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 § 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 19 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. An intersection normally requires two different parts that intersect each other. However, claim 19 just defines an intersection of one (single) axis without closer defining the intersection. There is an infinite number of "perpendicular intersections" of an axis. Claim 19 is therefore unclear.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crow (US Pat. No. 6,409,187) and further in view of Kilenstam (GB 2 002 301) [provided by Applicant].
Regarding claim 1, Crow discloses a load bearing manual handling trolley apparatus (10), said trolley apparatus (10) comprising: a frame (17) comprising a base (24), said base (24) comprising a front face, a rear face and two connecting faces arranged so as to form a supportive base with four corners (see figures 1-3); at least one wheel (26a, 26b, 28a, 28b) located at each corner portion of said base (24); a brake mechanism (14, 40, 66, 72) comprising a wheel unit (see figures 4-6) and a wheel brake apparatus (40, 66, 72) for engaging said wheel unit, said wheel unit comprising at least one wheel (28a, 28b, 36); at least one handle member (100, 106) located on said frame; an elongate member (82), said elongate member (82) connecting each of said at least one handle members (100, 106) to said brake mechanism (14, 40, 66, 72), and arranged in operative communication with the wheel brake apparatus (40, 66, 72) and arranged to actuate the wheel brake apparatus (40, 66, 72) such that actuation of any one of said at least one handle members (100, 106) decouples said brake mechanism (14, 40, 66, 72); wherein said elongate member (82) is arranged to rotate about its longitudinal axis (column 4, line 52 -column 5, line 15) and actuation of the at least one handle member (100, 106) rotates the elongate member (82) about its longitudinal axis; wherein said elongate member (82) is biased to the braked configuration (column 4, lines 26-30).
Crow does not disclose said trolley apparatus (10) further comprising a pivotable member pivotably connected to said frame, said pivotable member configured to pivot between a first position and a second position.
However, at least Kilenstam discloses a trolley comprising a pivotable member pivotably connected to said frame, said pivotable member configured to pivot between a first position and a second position (at least Abstract, fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the braking mechanism of Crow with a pivoting load support trolley as in Kilenstam, since it would have provided means for holding the device in place when loading or unloading or otherwise positioning when movement of the wheels is not intended.
Regarding claim 2, Crow discloses wherein a portion of said at least one handle member projects beyond the length of said pivotable member (figs 1, 3).
Regarding claim 4, Crow discloses wherein said at least one handle member is located at an end of said elongate member (any part that can be grasped by a hand can be interpreted as a handle member, such as the end part of 82).
Regarding claim 5-6, Kilenstam discloses wherein said pivotable member comprises at least one hand accommodation portion (at least 20, 21); wherein said pivotable member comprises a counterbalance unit configured to prevent rotation of the pivotable member unless a force is applied to the at least one hand accommodation portion (telescoping rod arrangement 24a, 28).
Regarding claims 9-12, Kilenstam discloses wherein said pivotable member is connected to said frame along the longitudinal axis of said frame (at least fig 1); wherein said frame comprises an upstanding portion extending along a portion of its longitudinal axis and in a direction away from said base, said pivotable member connected to said upstanding portion (at least supports 18, fig 1); wherein in the first position, said pivotable member is substantially parallel to the base; wherein in the second position, said pivotable member is substantially flat against said frame (at least figs 3 and 4).
Regarding claims 13-19, Crow discloses wherein said brake mechanism comprises a cable connected to said elongate member (generally at 110, fig 3); wherein said brake mechanism comprises an elongate brake member coupled to each wheel of said wheel unit and wherein said elongate brake member is configured to rotate about its longitudinal axis (generally at lever arm 40, figs 4-6); wherein said brake mechanism further comprises at least one cam configured to transfer linear motion of said cable to rotational motion via said elongate brake member (generally at cam member 80, figs 4-6); wherein said at least one cam comprises an arm in communication with said cable and said elongate brake member (at least at shaft 82, figs 3-5); wherein the wheel brake apparatus comprises a friction brake (at least col 4, lines 26-31); wherein said elongate member extends along substantially the entire length of said frame (at least fig 3); wherein said brake mechanism is located at the perpendicular intersection of the longitudinal axis of said base (at least fig 3 in view of indefiniteness noted above).
Regarding claims 20-21, Kilenstam discloses wherein said trolley apparatus comprises at least one load retention portion configured to retain at least a portion of a load on said trolley apparatus; wherein the at least one load retention portion comprises a retaining member (at least 21) and a retaining member acceptance portion (area between 20 and 21).
Regarding claim 22, Crow discloses wherein said trolley apparatus further comprises a forklift carrying member (24) configured to allow said trolley apparatus to be carried by a forklift truck (wherein the underside 24 is capable of allowing said trolley to be carried by a forklift truck). This limitation of “configured to allow” is interpreted as intended use and the structure of Crow is capable of performing the function.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crow in view of Kilenstam and further in view of Kolesa (US Pat. No. 7,628,408).
Regarding claims 7-8, Kilenstam discloses wherein the counterbalance unit comprises at least one member, the member connecting said frame to said pivotable member (again, telescoping rod arrangements, fig 4); wherein said counterbalance unit comprises two members located at opposing distal ends of said frame (figs 3 and 4).
Kilenstam does not specifically disclose said members being pneumatic.
However, at least Kolesa discloses such a pivoting mechanism wherein the member is pneumatic (col 4, lines 46-54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the technique of a pneumatic lifting member as in Kolesa with the pivoting arrangement of Kilenstam, since it would have provided better safety and greater load capability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art when taken alone or in combination does not appear to teach or fairly suggest at this time the load bearing manual handling apparatus of claim 2, wherein said at least one handle member is telescopic in a direction away from said frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB B MEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-7.
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 at 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.
JACOB B. MEYER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3613
/JACOB B MEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613