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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 – 15 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 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fifth subframe" in lines 13 – 14 . 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.
Claims 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayward et al. (2024/0199106) in view of Zhu (2024/0067246). In regard to claim 16, Hayward discloses a folding transportation apparatus comprising an A-frame (Fig. 1, items 110 and 115) mounted to a base (Fig. 1, item 105), said base having at least one wheel (Fig. 1, item 120).
In regard to claim 18, Hayward discloses an A-frame transportation apparatus comprising a base (Fig. 1, item 105) having at least one wheel (Fig. 1, item 120), a frame having a bottom side mounted to the base (Fig. 1, items 110 and 115), and a first subframe rigidly fixed to a top side of the frame (Fig. 1, item 145).
In regard to claim 19, Hayward discloses wherein the frame includes at least one first leg and at least one second leg, and a top end of said first leg and a top end of said second leg are rotatably attached to each other (Figs. 1 and 2, items 110 and 115).
Hayward does not disclose a pivoting handle frame. In regard to claim 16, Zhu discloses a folding transportation apparatus comprising a second frame having a first position in the plane of one side of said a body frame (Fig. 2, items 5, 7, 8, 12, and 26), said second frame having a second position with a top edge of said second frame extended from the body for use as a handle to move the folding transportation apparatus (Fig. 1, items 5, 7, 8, 12, and 26), wherein said second frame is rotatable between the first position and second position (Figs. 1 and 2).
In regard to claim 17, Zhu discloses wherein the second frame includes a tray surface (Fig. 1, item 26).
In regard to claim 18, Zhu discloses a transportation apparatus comprising a second subframe mounted to the top side of a frame via a hinge (Fig. 1, item 24), the second frame being rotatable between a first position and a second position (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the second subframe in the first position is oriented in parallel with a first subframe (Fig. 2, item 22), the second subframe in the second position is oriented nonparallel to the first subframe (Fig. 1, item 22), the second subframe having a tray which forms a storage cavity between the first subframe and the second subframe in the first position (Fig. 2), said second subframe having a tray providing a work surface in the second position (Fig. 1), and the second subframe having handles along a perimeter for maneuvering the transportation apparatus (Fig. 1, item 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pivoting handle frame of Zhu, to the folding transporting apparatus of Hayward, in order to provide a user with improved handling and maneuverability while moving the apparatus. This would increase ease of use and vehicle safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claim 20 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: Hayward et al. (2024/0199106) discloses a folding transportation apparatus similar to the instant invention; however Hayward, either alone or in combination, neither discloses nor suggests a folding transportation apparatus comprising (in regard to claim 1) a fifth hinge mechanically coupling the third subframe to the fifth subframe, said fifth subframe adjustable between an open state and a closed state wherein said fifth subframe forms a horizontal surface in said open state and wherein said fifth subframe forms and said third subframe form a storage cavity in said closed state, and (in regard to claim 20) wherein the base comprises two halves that are collapsible along a midline of the base. These limitations, in combination with each and every other independent claim limitation, are not shown in the currently cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shumake (D405,578) discloses a telescoping music stand cart;
Piller et al. (6,234,432) disclose a movable stand arrangement for a vehicle hardtop.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DANIEL WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (PT).
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, 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.
/JOHN D WALTERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613