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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 11, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (GB 2362372 A) in view of McPeak et al. (US 4570953 A) (hereinafter “McPeak”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a hand truck comprising: a chassis characterized by a base bracket and parallel support bars extending therefrom; a wheel assembly depending from said base bracket of said chassis; and an outrigger assembly [Kim Fig. 1, wherein the base bracket is represented by Reference Character 10b, the wheel assembly is represented in part by Reference Character 11 (typ), the parallel support bars are represented by Reference Character 10 (typ), and the outrigger assembly is represented by Reference Character 12 (typ)]; but does not teach a pivotable outrigger assembly.
McPeak teaches an outrigger assembly characterized by outrigger arms rotatingly supported by a portion of said wheel assembly such that said outrigger arms are reversibly pivotable between a passive outrigger assembly configuration and an active outrigger assembly configuration [McPeak Figs. 1 and 3, Outrigger: Reference Character 48 (typ); McPeak Paragraph 8: “Brace member 48 is also pivotally mounted to frame member 12 at one end”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand truck of Kim to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an outrigger assembly in view of McPeak. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim and McPeak because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing safety of operation when carry heavy loads, as recognized by McPeak [McPeak Paragraph 8 “for easy and safe maneuverability even when carrying an extremely heavy load.”].
Kim further teaches a platform translatably received upon said support bars of said chassis, said platform adapted to receive an accessory hanger [Kim Figs. 1 and 2: Both the horizontal portion of the platform and the vertical portion of the platform can receive an accessory hanger on their respective top/front surfaces, their respective bottom/back surfaces, and their respective outer edges.]; and a platform lift assembly for reversibly translating said platform upon said support bars of said chassis, said platform lift assembly operatively interposed between said base bracket of said chassis and said platform [Kim Fig. 1; Kim Page 2, Paragraph 3: “a lifting platform is attached to a frame provided at its lower ends with wheels to be moved selectively upward and downward, and a platform moving unit is situated in the lifting platform”].
Regarding Claim 2, Kim teaches the hand truck of claim 1 wherein said chassis includes a first brace bracing upper portions of said support bars, and a second brace bracing medial portions of said support bars [Kim Fig. 1, Reference Character 10b (upper portion of support bars) and Reference Character 53].
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches the hand truck of claim 1 wherein said chassis includes a first brace bracing upper portions of said support bars, and a second brace bracing medial portions of said support bars, said platform lift assembly carried by said chassis via said base bracket and said second brace [Kim Figs. 1 and 2].
Regarding Claim 4, Kim teaches the hand truck of claim 1 wherein said platform lift assembly comprises a hydraulic assembly [Kim Page 1, Paragraph 5: “The lifting mechanism is comprised of two forks attached to the frame to selectively lift up and lower down cargo while supporting the cargo, a hydraulic drive unit to drive the forks, and a control unit to control the operation of the lifting mechanism. in the lifting mechanism, the forks are moved upward and downward along the frame by the action of the hydraulic drive unit through the control of the control unit and, accordingly, cargo placed on the forks is lifted up and lowered down with the movement of the forks.”].
Regarding Claim 5, Kim teaches the hand truck of claim 1 wherein said platform comprises a base plate and a backer plate, said backer plate upwardly extending from a peripheral portion of said base plate [Kim Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches the hand truck of claim 1 wherein said platform comprises a base plate and a backer plate, said backer plate of said platform translatably engaged with said support bars of said chassis [Kim Figs. 1 and 2].
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches the hand truck of claim 1 wherein said platform comprises a base plate and a backer plate, said backer plate of said platform including opposingly paired sets of channel brackets, said platform translatably received and carried upon said support bars of said chassis via said opposingly paired sets of channel brackets [Kim Fig. 2, Reference Character 22].
Regarding Claim 11, Kim teaches the hand truck of claim 1 wherein said platform comprises a base plate and a backer plate, said backer plate of said platform including an aperture and a tensioned latch affixed adjacent thereto, a portion of the accessory hanger passing through said aperture being lockingly engageable via said tensioned latch [Kim Fig. 2, Reference Character 32; Page 7, Paragraph 1: The platform moving unit, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, is comprised of the first drive motor 33 fixedly attached to a bracket 32 secured to the rear surface of the platform body 23 to be situated between the platform body 23 and the first cover 24, a moving unit 30 engaged with the screw shaft 31 to be rotatable along the screw shaft 31 and supported on one side of the bracket 32’].
Regarding Claim 12, Kim teaches a hand truck but does not teach an outrigger arm locking mechanism. McPeak teaches the hand truck of claim 1 further comprising a locking mechanism for retaining said outrigger arms of said outrigger assembly in said passive configuration [McPeak Fig. 1, Reference Character 49 used in conjunction with unnumbered apertures and structural members]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand truck of Kim to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a locking mechanism for the passive configuration in view of McPeak. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim and McPeak because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a reliable locking means that increases safety. As recognized by McPeak, “Other means of connection, less reliable than the lock pin, have been found to release accidentally while maneuvering with heavy loads, presenting a dangerous condition.” [McPeak Paragraph 8].
Regarding Claim 14, Kim teaches a hand truck but does not teach an outrigger arm locking mechanism. McPeak teaches the hand truck of claim 1 further comprising a locking mechanism for retaining said outrigger arms of said outrigger assembly in said active configuration [McPeak Fig. 3, Reference Character 49 used in conjunction with unnumbered apertures and structural members]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand truck of Kim to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a locking mechanism for the active configuration in view of McPeak. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim and McPeak because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a reliable locking means that increases safety. As recognized by McPeak, “Other means of connection, less reliable than the lock pin, have been found to release accidentally while maneuvering with heavy loads, presenting a dangerous condition.” [McPeak Paragraph 8].
Regarding Claim 16, Kim teaches a hand truck but does not teach first and second locking mechanisms. McPeak teaches the hand truck of claim 1 further comprising a first locking mechanism for retaining said outrigger arms of said outrigger assembly in said passive configuration, and a second locking mechanism for retaining said outrigger arms of said outrigger assembly in said active configuration [McPeak Figs. 1 and 3; Reference Character 49 (typ) used in conjunction with unnumbered apertures and structural members]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand truck of Kim to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a locking mechanism for the passive configuration and the active configuration in view of McPeak. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim and McPeak because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a reliable locking means that increases safety. As recognized by McPeak, “Other means of connection, less reliable than the lock pin, have been found to release accidentally while maneuvering with heavy loads, presenting a dangerous condition.” [McPeak Paragraph 8].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (GB 2362372 A) in view of McPeak et al. (US 4570953 A) (hereinafter “McPeak”) and further in view of Nawada (JP H03259899 A). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kim and McPeak teaches a hand truck but does not teach lined channel brackets. Nawada teaches the hand truck of claim 1 wherein said platform comprises a base plate and a backer plate, said backer plate of said platform including opposingly paired sets of lined channel brackets, said platform translatably received and carried upon said support bars of said chassis via said opposingly paired sets of lined channel brackets [Nawada Fig. 4, Reference Character 3; Nawada “Detailed Description of the Invention”: “Liner 3 is attached to inner skin 1a of straddle arm 1 by welding, and it has extended along with this liner 3 The straddle arm 1.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand truck of the combination of Kim and McPeak to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, lined channel brackets in view of Nawada. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim, McPeak, and Nawada because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving sliding performance of each bracket. As recognized by Nawada, “roller 2 is in contact with upper surface 3a of liner 3 and to make easy sliding of liner 3” [Nawada “Detailed Description of the Invention”].
Claims 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (GB 2362372 A) in view of McPeak et al. (US 4570953 A) (hereinafter “McPeak”) and further in view of Aenchbacher (US 6062802 A). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kim and McPeak teaches a hand truck but does not teach apertured tabs. Aenchbacher teaches the hand truck of claim 1 wherein said platform comprises a base plate and a backer plate, said backer plate of said platform including apertured tabs at opposing upper ends thereof [Aenchbacher Fig. 1, Reference Character 64]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand truck of the combination of Kim and McPeak to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, apertured tabs in view of Aenchbacher. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim, McPeak, and Aenchbacher because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing hand truck versatility. As indicated by Aenchbacher, “the paver installer 10 is capable of transporting objects of varying dimensions.” [Aenchbacher Paragraph 40].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kim and McPeak teaches a hand truck but does not teach apertured tabs. Aenchbacher teaches the hand truck of claim 1 wherein said platform comprises a base plate and a backer plate, said backer plate adapted to receive the accessory hanger [Aenchbacher Fig. 1, Reference Character 64, 66, and 48]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand truck of the combination of Kim and McPeak to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a backer plate adapted to receive an accessory hanger in view of Aenchbacher. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim, McPeak, and Aenchbacher because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing hand truck versatility. As specified by Aenchbacher, “the paver installer 10 is capable of transporting objects of varying dimensions.” [Aenchbacher Paragraph 40].
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Kim and McPeak teaches a hand truck but does not teach an accessory hanger. Aenchbacher teaches the hand truck of claim 1 further comprising an accessory hanger for receipt of an accessory tool to engage a work piece, said accessory hanger lockingly integrateable with said platform [Aenchbacher Figs.1 and 4, Reference Character 48]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand truck of the combination of Kim and McPeak to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an accessory hanger lockingly integrateable with the platform in view of Aenchbacher. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim, McPeak, and Aenchbacher because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing hand truck versatility. As specified by Aenchbacher, “the paver installer 10 is capable of transporting objects of varying dimensions.” [Aenchbacher Paragraph 40].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (GB 2362372 A) in view of McPeak et al. (US 4570953 A) (hereinafter “McPeak”) and further in view of Stanfield (US D327761 S). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Kim and McPeak teaches a hand truck but does not teach hand rails that bendingly return to the base bracket. Stanfield teaches the hand truck of claim 1 further comprising hand rails, said hand rails upwardly extending from upper portions of said spaced apart support bars and bendingly returning towards and to said base bracket [Stanfield Fig. 1]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand truck of the combination of Kim and McPeak to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a bending handrails in view of Stanfield. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim, McPeak, and Stanfield because this would have achieved the desirable results of minimizing joint quantity, increasing hand truck strength, and increasing safety given the curved shaped. As further recognized by Stanfield, this design is also “ornamental” [Stanfield Claim 1]. It should be noted that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Note further that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (GB 2362372 A) in view of McPeak et al. (US 4570953 A) (hereinafter “McPeak”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a hand truck comprising: a chassis characterized by a base bracket and parallel support bars extending therefrom; a wheel assembly depending from said base bracket of said chassis; and an outrigger assembly [Kim Fig. 1, wherein the base bracket is represented by Reference Character 10b, the wheel assembly is represented by Reference Character 11 (typ), the parallel support bars are represented by Reference Character 10 (typ), and the outrigger assembly is represented by Reference Character 12 (typ)]; but does not teach a pivotable outrigger assembly.
McPeak teaches an outrigger assembly characterized by outrigger arms rotatingly supported by a portion of said wheel assembly such that said outrigger arms are reversibly pivotable between a passive outrigger assembly configuration and an active outrigger assembly configuration [McPeak Figs. 1 and 3, Outrigger: Reference Character 48 (typ); McPeak Paragraph 8: “Brace member 48 is also pivotally mounted to frame member 12 at one end”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand truck of Kim to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an outrigger assembly in view of McPeak. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim and McPeak because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing safety of operation when carry heavy loads, as recognized by McPeak [McPeak Paragraph 8 “an especially lightweight hand truck structured for easy and safe maneuverability even when carrying an extremely heavy load.”].
Kim further teaches a platform translatably received upon said support bars of said chassis [Kim Figs. 1 and 2: Both the horizontal portion of the platform and the vertical portion of the platform can receive an accessory hanger on their respective top/front surfaces, their respective bottom/back surfaces, and their respective outer edges.]; and a platform lift assembly for reversibly translating said platform upon said support bars of said chassis, said platform lift assembly operatively interposed between said base bracket of said chassis and said platform [Kim Fig. 1; Kim Page 2, Paragraph 3: “a lifting platform is attached to a frame provided at its lower ends with wheels to be moved selectively upward and downward, and a platform moving unit is situated in the lifting platform”].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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. Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Kim and McPeak teaches a hand truck comprising outrigger arm locking mechanisms but does not teach a tensioned latch. The prior art does not teach or suggest the hand truck of claim 12 wherein said locking mechanism for retaining said outrigger arms of said outrigger assembly in said passive configuration comprises a tensioned latch. The closest reference, McPeak, teaches pins that serve as locking mechanisms in conjunction with apertures and hand truck structural members that retain arms in a passive configuration [McPeak Figs. 1 and 3, Reference Character 49], but does not teach a tensioned latch.
Claim 15 is 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. Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Kim and McPeak teaches a hand truck comprising outrigger arm locking mechanisms but does not teach locking bars. The prior art does not teach or suggest the hand truck of claim 14 wherein said locking mechanism for retaining said outrigger arms of said outrigger assembly in said active configuration comprises locking bars for translated engagement with the deployed outrigger arms, said locking bars operatively linked to a rotatable shaft. The closest reference, Benton et al. (US 10214228 B2) (hereinafter “Benton”) teaches locking bars [Benton Fig. 1, Reference Character 120], but does not teach locking bars configured for translated engagement with the deployed outrigger arms and being operatively connected to a rotating shaft.
Claims 19-24 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. Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Kim and McPeak teaches a hand truck comprising a platform adapted to receive an accessory hanger but does not teach an accessory hanger on a backer plate. The prior art does not teach or suggest the hand truck of claim 1 further comprising an accessory hanger, said accessory hanger received upon a backer plate of said platform via apertures of said backer plate. The closest reference, Aenchbacher, teaches an accessory hanger, having apertures, on a horizontal surface perpendicular to the backer plate [Aenchbacher Figs.1 and 4, Reference Character 48], but does not teach the accessory hanger being received upon the backer plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Claim 1,
Applicant argues that “For all intents and purposes, both functionally and structurally, McPeak’s ‘tripod’ is the operative equivalent of Kim’s auxiliary support pole unit.” (see Kim Fig. 4, wherein the “auxiliary support pole unit” is represented by Reference Character 50). It should be noted that any similarity between Kim’s support pole unit 50 and McPeak’s so-called tripod is irrelevant and immaterial and had no bearing on the prior art rejection. Kim’s outrigger assembly is comprised of the two outrigger arms represented by Reference Character 12 (typ) in Kim Fig. 1. Examiner agrees with Applicant regarding Kim’s outrigger arms not being rotatingly supported by a portion of said wheel assembly (see Kim Fig. 1, wherein the wheel portion of the wheel assembly is represented by Reference Character 11 (typ)), hence the introduction of modifying reference McPeak.
Applicant argues that “Absent from the McPeak et al. teaching is anything resembling outriggers”. Examiner maintains that McPeak teaches an outrigger assembly (see McPeak Figs. 1 and 3, wherein outriggers are represent by Reference Character 48 (typ)), in accordance with Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of “outrigger” which, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “a projecting member run out from a main structure to provide additional stability or to support something” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outrigger; retrieved on 02/20/2026). In the present case, each outrigger arm 48 is a “projecting member”, and hand truck represented in part by Reference Character 12 is the “main structure”. Examiner further maintains that McPeak not only teaches an outrigger assembly but teaches that the outrigger arms are rotatingly supported (see McPeak Fig. 1, wherein outrigger arms represented by Reference Character 48 (typ) are in a stowed/vertical position; and McPeak Fig. 3, wherein outrigger arms represented by Reference Character 48 (typ) have been pivoted to a deployed/horizontal position). Applicant’s assertion that “Brace member 48 is not an outrigger arm” is acknowledged, though no basis for this statement is provided.
Applicant argues that “the asserted motivation to have modified the hand truck of Kim to include an outrigger assembly in view of McPeak…is misplaced”. Examiner calls attention to MPEP §2144 IV which states “(I)t is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness…that there be a suggestion or expectation from the prior art that the claimed [invention] will have the same or a similar utility as “one newly discovered by applicant” (In re Dillon, 16 USPQ2d at 1901).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613