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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “21” has been used to designate both the first support rod and the second support rod in Figure 1. Additionally, reference character “22” has been used to designate both the first support rod in Figure 1 and the stub of what could be best characterized as a rear support in Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the mounting sleeve being inserted into a lower end of the support brace (claim 1) and wherein the mounting sleeve is mounted to the lower end of the support brace through a bolt (claim 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 of the claim the claim recites “an other end”, this would be more clear by amending to read “an other end of each of the bottom support rods”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5 of the claim the claim recites “at a tail end thereof”, this would be more clear by amending to read “at a tail end of the limit rod”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In the preamble of claim 1 the claim recites “…with swivel casters…” and then in the body of the claim it recites “…roller assemblies…” it is unclear from the claim whether these are the same components or separate components. For the purpose of examination it is being interpreted that these are the same components.
In line 5 of claim 1 the claim recites “connected with the support brace”, previously the claim recites “support braces”, which raises the questions as to whether this support brace is the same as the support braces or a new support brace. For the purposes of examination it is being interpreted that the support brace is one of the support braces.
In lines 11-12 of claim 1 the claim recites “the mounting sleeve being inserted into a lower end of the support brace”, however the limited figures provided seem to illustrate the support brace inserting into the mounting sleeve of the roller assemblies.
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(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 11,014,562) in view of Craig et al. (US 6,935,642) and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2018/0265112).
With regards to claim 1, An adjustable and detachable cloth bag trolley with swivel casters, comprising: a base brace (155), support braces (Figure 6, 112, 113, 122, 123) and roller assemblies (160), wherein the base brace (155) comprises a rotary pedestal (155) and bottom support rods (151-154), one end of each of the bottom support rods (151-154) being rotatably arranged on the rotary pedestal (155), and an other end being rotatably connected with the support brace (112, 113, 122, 123); the support braces (112, 113, 122, 123) each comprise a first support rod (112 and 122) and a second support rod (113 and 123) that are rotatably connected; and the roller assemblies (160) each comprise a mounting sleeve (clearly illustrated in figures) and a swivel caster (clearly illustrated in figures), the swivel caster (32) being rotatably arranged at a lower end of the mounting sleeve (clearly illustrated in the figures). With regards to the first support rod comprising a fixed rod and an adjusting rod, the adjusting rod being slidably arranged in the fixed rod and provided with a plurality of adjusting holes at a lower end thereof, an upper end of the fixed rod being provided with a through-type locking hole, and a locking bolt being inserted into the locking hole, Zhu fails to disclose, however, Craig et al. teaches the first support rod comprising a fixed rod (632) and an adjusting rod (612), the adjusting rod (612) being slidably arranged in the fixed rod (632) and provided with a plurality of adjusting holes (as illustrated in Figure 6) at a lower end thereof, an upper end of the fixed rod (632) being provided with a through-type locking hole (hole for 631), and a locking bolt (236) being inserted into the locking hole. Examiner notes that the Craig et al. reference teaches multiple embodiments, two embodiments are relied on as teachings in combination, firstly the embodiment found in Figure 6, which makes obvious the adjustable height of the handles, and secondly, the embodiment found in Figure 2 which makes use of a bolt and hand grip knob to secure the fixed rod and adjusting rod to one another. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the first support rod adjustable in length in order to accommodate individuals of differing heights. Additionally, the usage of telescoping features like this are common knowledge and well know in this art. While spring biased pins are normally used in these systems due to the desire to not potentially lose components when adjusting the height of the support rod it would be equally old and well known to use a through bolt and hand grip knob to secure the two components in relation to one another.
Furthermore with regards to the mounting sleeve being inserted into a lower end of the support brace Zhu fails to disclose, however, Yang et al. teaches a swivel caster (30) having a mounting sleeve (301) that is inserted into the lower end of a support brace. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a swivel caster with a sleeve that is inserted into a lower end of a support brace as it is routine in the art to use either a swivel caster assembly that has a sleeve that goes over the mounting location or inserts into the mounting location, as such either design yields predictable results and is old and common knowledge in the prior art.
With regards to claim 2, Zhu disclose the adjustable and detachable cloth bag trolley with swivel casters according to claim 1, further comprising a lateral support brace (131, 132), wherein the lateral support brace (131, 132) is rotatably connected with the support braces (112, 113, 122, 123).
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Zhu and Yang et al. teaches the adjustable and detachable cloth bag trolley with swivel casters according to claim 1, wherein the mounting sleeve (Yang et al., 301) is mounted to the lower end of the support brace (Zhu, 112 and 122) through a bolt (Yang et al., 50).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 11,014,562) in view of Craig et al. (US 6,935,642), Yang et al. (US 2018/0265112), and further in view of Zhao (CN 106741100 A).
With regards to claim 3, while the combination of Zhu, Craig et al., and Yang et al. teaches the adjustable and detachable cloth bag trolley with swivel casters according to claim 1, wherein an upper end of each of the adjusting rods (Craig et al., 612) is provided with a handle assembly (Zhu, illustrated in Figure 6), the combination does not teach, however Zhao teaches the handle assembly comprising a rotating seat (13) and a push handle (11), the rotating seat (13) being fixedly arranged on the upper end of the adjusting rod (12), and a lower end of the push handle (11) being rotatably arranged in the rotating seat (Figures 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the teachings of Zhao into the invention of Zhu in order to provide a means of adjusting the handle forward and backwards in the direction of travel of the cart in order to accommodate individuals with varying gaits.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Supervisory Patent Examiner should be directed to JOHN R. OLSZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2706. The Supervisory Patent Examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am - 4:00pm.
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 Supervisory Patent Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Supervisory Patent Examiner’s supervisor, TC Director Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
JOHN R. OLSZEWSKI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617