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 § 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) 1, 4, 6-8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2022/0340183) in view of Delmerico (FR 2,586,988) and further in view of Dickinson (US 4,964,650) with Witzel et al. (US 2014/0265186) provided as evidence for previously taken Official Notice.
With regards to claim 1, Sun et al. discloses an anti-pinch foldable trolley, comprising four side frames (110), a bottom frame (120), wheels (300) and four supporting columns (150) wherein the four side frames and the bottom frame are all arranged on the four supporting columns (Figures 1-4) and define a frame with an opening in an upper end; the wheels (300) are arranged at four corners of the bottom frame; at least two opposite side frames are provided with one or more X-shaped folding frames (As illustrated where the item line for 140 points in Figure 7); however, Sun et al. fails to disclose, but Delmerico teaches each X-shaped folding frame (4 and 6) comprises a rotating piece (14 and 16), and four connecting rods (the portions above and below 14 and 16) fixedly connected to the rotating piece; each rotating piece (14 and 16) comprises two hinged bases hinged to each other (14 and 16); while Delmerico teaches the rotating pieces folding an X-shaped frame while maintaining all elements in the same plane, Delmerico does not teach two ends of each hinged base are provided with inserting connectors used for being connected to the corresponding connecting rods, however, it has been held that making components, that are disclosed or taught as integral, separable is obvious to one having routine skill in the art. Previously, Examiner took Official Notice that it is old and well known to make use of connector relationships between components where components have receiving and inserting arrangements. However, Applicant has challenged the Official Notice, therefore Witzel et al. (US 2014/0265186) is being provided to teach that this type of connection relationship is old and well known. The combination of Sun et al. and Delmerico teach wherein the inserting connectors at the two ends of each hinged base are arranged in a staggered mode; two inserting connectors located on the different hinged bases are arranged in a crossed mode; and four inserting connectors are located in a same plane (the staggered relationship is shown in Delmerico, Figure 7). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Delmerico into the invention of Sun et al. in order to allow for the side frames of the cart to be as compact as possible by allowing the rods to be installed in one plane.
The combination of Sun et al. and Delmerico fails to teach wherein hinged bases are circular, however, Dickinson teaches a circular shape to the hinged bases (Figures 10-13) the two inserting connectors are arranged on circular outer walls of the hinged bases (Figures 10-13) in parallel in a staggered mode (the staggered mode arrangement is taught by the combination of Sun et al. and Delmerico); the two circular hinged bases are hinged in a sleeved mode to form the rotating piece; and during storing, the four connecting rods are in an H shape through the two hinged bases (shown by Delmerico). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Dickinson into the combination of Sun et al. and Delmerico as an obvious design choice as the assembly is an art recognized equivalent rotating member.
With regards to claim 4, the combination of Sun et al., Delmerico, and Dickinson teaches the anti-pinch foldable trolley according to claim 1, wherein the two hinged bases are a hinged base A (6, of Delmerico) and a hinged base B (4, of Delmerico) respectively and are both in a hollow circular shape (taught by Dickinson); an annular shaft part (48) is arranged in the hinged base A (6); the hinged base B (4) is rotationally mounted on the annular shaft part (48); and the hinged base A (6) is provided with a rotating space for facilitating rotation of the hinged base B (4) in a circumferential direction of the annular shaft part.
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Sun et al., Delmerico, and Dickinson teaches the anti- pinch foldable trolley according to claim 1, wherein any one of two inserting connectors located on a same side is provided with a first stop part (42), and the other one is provided with a second stop part (22); and after unfolding, the first stop part (42) and the second stop part (22) abut against each other for limiting.
With regards to claim 7, the combination of Sun et al., Delmerico, and Dickinson teaches the anti- pinch foldable trolley according to claim 1, wherein every two adjacent X-shaped folding frames are hinged through a connecting structure (142); the connecting structure is formed by hinging two hinged joints (Sun et al. [0048]), and each hinged joint is provided with a bent part; and in a storage state, hinge points of the hinged joints are located on outer sides of the X-shaped folding frames (Figures 1-5).
