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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 9, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 15, 20-23, 26-27, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (6,220,622) in view of Smither (GB 2445051, see applicant provided copy).
Regarding claim 15, 20-21, and 23, Garcia discloses a height-adjustable wheelbarrow comprising a loading trough (3) attached to a frame (12);
a first wheel (5) 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 (45) arranged at a rear portion of the wheelbarrow, said rear portion being arranged with respect to the longitudinal direction of the wheelbarrow;
a device (20,50, 52; 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 height adjustments 51), wherein the device comprises:
a telescopic tube comprising a first outer tube (lower end 22 of tube 20) and a second inner tube (50) arranged movably relative to the first outer tube, wherein the first outer tube is connected to the frame and/or the loading trough at a first axial end portion of the telescopic tube (see Figs. 2 and 3 showing the upper axial end of the telescopic tube terminating at the trough), and wherein the second inner tube (50) is connected to a mounting (40) of the second wheel (45) at a second axial end portion of the telescopic tube (see Figs. 2 and 3 showing the lower axial end of the telescopic tube terminating at the wheel bracket 40), and
an actuating/locking device (51/52) attached to a wall surface of the first outer tube (e.g., the pin 52 is mounted to/through the outer wall surface of outer tube 22), wherein the second inner tube (50) has a plurality of openings (51) formed along a longitudinal axis, and wherein the actuating device comprises a locking pin (52) insertable into a respective one of the plurality of openings (51).
While Garcia discloses that a lock pin is used to select the height of the wheelbarrow, it does not disclose that the adjustment is through a spring-biased pin actuated by a pull cable/lever mounted on the fixed portion of the telescoping adjustment.
Smither teaches another height adjustable wheelbarrow including a height adjusting actuator (35; see Fig. 4) having a helical/coil spring-biased pin (342) mounted within a housing (e.g., the surrounding housing of swingarm 242/24) that cooperates with a complementary adjustment element (e.g., the guide rails 22 having adjustment/catch apertures - see top of page 7) . 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 Garci to use a spring-biased lock pin actuator 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., using an mechanical/automatic adjustment in place of a manual adjustment) to known devices (e.g., height adjustable wheelbarrows) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------a wheelbarrow whose height is more readily adjusted).
Regarding claim 22, the actuating device from the above Smither combination has a height-adjustment latch mounted within a housing and uses 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).
Regarding claim 31, while Garcia discloses that at least some of the structural elements supporting the wheelbarrow are tubular (e.g., the tubular telescopic elements 20/50), 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 Garcia to use tubular elements 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 (a fully tubular framework) for another (frame elements of non-specific cross-section) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a lighter, less expensive frame).
Regarding claims 26-27 and 32-34, Garcia further discloses that the telescopic tube (20/50) is configured so that, in a parked state of the wheelbarrow, the telescopic tube is aligned substantially perpendicular to the ground such that the telescopic tube extends vertically (see Fig. 2) between the frame (e.g., portion 36 of the frame) and/or trough (3) and the mounting (40) of the second wheel at a predetermined angle of inclination between zero and forty-five degrees (here the angle of inclination from the mount 40 and the frame 36 is zero).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Smithers as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hart (US 2003/0178801).
Regarding claim 17, Garcia discloses that the first outer tube (20) is connected to a mounting bracket (36) arranged on an underside of the loading trough (3), but does not disclose that the outer tube and trough are mounted upon different legs/sides of the mounting bracket.
Hart teaches another height-adjustable wheelbarrow wherein a telescoping height adjustment (40) has a reinforcing/mounting bracket (18) that supports an outer tube (44), wherein a first leg of the mounting bracket (e.g., the upper face of element 18) is attached to the underside of the loading trough (24) and wherein a second leg of the mounting bracket (e.g., the vertical face of element 18) is attached to the first outer tube (44) of the telescopic tube (40; see Fig. 4).
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 wheelbarrow of the Garcia combination to include a laterally running mounting/reinforcing bracket to support the adjustment as taught by Hart 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 reinforcing crossbar to improve rigidity/strength) to known devices (e.g., wheelbarrows having an under-trough framework including a height adjustment feature therein) ready for improvement to yield predictable results-.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Smithers as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Barber (1,580,877).
Regarding claims 24-25, while the Garcia/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 Garcia 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 Garcia in view of Smithers as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Rohrs (6,099,025).
Regarding claim 29, Garcia discloses that the holms (4) include a first section (e.g., the portions under the trough 3 in Fig. 1) adjacent the rear section of the wheelbarrow that bears at least in part against the trough (3) and/or is connected to the loading trough (3), and wherein the first holm and the second holm have a second section (e.g., rear ends of the holms 4) adjoining the first section (forward portion of the holm).
Garcia does not disclose that the handle/holm has its second portion angled away from the first portion or that is second portion 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 the Garcia combination 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 claims 30, Garcia further discloses that the first/main frame portion (12) of the two holms (4) are connected to each other by a reinforcing strut (e.g., crossbeam 25 in Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 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. Particularly, the applicant’s amendment to the claims necessitated additional searching and consideration of the prior art which produced the Garci patent reference which discloses the claimed axial end positioning of the telescopic tube.
Conclusion
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 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 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights