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 2 recites the limitation "the different hinged bases" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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) 1-2, 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).
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, additionally Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known to make use of connector relationships between components where components have receiving and inserting arrangements. and the inserting connectors at the two ends of at least one hinged base are arranged in a staggered mode (Figures of Delmerico show the staggered relationship). 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.
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Sun et al. and Delmerico teaches the anti-pinch foldable trolley according to claim 1, 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 (covered in the rejection of claim 1).
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Sun et al. and Delmerico teaches the anti-pinch foldable trolley according to claim 2, 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. and Delmerico 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. and Delmerico 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. and Delmerico 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. and Delmerico 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).
Claim(s) 3-4 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 regards to claim 3, the combination of Sun et al. and Delmerico fails to teach the anti-pinch foldable trolley according to claim 2, 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 3, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9-10 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.
Conclusion
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, TC 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