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Sun et al., Delmerico, and Dickinson teaches the anti- pinch foldable trolley according to claim 1, wherein the bottom frame (120) comprises a center base (121) and four bottom rods (122); one end of each bottom rod is hinged to the center base (121), and the other end of each bottom rod (12) is hinged to the corresponding supporting column (150); and during storing, the center base is lifted upwards, and the four bottom rods drive the four supporting columns to be folded towards the middle and drive the X-shaped folding frames to be folded (Figures 1-5).
With regards to claim 11, the combination of Sun et al., Delmerico, and Dickinson teaches the anti-pinch foldable trolley according to claim 1, wherein a handle assembly (200) is arranged at one end of the frame; the handle assembly comprises a handle base (220), handle connecting rods (230) hinged to the handle base (220), and a handle (212) connected to the handle base (220) in a sleeved mode; and ends of the handle connecting rods (230) are hinged to the corresponding supporting columns (150).
With regards to claim 12, the combination of Sun et al., Delmerico, and Dickinson teaches the anti-pinch foldable trolley according to claim 1, wherein an upper end of one side of each X-shaped folding frame is hinged to the corresponding supporting column (via 160), and a lower end of one side of each X-shaped folding frame is slidably hinged to the corresponding supporting column (150).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is with regards to the term “anti-pinch” which appears in Applicant’s specification and in the preamble of the Applicant’s claims. This term has been interpreted by the examiner to be broad and has not been afforded much weight in claim interpretation due to the fact that Applicant’s application discloses a device that would still pinch items over a certain size and the gusset reinforcements as pictured in Figures selected by Applicant from their own invention in the reply filed (Figures 10 and 15) would have a scissor like effect on anything near the central hub of the rotating member, in other words pinching skin or a bag if they are close to the pivoting member itself. As no distance between members has been established and no relative size of user hands relative to the gap in the folded assembly have been disclosed in the application there is no definition to be relied upon from Applicant to be applied to the term “anti-pinch”. Furthermore the size of human hands is a wide range from the smallest infant hand to the largest hand of an adult, and given the Applicant’s disclosure this “anti-pinch” has not been defined structurally enough to prevent all types of hand from being pinched. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1 and 4-12. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “anti-pinch” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Applicant’s second argument is directed to the hinged assembly taught by Delmerico used to teach the members being in the same plane. Applicant appears to focus on members 14 and 16 not being separate pieces having inserting connectors, however Delmerico was not relied upon for this, Examiner took Official Notice that making members integral or separable has been held to be routine in the art and is a matter of design choice, and is overly well known and established in the prior art as a means of connecting elements of a device. Applicant goes on to argue that Delmerico would have pinching based on element 18, this appears similar to the same pinching effect that Applicant’s disclosed gussets would cause in their own disclosure, additionally, Delmerico does teach stops that would prevent the members from coming too close together, as shown in Figure 7 of Delmerico, as was reproduced in the arguments submitted by Applicant.
Applicant’s third argument is directed towards the circular hinged base taught by Dickinson. Applicant argues that the hinge is not a hinge member, however, as shown in figure 3, the hinge member is a hinge member. And Figures 10-13 show the circular shaped hinge portions sleeved together. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the references used as prior art are all from the same field of endeavor, collapsible wheeled carts, and as such the different style of hinges and the resultant gaps between members as well as the shared planes of these members is taught as old and well known by the prior art provided in the rejections above. Specifically, with reference to Dickinson, the reference was relied upon to teach the “circular shape” claimed by Applicant.
Applicant’s fourth argument is directed to the Examiner’s arguments about making components integral or separable based on design preference. The arguments seem to be potentially misdirected, as the Applicant’s argues that because the components have been made separable that the hinge no longer provides a support function. However, when assembled the load of the support members will be transferred through the hinge assembly in a manner similar to the transfer of loads in the integral assemblies used in the rejection. Load transfer is a basic physics principle and a fundamental of engineering design, so the argument appears to be counter to this knowledge. However, this argument is being taken as a challenge of the Examiner’s Official Notice, Examiner provides Witzel et al. (US 2014/0265186) which clearly teaches this two-piece connector design (i.e. making separable).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9-10 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.
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 Supervisory Patent Examiner should be directed to JOHN R. OLSZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2706. The Supervisory Patent Examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am - 4:00pm.
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 Supervisory Patent Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Supervisory Patent Examiner’s supervisor, Technology Center Director Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
JOHN R. OLSZEWSKI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights