hand truck (Magoto, 30, col. 5, lines 56-76 and col. 6, lines 1-6).
As for claim 5, the modified AllConsult teaches wherein the set of ground-contacting wheels (AllConsult, 86, 88; Magoto, 20) of the hand truck are powered by a battery (Magoto, 100) in the hand truck (Magoto, col. 5, lines 56-76 and col. 6, lines 1-6).
As for claim 8, the modified AllConsult teaches wherein the hand truck has a handle (30) with a user-controlled FORWARD/REVERSE throttle (Magoto, 40, col 5, lines 56-67 and col. 6, lines 1-6).
As for claim 9, the modified AllConsult teaches wherein the hand truck has a handle with a lift bar UP/DOWN user control (Magoto, col 5, lines 56-67 and col. 6, lines 1-6).
As for claim 14, the modified AllConsult teaches wherein the pallet (AllConsult, 10) includes an electrical motor (AllConsult, 48; AllConsult ‘414, 46) that is powered by the electrical source (AllConsult ‘414, battery; Magoto, 100, battery) and that drives at least one of the front and rear rollers (AllConsult 46, 48) to move the conveyor belt (AllConsult, 50) to unload the material (AllConsult, Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 11 are allowed.
Claims 6 and 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims in the application are deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the prior art. The claims recite structural, positional and functional limitations to the drive wheel and its coupling to the conveyor belt. The drive wheel (AllConsult, 47, 48, 49) of the prior art of AllConsult does not disclose wherein the drive wheel is capable of contacting the ground surface when the lift bar on the hand truck is in the upper position with the rear end of the pallet lifted but does not contact the ground surface when the lift bar on the hand truck is in the lower position; and the drive wheel is coupled to the front roller of the conveyor belt, so that the belt moves forward when the drive wheel moves rearward, causing the belt to move and unload the material onto the ground surface when the hand truck and pallet are moved rearwardly.
The prior art of record further fails to disclose, teach or suggest alone or in combination a claimed drive wheel retraction mechanism to prevent movement of the conveyor belt regardless of the position of the lift bar. For the above reasons, the claims overcome the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 8-10 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 TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723