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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paras. 0013, 0016 and 0018 contain a spelling error. Please amend the specification to utilize the correct spelling. Applicant has recited “castor” which should be spelled “caster”. The claim set utilizes the correct spelling of caster.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watson (US 2011/0079972 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Watson discloses a hand cart (wagon 10), comprising: a handlebar (handle 12 with grip 30) connected to a wheeled frame (body 14); and a platform (portion 24 with portion 26) disposed upon and connected to the wheeled frame (Fig. 4), the platform further comprising vertical sides (panels 16, 18, 20 & 22) surrounding the platform (Fig. 4), at least one of the vertical sides releasably slidable down to expose the platform (Para. 0048; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Watson discloses the hand cart according to claim 8. Watson further discloses wherein a plurality of the vertical sides are independently releasably slidable down to expose the platform (Para. 0048).
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camarco et al. (US 10,780,907 B1) in view of Ondrasik et al. (US 2003/0205875 A1).
Regarding claims 1 & 12, Camarco et al. discloses a hand cart (cart 100), comprising: a platform (deck 122) disposed upon and connected to a wheeled frame (wheels 108 & 109), the wheeled frame comprising: a handlebar (handle 116); a lower frame (assembly 107), comprising at least one front caster wheel (wheels 108), caster wheels having a user-operable brake (Col. 6, Lns. 32-37); a suspension arm comprising at least one rear caster wheel (wheels 109), the suspension arm hingedly connected to the lower frame (Figs. 11-12); and a source of downward compressible force between the suspension arm and the lower frame (springs 158).
Camarco et al. discloses a cart with front and rear caster wheels, however, the invention as claimed discloses a cart with front, rear and two center caster wheels. It is well known in the cart art to include a set of center caster wheels to in order to increase the stability of the device and thereby allowing the cart to carry heavy loads.
Ondrasik et al., however, teaches a cart having front caster wheels, two center caster wheels and rear caster wheels (Para. 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included two center casters as taught by Ondrasik et al. on the invention of Camarco et al. for the purpose of supporting heavy loads and uneven loads across the platform.
Regarding claim 2, Camarco et al. as modified by Ondrasik et al. discloses the hand cart according to claim 1. Camarco et al. further discloses wherein the source of downward compressible force is hydraulic piston and cylinder (hydraulic cylinder pump 150).
Regarding claim 3, Camarco et al. as modified by Ondrasik et al. discloses the hand cart according to claim 1. Camarco et al. further discloses wherein the user-operable brake is normally engaged and is releasable only by user operation (Col. 6, Lns. 32-37).
Regarding claim 4, Camarco et al. as modified by Ondrasik et al. discloses the hand cart according to claim 1. Camarco et al. further discloses having two front caster wheels (wheels 108) and two rear caster wheels (wheels 109).
Regarding claim 5, Camarco et al. as modified by Ondrasik et al. discloses the hand cart according to claim 1. Camarco et al. further discloses wherein the platform further comprises vertical sides (guiderail 114; Fig. 1) surrounding the platform (deck 122; Fig. 1).
Claims 6-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camarco et al. in view of Ondrasik et al. and in further view of Watson (US 201/0079972 A1).
Regarding claims 6 & 12, Camarco et al. as modified by Ondrasik et al. discloses the hand cart according to claim 5. Camarco et al. differs from the invention as claimed because Camarco et al. does not disclose wherein at least one of the vertical sides is releasably slidable to expose the platform.
Watson, however, teaches wherein at least one of the vertical sides is releasably slidable down to expose the platform (Para. 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included wherein at least one of the vertical sides is releasably slidable down to expose the platform as taught by Watson on the invention of Camarco et al. for the purpose of easily accessing the contents on the platform.
Regarding claim 7, Camarco et al. as modified by Ondrasik et al. discloses the hand cart according to claim 5. Camarco et al. differs from the invention as claimed because Camarco et al. does not disclose wherein at least one of the vertical sides is releasably foldable outward to expose the platform.
Watson, however, teaches wherein at least one of the vertical sides is releasably foldable outward to expose the platform (panels 20 & 22; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included wherein at least one of the vertical sides is releasably foldable outward to expose the platform as taught by Watson on the invention of Camarco et al. for the purpose of easily accessing items on the platform.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Camarco et al. and in further view of Ondrasik et al.
Regarding claim 10, Watson discloses the hand cart according to claim 8. Watson further discloses wherein the wheedled frame comprises front and rear casters (Fig. 1).
Watson does not disclose wherein the wheeled frame comprises: two center wheels having a user-operable brake; a suspension arm comprising two rear caster wheels, the suspension arm hingedly connected to the lower frame proximate the two center wheels, and one or more coiled helical springs providing downward compressible force between the suspension arm and the lower frame.
Camarco et al., however, teaches a hand cart (cart 100), comprising: a platform (deck 122) wheeled frame comprises: at least one front caster wheel (wheels 108), caster wheels having a user-operable brake (Col. 6, Lns. 32-37); a suspension arm comprising at least one rear caster wheel (wheels 109), the suspension arm hingedly connected to the lower frame (Figs. 11-12); and a source of downward compressible force between the suspension arm and the lower frame (springs 158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included wherein the wheeled frame comprises; a suspension arm comprising two rear caster wheels, the suspension arm hingedly connected to the lower frame proximate the two center wheels, and one or more coiled helical springs providing downward compressible force between the suspsion arm and the lower frame as taught by Camarbco et al. on the invention of Watson in order to increase the stability of the device and thereby allowing the cart to carry heavy loads.
Ondrasik et al., however, teaches a cart having front caster wheels, two center caster wheels and rear caster wheels (Para. 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included two center casters as taught by Ondrasik et al. on the invention of Watson. for the purpose of supporting heavy loads and uneven loads across the platform.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Camarco et al.
Regarding claim 11, Watson discloses the hand cart according to claim 8. Watson differs from the invention as claimed because Watson does not disclose comprising a user-operated means for raising and lowering the platform on the wheeled frame.
Camarco et al., however, teaches a user-operated means for raising and lowering the platform on the wheeled frame (Col. 10, Lns. 33-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have include means for raising and lowering the platform on the wheeled frame as taught by Camarco et al. on the invention of Watson for the purpose of raising and lowering heavy objects.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and cited on PTO Form 892 is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY LYNN JOHNS whose telephone number is (313) 446-4852. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-5:30.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/HILARY L JOHNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613