DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
Claims 6-7, and 10 are allowed. Claims 1-5, and 8-9 are rejected. Claim 4 contains allowable subject matter but depends on claim 1, which has a 112 rejection, and thus claim 4 inherits this deficiency. The amendments filed on 9/7/2026 have been entered, no new matter has been added. Applicants filed on 9/7/2026 have been fully considered and are a combination of persuasive, persuasive but moot, and unpersuasive.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 9/7/2026 have been entered, no new matter has been added.
Response to Argument
Applicants filed on 9/7/2026 have been fully considered and are a combination of persuasive but moot, and unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is not taught by the prior art of record. This argument is persuasive, but upon additional searching, a reference was found that remedies this limitation in an obvious combination as indicated below.
Applicant argues that claims which depend on claim 1 similarly overcome the prior art because they depend on amended claim 1. This is true, but similarly to claim 1, the new combination of references also teach these claims.
Applicant argues that the combination of Chen in view of Sun does not obviously teach claims 4-5 because this combination would require substantial reconstruction. Applicant argues that the previous combination of Chen in view of Sun fails to “sufficiently address Sun’s actual folding structure.”
Examiner finds this persuasive for claim 4. Claim 4 requires “two free ends of two guardrail tubes,” Chen does not teach free ends, and modifying Chen to have free ends as taught by Sun would require substantial reconstruction. Thus, the previous 103 rejection is withdrawn. Upon additional searching, no single reference or combination of references were found that teach all the limitations of claim 4, thus claim 4 is objected to for depending upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if written in independent form with all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for claim 5. The claim 5 rejection relies on a substantially different combination from claim 4, and applicant does not argue why claim 5’s combination is insufficient either as destroying the functionality of Sun or requiring substantial reconstruction of Sun. Thus, the 103 rejection to claim 5 is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 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, and if the 112 rejection to claim 1 is resolved.
Regarding claim 4, reasons for indicating this allowable subject matter are included in the response to argument section above.
Claims 6-7, and 10 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance.
Claim 6 and 10 were previously objected to for depending upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if written in independent form with all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. They have now been rewritten as independent claims with the base and intermediary limitations. Thus, they are allowed.
Regarding claim 7, this claim appropriately depends on allowed claim 6, and is thus allowable at least by merit of its dependency.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 8-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites the limitation "the pull handle assembly." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because “a pull handle assembly” appears later in the claim.
Regarding claims 2-5, and 8-9, this claim depends on claim 1 and thus inherits its deficiencies.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 11225277 B1) in view of Bickel (US 12568927 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a collapsible trolley with a guardrail, comprising a rack assembly (taught by figure 2),
wherein the rack assembly comprises a front guardrail tube disposed at a side of the rack assembly adjacent to the pull handle assembly (91 “upper U-tube” taught by figure 3),
a pull handle assembly provided in front of the rack assembly (5 “draw bar assembly” taught in figure 2), a push handle assembly fixed behind the rack assembly (10 “handrail” taught in figure 2), and a caster assembly provided at a bottom of the rack assembly (6 “wheel” taught in figure 2).
However, Sun does not teach wherein the front guardrail tube, when in an assembled and un-collapsed state, has a U-shape that is disposed in a horizontal plane and is attached to a front vertical tube, and wherein the front guardrail tube includes a longitudinal portion and a latitudinal portion that forms the U-shape and wherein the longitudinal portion and the latitudinal portion are disposed in the horizontal plane,
Bickel teaches wherein the front guardrail tube (34 “U-shaped support member” taught by figure 1), when in an assembled and un-collapsed state, has a U-shape that is disposed in a horizontal plane and is attached to a front vertical tube, and wherein the front guardrail tube includes a longitudinal portion and a latitudinal portion that forms the U-shape and wherein the longitudinal portion and the latitudinal portion are disposed in the horizontal plane (taught by figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the front guardrail tube of Sun to be U-shaped in the horizontal plane as taught by Bickel, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the guard rails would increase the stability of the cart fabric 7 taught by figure 2.
Regarding claim 2, Sun in view of Bickel teaches the collapsible trolley with the guardrail according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Sun also teaches wherein the rack assembly comprises a bottom rack (4 “bottom frame assembly” taught by figure 2), a front frame (3 “rear wall assembly” taught by figure 1) and a rear frame (2 “front wall assembly” taught by figure 1) respectively provided at two ends of the bottom rack (taught by figure 1), and side frames respectively provided at left and right sides of the bottom rack (taught by figure 2), wherein the front frame is connected to the pull handle assembly, and the rear frame is connected to the push handle assembly (taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Sun in view of Bickel teaches the collapsible trolley with the guardrail according to claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Sun also teaches wherein each of the front frame and the rear frame comprises a horizontal tube (9 “lower horizontal tube” taught by figure 3), vertical tubes respectively fixedly attached to two ends of the horizontal tube (92 “vertical tubes” taught by figure 3), and a guardrail tube passing through tube sleeves respectively hinged to upper ends of the vertical tubes (91 “upper U-tube” taught by figure 3); and the guardrail tube is U-shaped and slidable in the tube sleeves (taught by figure 3); and
alternatively, each of the front frame and the rear frame is provided with two double-end sliders (82 “roof sliders” taught by figure 3), wherein the two double-end sliders are slidable up and down on the vertical tubes;
foldable short tubes are connected between the two double-end sliders (11 “cross tubes” taught by figure 3);
lower ends of the vertical tubes are respectively fixed to two L-shaped elements (11 “cross tubes” taught by figure 3);
two foldable long tubes are connected between the two L-shaped elements (11 “cross tubes” taught by figure 3);
first ends of the two foldable long tubes are respectively hinged to the two L-shaped elements, and second ends of the two foldable long tubes are hinged together (taught by figure 3);
a side of each of the two foldable long tubes is hinged to a side of each of the foldable short tubes to form an X-shaped crossed structure (taught by figure 3); and
upper ends of the vertical tubes are hinged to first ends of two guardrail tubes, and second ends of the two guardrail tubes are hinged together (taught by figure 3).
Sun does not explicitly teach wherein the vertical tubes are respectively welded to two ends of the horizontal tube.
However, MPEP 2143 I. (E) indicates that a limitation may be obvious if it merely requires a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In this case, Sun indicates that the “vertical tubes respectively fixedly attached to two ends of the horizontal tube” but does not specifically teach how the fixed connection is made. This is an identified problem. It is well understood in the art that there are a finite number of ways to make a fixed connection such as through an adhesive, a weld, or a bolt. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to use a weld to connect the vertical tubes to the horizontal tube with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 11225277 B1) in view of Bickel (US 12568927 B1), and in further view of Chen (US 10272937 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Sun in view of Bickel teaches the collapsible trolley with the guardrail according to claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Sun also teaches wherein the bottom rack comprises a front bottom rack and a rear bottom rack (41 “bottom frame” taught by figure 3);
a front end of the front bottom rack is hinged to the horizontal tube of the front frame, and a rear end of the front bottom rack is hinged to a front end of the rear bottom rack (taught by figure 3);
a rear end of the rear bottom rack is hinged to the horizontal tube of the rear frame, and a top of the front end of the rear bottom rack is transversely fixed to a strip (taught by figure 3); and
the strip contacts the rear end of the front bottom rack (taught by figure 4).
However, Sun does not explicitly teach that the strip is a steel strip.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the strip out of steel since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
However, Sun also does not teach that the bottom rack comprises a center support seat, four U-shaped weld elements hinged to an outer side of the center support seat, and bottom support tubes, wherein first ends of the bottom support tubes are respectively welded to the four U-shaped weld elements, and second ends of the bottom support tubes are respectively hinged to U-shaped iron elements of the vertical tubes.
Chen teaches the bottom rack comprises a center support seat, four U-shaped weld elements hinged to an outer side of the center support seat, and bottom support tubes, wherein first ends of the bottom support tubes are respectively welded to the four U-shaped weld elements, and second ends of the bottom support tubes are respectively hinged to U-shaped elements of the vertical tubes (taught by figures 3-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bottom rack of Sun to contain the center support, four U-shaped weld elements, and bottom support tubes of Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the center support, four weld elements, and bottom support tubes would provide more mechanical strength than the bottom rack configuration of Sun, because sun has fewer support elements.
However, neither Sun nor Chen teach that the U-shaped elements are made of iron.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the U-shaped elements out of iron since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 11225277 B1) in view of Bickel (US 12568927 B1), and in further view of Sun 2 (US 10953904 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Sun in view of Bickel teaches the collapsible trolley with the guardrail according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Sun also teaches wherein the caster assembly comprises a front caster assembly and a rear caster assembly (taught by figure 3);
the front caster assembly or the rear caster assembly comprises a caster carrier, a tire connected to the caster carrier through a pin shaft (taught by figure 3).
Sun does not teach a caster stem with an end fixed to a top of the caster carrier, and a stem sleeve sleeved on an outer side of the caster stem; and
a quick release button and a spring are provided in a transverse square hole at an upper end of the stem sleeve and pressed into a lower end of each of the vertical tubes of the front frame or the rear frame.
Sun 2 teaches a caster stem with an end fixed to a top of the caster carrier (24 “tire holder” taught by figure 22), and a stem sleeve sleeved on an outer side of the caster stem (23 “shaft sleeve” taught by figure 22); and
a quick release button (21 “lock” taught by figure 22) and a spring (22 “lock spring” taught by figure 22) are provided in a transverse square hole at an upper end of the stem sleeve and pressed into a lower end of each of the vertical tubes of the front frame or the rear frame (taught by figure 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the caster assembly of Sun to include the caster stem, stem sleeve, and quick release button of Sun 2, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this would enable the casters to be quickly detached and replaced which would be desirable if one of the casters were damaged.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 11225277 B1) in view of Bickel (US 12568927 B1), and in further view of Sun 3 (US 20250236327 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Sun in view of Bickel teaches the collapsible trolley with the guardrail according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection below.
Sun also teaches wherein a canopy assembly is provided above the rack assembly (8 “roof fabric” taught by figure 1).
However, Sun does not teach that the canopy assembly comprises an upper canopy seat, a lower canopy seat connected to a lower end of the upper canopy seat through a pin, two first transverse support tubes with first ends respectively hinged to an outer side of the upper canopy seat, and two second transverse support tubes with first ends respectively hinged to an outer side of the lower canopy seat.
Sun 3 teaches that the canopy assembly comprises a canopy seat (13d “center seat” taught in figure 9), two first transverse support tubes with first ends respectively hinged to an outer side of the canopy seat, and two second transverse support tubes with first ends respectively hinged to an outer side of the canopy seat (13c “four top rods” taught in figure 9), side seats respectively hinged to second ends of the two first transverse support tubes and second ends of the two second transverse support tubes (taught by figure 9), and vertical posts (13b “” taught by figure 9) with respective upper ends inserted into the side seats and lower ends inserted into canopy fixing seats (taught by figure 9); and
the canopy fixing seats are respectively fixed to guardrail tubes (taught by figure 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the canopy of Sun to include the canopy seats and support tubes of Sun 3, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the presence of the additional support tubes would make the canopy more rigid, and structurally strong, which would be desirable when anything falls on top of the canopy.
However, neither Sun nor Sun 3 teach that the canopy seat is an upper canopy seat and lower canopy seat connected to one another through a pin, and where the upper canopy seat is attached to the two first transverse support tubes and the lower canopy seat is attached to the two second transverse support tubes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the central canopy seat into an upper and lower canopy seat, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
