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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15-18 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hart (US 2003/0178801)).
Regarding claim 15, Hart discloses a height-adjustable wheelbarrow comprising a loading trough (24) attached to a frame (16, 18);
a first wheel (12) arranged at a front portion of the wheelbarrow, said front portion being arranged with respect to a longitudinal direction of the wheelbarrow;
a second wheel (14) arranged at a rear portion of the wheelbarrow, said rear portion being arranged with respect to the longitudinal direction of the wheelbarrow;
a device (see Fig. 4) for adjusting the height of the wheelbarrow, the device configured to adjust a vertical position of the second wheel relative to the loading trough (see vertical directional arrows in Figs. 6A-B), wherein the device comprises:
a telescopic tube (22/44; e.g., the sliding element 22 is tubular --see Fig. 4 showing its square tube configuration; and is telescopically received with sleeve 44; see Figs. 3-5 showing the relative movement of the sliding tube 22 within the constraining and guiding fixed sleeve 44) connected at a first axial end portion (e.g., upper end of tube 22) to the frame (via sleeve 44 mounted to bracket/support 18 in Fig. 4) and/or the loading trough and at a second axial end portion (where the lower end of tube 22 is coupled to end 38) to a mounting (20) of the second wheel (14), and
an actuating device (40) arranged at the telescopic tube, the actuating device configured to adjust a tube length of the telescopic tube (see ¶0029 describing the vertical movement of the rear wheel due to actuation of the release 40).
Regarding claim 16, Hart further discloses that the telescopic tube comprises a first outer tube (44) and a second inner tube (22) arranged movably relative to the first outer tube, wherein the first outer tube is connected to the frame (via crossbrace 18 in Fig. 4) and/or the loading trough at the first axial end portion (at the upper end) of the telescopic tube, and wherein the second inner tube (22) is connected to the mounting (20) of the second wheel at the second axial end portion (at 38) of the telescopic tube.
Regarding claim 17, Hart further discloses that the first outer tube (44) is connected to a mounting bracket (18 in Fig. 4) arranged on an underside of the loading trough (see e.g., Figs. 1-2 showing the bracket arranged under the frame-supported loading trough), wherein a first leg of the mounting bracket (e.g., the top plate of the square bracket 18) is attached to the underside of the loading trough (via longitudinally running frame rails 18) and wherein a second leg of the mounting bracket (e.g., the vertical plate of the square bracket 18) is attached to the first outer tube (44; see Fig. 4) of the telescopic tube.
Regarding claim 18, Hart further discloses that the actuating device (40) is attached to a wall surface of the first outer tube (44; see Fig. 4 showing the actuator housing mounted to a side of the outer tube 44) and the second inner tube (22) has a plurality of openings (42) formed along a longitudinal axis (e.g., in the vertical direction in Fig. 4), and wherein the actuating device comprises a locking pin (46) insertable into a respective one of the plurality of openings (42).
Regarding claims 26-27, Hart further discloses that the telescopic tube (44, 22) is configured so that, in a parked state of the wheelbarrow (see e.g., Fig. 3), the telescopic tube is aligned substantially perpendicular to the ground (see Fig. 3 showing the substantially vertical or slightly forward angled telescoping tubes 44, 22) or is inclined at a predetermined angle of inclination to the perpendicular alignment of the telescopic tube to the ground towards the front section of the wheelbarrow, wherein the angle is between zero and 45 degrees (see Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart.
Regarding claim 31, while Hart discloses that at least some of the structural elements supporting the wheelbarrow are tubular (e.g., the tubular outer telescopic element 44, while the elevating shaft 22 is further depicted in Fig. 4 as being a square tubing), it does not explicitly recite that the frame is tubular.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the frame of Hart to use tubular elements as taught by Hart to arrive at the claimed device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (tubular framework) for another (frame elements of non-specific cross-section) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a lighter, less expensive frame).
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart in view of Smither (GB 2445051, see applicant provided copy).
Regarding claims 19, 21, and 23, Hart further discloses that the actuating device (40) comprises a housing attached to the wall surface of the first outer tube (see Fig. 4), wherein a spring element is configured and positioned to act on the locking pin (46; see ¶0029 describing how the catch-pin is spring loaded toward a locked position) with a predetermined spring force (implicit that a spring has a given spring force), and wherein the locking pin (46) is connected to a cable pull (50) which is actuatable by a pull lever (48) mounted to the end of a handle (31) at an axial end portion of a holm (e.g., the interconnected frame elements 30, 34, 52, 18) to pull the pin (46) out of the hole (42).
While Hart discloses that the actuating device has a housing for the actuator and that the actuator is spring-biased, it does not explicitly recite that the spring is within the housing or that the cable extends along the center of the spring.
Smither teaches another height adjustable wheelbarrow including a height adjusting actuator (35; see Fig. 4) having a spring-biased pin (342) mounted within a housing (e.g., the surrounding housing of swingarm 242/24). A user operates a pull lever (354) to pull a cable pull (352) to retract the pin (342) against the bias of the spring (346) further into the housing to release the rear wheel for height adjustment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the wheelbarrow of Hart to have its biasing spring within a protective housing as taught by Smither to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., seating a spring within a housing) to known devices (e.g., spring-biased height adjustment Bowden cables) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------a spring that is better protected from damage).
Regarding claim 20, while Hart discloses that a spring biases the locking pin, it does not specifically disclose that the spring is a helical spring.
The spring of Smither from the above combination is a helical spring (346, see Fig. 4) that surrounds the underlying pull elements (352, 341).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the actuator of Hart to use a helical spring as taught by Smither to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a helical spring) for another (a non-specific spring) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a spring that both provides a biasing force and which is captured/retained by running a connector down its length).
Regarding claim 22, as discussed above, while Hart discloses that a spring biases the locking pin, it does not specifically disclose the structural arrangement of the biasing spring.
As discussed above Smither teaches that an height-adjustment latch can be mounted within a housing and use a cable-mounted biasing spring (346). The biasing spring (346) is configured to rest at a first axial end portion on an inner wall (343) of the housing, and the spring element also rests at a second axial end portion on a bearing surface (345).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the actuator of Hart to use a housing supported helical spring as taught by Smither to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a helical spring seated to apply a biasing force) for another (a non-specific spring mount) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a spring that is supported on both sides to apply a consistent biasing force).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart in view of Smither as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Barber (1,580,877).
Regarding claims 24-25, while the Hart/Smither combination provides for a height-adjustment actuator that uses a Bowden-type pull cable system that has its cable pull (352 in Smither) passing through openings in housing supports (see Fig. 4), it does not specifically provide a threaded bolt that passes through a housing outer wall or an adjusting element on this threaded bolt to adjust the cable pull.
Barber teaches the well-known expedient of a cable-pull (1) Bowden-type flexible control mechanism that has its cable pull (1) extends through a housing opening (e.g., opening 19 in Fig. 2) of the actuating device into an interior space of the actuating device, on an outer wall of the housing in a region of the housing opening has a threaded bolt (e.g., thimble 18) arranged to extend at least in part through the housing opening to bear against the outer wall of the housing (e.g., flange 18’ is mounted on the interior, while the threaded stud passes through the opening 19), the threaded bolt being secured at a first axial end portion at the inner wall of the housing (via flange 18’) and the cable pull (1) is passed through an opening formed along a central longitudinal axis of the threaded bolt (see Fig. 1);
wherein an adjusting element (21/22) is positioned on the threaded bolt (18) at a second axial end portion of the threaded bolt arranged outside the housing of the actuating device (see e.g., Fig. 3 showing the adjustment knob outside of the housing wall 20) for adjusting a pretension of the cable pull, the cable pull being passed through an opening formed along a central longitudinal axis of the adjusting element (see Fig. 1), and wherein the pretension of the cable pull is adjustable via axial movement of the adjusting element along the threaded bolt (e.g., by rotating the knob 21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the Bowden-type cable actuator of the Hart combination to use Bowden-type cable mounting and adjustment hardware as taught by Barber to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., securing a Bowden cable to an actuator and providing adjustment to a flexible connection) to known devices (e.g., Bowden cable-based actuators) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------an adjuster that is securely held in place and which allows for fine tuning of the pull cable to improve accuracy/comfort).
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart in view of Rohrs (6,099,025).
Regarding claim 29, Hart discloses that the holms (18, 34, 30) include a first section (18, see ¶0027) adjacent the rear section of the wheelbarrow that bears at least in part against the trough (24) and/or is connected to the loading trough, and wherein the first holm and the second holm have a second section (e.g., upright 34) adjoining the first section (18) and angled away from the first section at a predetermined angle (e.g., upright).
Hart does not disclose that the handle is pivotally mounted to the rest of the holm/frame.
Rohr teaches another wheelbarrow including a frame/holm (20, 36, 44; see Fig. 4). The handle portion (44) being mounted via a joint or hinge (see Fig. 4 showing the pivoting handle in different positions in solid and phantom lines) to the rest of the holm (20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the wheelbarrow of Hart to include a pivot joint along the handlebars to make the handles angle adjustable as taught by Rohr to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using a pivot joint to allow for angle adjustment of handles) to known devices (e.g., wheelbarrows with mid-handle connections) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 30, Hart further discloses that the first/main frame portion (18) of the two holms (18, 34, 30) are connected to each other by a reinforcing strut (e.g., crossbeam 18 in Fig. 4, which also denoted 16 and 18 in Fig. 1, and 18/18 in Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see top of page 9 of the response filed November 26, 2025, with respect to whether the drawings require the features claimed in claim 30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings of August 26, 2025 has been withdrawn.
The Applicant's arguments related to the prior art rejections to independent claim 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments are that the Hart prior art reference’s elevating mechanism (22, 44) is structurally distinct from the claimed device. For the following reasons, the examiner disagrees and maintains that Hart discloses each of the recited structural features:
The initial reason is based on the premise that although the actuation of the release (40) permits the frame and bucket to move vertically relative to the wheels, that somehow this operation is not the same as “adjusting a vertical position of the second wheel relative to the loading trough.” The examiner maintains that the upward and downward repositioning of the tube (22) along sleeve (44) results in the wheel moving toward and away from, respectively, the trough. While the applicant characterizes this operation as an adjustment of the handle height and not the wheel height, that does not change the fact that vertical movement of the telescoping wheel-mounted element (22) relative to the trough-mounted element (44) results in the wheel moving either toward or away from the trough (and the trough-mounted handle).
Next, the applicant argues that because the second/bottom end of the telescoping element (22) is coupled to a swing arm (20) that it does not disclose the recited connection of one end “to a mounting of the second wheel.” The examiner disagrees and maintains that the swing arm (20) reads upon a “mounting” of the wheel as the wheel is directly coupled to the swing arm and provides the means for how the wheel is mounted to the rest of the device. As the applicant admits, the end of element (22) is connected to the swing arm (20).
Lastly, applicant argues that the combined elements (22/44) do not read upon the recited telescopic tube “in the sense” required by claim 15. The examiner disagrees with this premise as the elevating mechanism of Hart discloses all of the structural features recited in the claim. Namely, the elevating shaft (22) slides within a sleeve (44) that surrounds and guides the sliding element (22). This constrained sliding motion of the shaft (22) within the sleeve reads upon a “telescoping tube” when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “telescoping.” As discussed in the above rejection, the sliding element (22) is tubular (see Fig. 4 showing its square tube configuration) and it telescopes within the sleeve (44) to allow the wheel to be positioned along the various adjustment holes (42). This vertical movement results in an adjustment in the effective length of the tube (22) that extends down away from the sleeve. That is, when the tube (22) is extended downwardly as shown in Fig. 5, the length of the tube is longer than when the tube is retracted upwardly as shown in Fig. 3. This telescoping change in length extending down from the sleeve (44) results in the wheel (14) moving away (Fig. 5) or toward the trough (Fig. 3).
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 STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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 can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618