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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 as filed 5/31/2024 are pending herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following claim limitations: “a first side and a second side” (Claim 1, line 3), “a front end and a rear end” (Claim 1, line 9), “a rear supporting frame” (Claim 1, line 12-13 – “front supporting frame” provided with same element number ‘31’ in specification but figures only label front not rear), and “a front end……and a rear end” (Claim 1, line 14-15), “a buckle on the corresponding shaft sleeve” (Claim 5), and “jumping bean” (Claim 7 – see below 35 USC 112 rejection) must all be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities for which appropriate correction is required: Claim 3 recites: “an top end” (line 6), which should all be rewritten as “a top end.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities for which appropriate correction is required: Claim 3 recites: “a bottom end thereof” (line 4-5) and “an top end thereof” are both unclear and should be rewritten. Appropriate correction is required
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities for which appropriate correction is required: Claim 8 recites: “the number of the wheels is four,” which should all be rewritten as “the plurality of wheels consists of four wheels.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the limitation “an aforementioned cross rod” (Claim 2, line 3-4) is of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. The term “cross rod” (Claim 2, line 2) is provided in the claim however it is unclear how these terms are related if at all. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
Claims 2-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the limitation “corresponding” (Claim 2/3/5/8/9/10) is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
Claim 4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the limitation “resists against” is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
Claim 5-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the limitation “a buckle on the corresponding shaft sleeve” (see above drawing objection) is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
Claim 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the limitation “a jumping bean” is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. The disclosure and figures do not provide further clarification for this term. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US 11,091,183 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Wu discloses: A foldable cart (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10), comprising:
a pulling rod assembly (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 1);
a foldable cart frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 20) having a first side and a second side (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10);
a plurality of wheels (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 6) connected to the cart frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10);
a storage bag connected to the cart frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 21);
wherein, the foldable cart frame comprises a front frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 2), a rear frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 3), two foldable fence assemblies (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 9+11+12+13+15+etc.) respectively at the first side and the second side of the foldable cart frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10) and a foldable bottom supporting assembly (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 4+9) having a front end and a rear end (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10), the front frame and the rear frame are respectively connected to the front end and the rear end of the bottom supporting assembly (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10);
the bottom supporting assembly comprises a front supporting frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 4+20) and a rear supporting frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 4+20) which are pivoted together (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 9);
each foldable fence assembly has a front end which is pivoted to the front frame and a rear end which is pivoted to the rear frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10), the two fence assemblies are driven to fold or unfold when the bottom supporting assembly is folded or unfolded (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10);
a front connecting bar (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 2) is connected to a bottom of the front frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10), and
a bottom end of the pulling rod assembly is rotatably connected to a middle portion of the front connecting bar (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Wu discloses: wherein each of the front frame and the rear frame has an inverted U-shape (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 2+3), and has a cross rod and two vertical rods (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10) which are respectively connected to one end of the cross rod on left and right sides of the frame cart corresponding to an aforementioned cross rod (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10);
the front supporting frame and the rear supporting frame of the bottom supporting assembly are capable of unfolding into a rectangle supporting plane when the foldable cart is in an unfolded state (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10);
each vertical rod has a first mounting hole at a bottom end of the vertical rod (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 2+3), and each of the front supporting frame and the rear supporting frame has two corresponding second mounting holes which connect to a corresponding vertical rod (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10) a plurality of connecting members respectively connects to the first mounting hole of one vertical rod and one corresponding second mounting hole of the front supporting frame or the rear supporting frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10), so as to pivotally connect two vertical rods of the front frame to the front supporting frame, and pivotally connect two vertical rods of the rear frame to the rear supporting frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Wu discloses: wherein each fence assembly comprises two long ribs (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 14+16), two short ribs (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 12) and two branch ribs (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 15), a top block is arranged at a top of each vertical rod of the front frame and the rear frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 10), a slider (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 10) being capable of moving along the vertical rod is sleeved on each vertical rod (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10), a top end of each long rib is pivoted to a middle disc (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 13) and a bottom end thereof is pivoted to the slider (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10), a bottom end of each short rib is pivoted to a corresponding lower middle disc (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 9) and an top end thereof is pivoted to corresponding long rib (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10), an oblique connecting block (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 11) being capable of moving along the short rib is sleeved on each short rib (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10), a top end of each branch rib is pivoted to the top block and a bottom end thereof is pivoted to the oblique connecting block (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10), a middle portion of each branch rib is pivoted to a corresponding long rib (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, Wu discloses: wherein the number of the wheels is four (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 6), two wheels are a pair of front universal wheels and two wheels are a pair of rear directional wheels (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10), the two front universal wheels detachably connect to the front connecting bar (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10); the rear frame has a pair of mounting blocks disposed on a bottom of the rear frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10), and each rear directional wheel detachably connects to a corresponding mounting block (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10).
[Claim 11] Regarding Claim 11, Wu discloses: wherein the storage bag is detachably stretched on the cart frame and fixed to top blocks on the front frame and the rear frame (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 11,091,183 B2) in view of Choi (US 9,896,118 B2).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Wu fails to explicitly teach: wherein each lower middle disc has a connecting hole on a surface of the lower middle disc (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10, 9), a bottom connecting bar is arranged below a middle portion of the bottom supporting assembly (See, e.g., Fig. 1-10), two ends of the bottom connecting bar penetrate through the connecting holes of the lower middle discs, respectively, so as to connect the left and right fence assemblies, such that when the cart frame is fully unfolded, a bottom end of the bottom supporting assembly resists against the bottom connecting bar.
However, Choi teaches a similar foldable cart (See, e.g., Choi: Fig.1-6, 100) wherein a lower middle disc has a connecting hole on a surface of the lower middle disc (See, e.g., Choi: Fig.1-6, 212), a bottom connecting bar (See, e.g., Choi: Fig.1-6, 22) is arranged below a middle portion of a bottom supporting assembly (See, e.g., Choi: Fig.1-6, 10), two ends of the bottom connecting bar penetrate through the connecting holes of the lower middle discs (See, e.g., Choi: Fig.1-6), respectively, so as to connect left and right fence assemblies (See, e.g., Choi: Fig.1-6, 211+213+etc.), such that when the cart frame is fully unfolded, a bottom end of the bottom supporting assembly resists against the bottom connecting bar (See, e.g., Choi: Fig.1-6).
Choi teaches that it is well known in the art of foldable cart design to provide the above claimed bottom connecting bar between the lower middle discs of the two fence assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Wu modified so that a bottom connecting bar is provided between the lower middle discs of the two fence assemblies such as taught by Choi, for the purpose of conveniently connecting the two fence assemblies to provide for proper connected control and smooth folding of the overall cart. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
Claims 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 11,091,183 B2) in view of McKay et al. (US 8,973,716 B2).
[Claim 9/10] Regarding Claim 9/10, Wu teaches: wherein each front universal wheel comprises a universal wheel, a U-shaped universal wheel fork with two prongs (See, e.g., Wu: Fig. 1-10, 6+7) [Claim 9] and wherein each rear directional wheel comprises a directional wheel, a U-shaped directional wheel fork with two prongs (See, e.g., Wu: Fig. 1-10, 6+7) [Claim 10]
Wu fails to explicitly disclose: wherein each front universal wheel comprises a pair of bearings and a brake mechanism; the bearings are mounted inside a bearing hole formed at a center of the universal wheel; the brake mechanism comprises a U-shaped brake pedal with two prongs and a pair of brake buckles, each brake buckle is sleeved on one of two opposite sides of the universal wheel, the brake pedal is connected to the pair of brake buckles; the universal wheel fork has two punched holes each arranged at a bottom of each prong of the universal wheel fork, the universal wheel, the pair of bearings, the brake buckle and the brake pedal are coaxially connected to the universal wheel fork between the pair of punched holes; a rotating shaft having an annular groove is disposed on a top of the universal wheel fork, a C-shaped clamping ring clamps into the annular groove of the rotating shaft, and each front universal wheel is inserted into the shaft sleeve of the corresponding vertical tube through the rotating shaft of the aforementioned front universal wheel; each brake buckle has a positioning pore at a top of the brake buckle, and the universal wheel fork has two corresponding connecting pores each arranged at a bottom of each prong of the universal wheel fork, so that each brake buckle connects to each corresponding prong of the universal wheel fork through a connecting member connecting to on positioning pore and the corresponding connecting pore [Claim 9].
wherein each rear directional wheel comprises a pair of bearings; the bearings are mounted inside a bearing hole formed at a center of the directional wheel; the directional wheel fork has two punched holes each arranged at a bottom of each prong of the directional wheel fork, the directional wheel, the pair of bearings are coaxially connected to the directional wheel fork between the pair of punched holes; a polygonal rotating shaft having an annular groove is disposed on a top of the directional wheel fork, a clamping ring clamps into the annular groove of the polygonal rotating shaft; each mounting block is sleeved on the bottom of each vertical rod of the rear frame, a positioning shaft sleeve for allowing the polygonal rotating shaft to pass through is located inside each corresponding mounting block, and, each rear directional wheel passes through the polygonal rotating shaft to be inserted and positioned into the positioning shaft sleeve of the corresponding mounting block [Claim 10].
However, McKay teaches a similar wheel (See, e.g., McKay: Fig.1-12, 210) with the above claimed wheel bearing/brake structures (See, e.g., McKay: Fig.1-12, 225+11+30+225+etc.).
McKay teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle wheel design to provide the above claimed wheel bearing/brake structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Wu modified so that the wheels provide additional bearing/brake structures as claimed and taught by McKay, for the purpose of conveniently providing the wheels with brakes and bearings to provide for adequate control and smooth handling of the cart and thereby prevent component damage from normal wear and tear. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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 of record when taken alone or in combination with another does not teach or fairly suggest at this time at least, among other limitations: wherein the front connecting bar comprises a long tube having two right-angle blocks, a U-shaped clip and two vertical tubes welded on a surface of the long tube, the two right-angle blocks are welded on a left and right side of the long tube, respectively, each right-angle block connects to the bottom end of the corresponding vertical rod of the front frame, the U-shaped clip is welded below a middle portion of the long tube and a clip jaw is welded upon the middle portion of the long tube, a bottom end of the pulling rod assembly is pivoted to the U-shaped clip and positioned by the clip jaw, the two vertical tubes are welded on the long tube at positions between each right-angle block and the U-shaped clip, respectively; a shaft sleeve for mounting a corresponding front universal wheel is inserted into each vertical tube, each vertical tube has a cap at a top of the vertical tube and each cap buckles the corresponding shaft sleeve by a buckle on the corresponding shaft sleeve, as claimed in Claim 5 (emphasis added to allowable limitations not suggested or taught by the prior art).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights