DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-8 and 16 are 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 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. Specifically, in claims 1 and 16, it is unclear what constitutes “perforations sized large enough to allow a contaminated portion of a washout to pass through the through hole in the tray of the wheelbarrow and sized small enough to prevent a clean portion of the washout from passing through the through hole in the tray of the wheelbarrow”. For purposes herein, the examiner reads the limitations as “perforations sized between 1/8th to 3/8th inches in diameter”, as provided for in paragraph 44 of the specification.
Claims 2-8 are rejected from depending from claim 1.
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 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Luther (8,651,341).
In re claim 1, Luther teaches a wheelbarrow comprising: a tray (30) having an interior surface, an opposing exterior surface (fig. 5-6) and a through hole (32) extending from the interior surface to the exterior surface; and a grate mounted to the interior surface of the tray and configured to cover the through hole in the tray (fig. 6), the grate including a plurality of perforations sized large enough to allow a contaminated portion of a washout to pass through the through hole in the tray of the wheelbarrow and sized small enough to prevent a clean portion of the washout from passing through the through hole in the tray of the wheelbarrow (see 112 rejection above).
In re claim 9, Luther teaches a wheelbarrow comprising: a tray (30) having an interior surface, an opposing exterior surface (fig. 5-6) and a through hole (32) extending from the interior surface to the exterior surface; a grate mounted to the interior surface of the tray (fig. 6) and configured to cover the through hole in the tray, wherein the grate includes a plurality of perforations; and a drain tub (50) mounted to the exterior surface of the tray, wherein a portion of the drain tub is configured to be located below the through hole in the tray.
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.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luther as provided above.
In re claim 5, Luther differs in that it does not teach the grate has a rectangular shape that covers the through hole in the tray of the wheelbarrow. Nonetheless, the examiner takes the position would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention as a matter of design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-15 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.
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
With respect to claim 17, the claims directed to “a drain tub mounted to the exterior surface of the tray, wherein a portion of the drain tub is configured to be located below the through hole in the tray and the drain tub has a bottom wall including an opening; a reclaiming hose having a first end coupled to the opening in the drain tub and a second end coupled to a washout pump and reclaiming storage tank; and a spray hose coupled to a clean water tank; and wherein the spray hose sends washout material into the tray of the wheelbarrow, the grate allows a contaminated portion of the washout material to proceed through the through hole in the tray to the drain tub and keeps a clean portion of the washout material in the tray and the washout pump sucks the contaminated portion of the washout material from the drain tub through the reclaiming hose to the reclaiming storage tank” is neither anticipated by nor obvious over the prior art” are neither anticipated by nor obvious over the prior art.
For example, attention is directed to Patterson (US 2019/0380534) which teaches a similar apparatus. However, Patterson fails to teach the above referenced limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EREZ GURARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/EREZ GURARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614