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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 12. Replacing “the cart” with “the beehive frame support cart” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 2. Replacing “foramina shaped and dimensioned to function as a queen excluder” with “foramina shaped and dimensioned to function as queen excluders” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are objected to because of the following informality: wording throughout. Replacing “the reservoir container” with “the wheeled reservoir container” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-20 are objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 1 of each occurrence. Replacing “The cart” with “The beehive frame transport cart” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 3. Replacing “the container(s)” with “the open-bottomed frame containers” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 2. Replacing “said cart” with “said beehive frame transport cart” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 2. Replacing “the reservoir” with “the honey reservoir” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9, 11, 14, and 20 are objected to because of the following informality: wording throughout. Replacing “the reservoir container and/or the frame container(s)” with “the wheeled reservoir container and/or the open-bottomed frame containers” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 2. Replacing “the cart” with “the beehive frame support cart” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12, 15, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informality: wording throughout. Replacing “the reservoir container and the frame containers” with “the wheeled reservoir container and the open-bottom frame containers” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informality: wording throughout. Replacing “the reservoir container and/or the frame container” with “the wheeled reservoir container and the open-bottomed frame containers” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: wording in Line 1. Replacing “container(s)” with “open-bottomed frame containers” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the foraminous queen excluder plates define foramina shaped and dimensioned to function as a queen excluder”. This text does not further limit the text “a plurality of foraminous queen excluder plates each insertable at a bottom of a stacked frame container” in Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11, 13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 211995629 U) (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Ardoin (US 20220412633 A1) and further in view of Chamurliyski (BG 112418 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches a beehive frame transport cart a support frame supporting a wheeled reservoir container which defines a honey reservoir [Liu Fig. 2; Liu “Technical Field” Paragraph 1: “The utility model relates to the technical field of bee breeding device, especially relates to a beehive conveying tool.”], but does not teach a tap.
Ardoin teaches a tap located at a bottom thereof [Ardoin Fig. 4, Reference Character 52; Ardoin Paragraph 0014: The lower compartment 14 has a spigot 52 or other liquid dispensing device extending from its outer wall”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of Liu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a tap in view of Ardoin. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu and Ardoin because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling dispensing a liquid without removing the cover, as recognized by Ardoin [Ardoin Paragraph 0014: “a spigot…for dispensing a liquid contained therein without removing the cover 46.”]. It should be noted that while Ardoin does not explicitly claim a honey reservoir, Ardoin’s wheeled reservoir container could define a honey reservoir without change to its structure. It should be further noted that known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, F.). Design incentives include the enablement of dispensing honey from a wheeled reservoir container without removing the cover.
Liu further teaches a beehive transport cart a plurality of open-bottomed frame containers each configured sealingly to stack on the reservoir container and/or each other, each frame container defining an internal upper peripheral ledge for receiving ends of beehive frames to suspend a plurality of said frames in a substantially vertical and side-by-side manner within said frame container [Liu Fig. 1]; but does not explicitly teach foraminous queen excluder plates. Chamurliyski teaches a plurality of foraminous queen excluder plates each insertable at a bottom of a stacked frame container [Chamurliyski Fig. 2, Reference Character 4 (typ); Chamurliyski “Description of the Attached Figures” Paragraph 2: Figure 2 - Extended view of a hive with a lid (1), a roof cushion (2), a body with skirtings (H), a Hahnemann grid (4), a bottom with skirtings (5)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of Liu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a plurality of foraminous queen exclusion plates in view of Chamurliyski. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu and Chamurliyski because this would have achieved the desirable result of excluding queens, as recognized by Chamurliyski [Chamurliyski Abstract: “The separation of the corpuses is realized by placing a queen excluder grates between each of them.”].
Liu further teaches a lid configured to seal an upper stacked frame container, or to engage with a bottom of a frame container to form a drip tray, as required, wherein a plurality of beehive frames is receivable, transportable, and storable within the cart [Liu Fig. 1, Reference Character 13].
Regarding Claim 2, Liu teaches a beehive transport cart but does not teach queen excluder plates. Chamurliyski teaches the cart of claim 1, wherein the foraminous queen excluder plates define foramina shaped and dimensioned to function as a queen excluder [Chamurliyski Fig. 2, Reference Character 4 (typ); Chamurliyski “Description of the Attached Figures” Paragraph 2: Figure 2 - Extended view of a hive with a lid (1), a roof cushion (2), a body with skirtings (H), a Hahnemann grid (4), a bottom with skirtings (5)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of Liu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a plurality of foraminous queen exclusion plates in view of Chamurliyski. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu and Chamurliyski because this would have achieved the desirable result of excluding queens, as recognized by Chamurliyski [Chamurliyski Abstract: “The separation of the corpuses realizes by placing a queen excluder grates between each of them.”].
Regarding Claim 3, Liu teaches the cart of claim 1, wherein the wheeled reservoir container defines an internal upper peripheral ledge for receiving ends of beehive frames to suspend a plurality of said frames in a substantially vertical and side-by-side manner within said reservoir container [Liu Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 4, Liu teaches the cart of claim 1, wherein the support frame defines a handle to facilitate ease of pushing or pulling said cart, said handle configured so that a resultant moment of a weight of the container(s) about wheels of the wheeled reservoir is easily offset by a counteracting force operatively applied along a length of the handle [Liu Fig. 4].
Regarding Claim 5, Liu teaches a handle but does not teach a telescoping handle. Ardoin teaches the cart of claim 4, wherein the handle comprises a telescoping handle whereby a length and/or height thereof is adjustable [Ardoin Fig. 1, Reference Character 18; Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments Paragraph 1: the multi-compartment cooler 10 includes a wheeled platform 12, a lower thermally insulated compartment 14, an upper thermally insulated compartment 16, a telescoping handle 18 having a rearwardly extending handgrip 20”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of Liu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a telescoping handle in view of Ardoin. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu and Ardoin because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling adjustment of the handle, as recognized by Ardoin [Ardoin Claim 3: “…for adjusting extension of the elongated handle from the handle base.”].
Regarding Claim 11, Liu teaches the cart of claim 1, wherein the reservoir container and/or the frame container(s) include deployable handles to facilitate handling thereof [Liu Fig. 1, Reference Character 15 (typ)].
Regarding Claim 13, Liu teaches the cart of claim 1, wherein the lid defines ventilation apertures so that the cart is useable as a portable swarm collector [Liu Fig. 1: two rectangular openings on a side of lid, Reference Character 13].
Regarding Claim 17, Liu teaches the cart of claim 1, which includes a removeable cover which is placeable about the reservoir and/or frame containers in order to regulate an internal temperature of said containers [Liu Fig. 1, Reference Character 13].
Regarding Claim 20 Liu teaches the cart of claim 1, wherein the reservoir and frame containers and/or the lid are manufactured from an opaque material to minimise light exposure to honey and/or honeycomb within the container(s) [Liu Fig. 1; note absence of lines representing corners, edges etc. that would be visible if reservoir and frame containers were not opaque.].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 211995629 U) (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Ardoin (US 20220412633 A1), further in view of Chamurliyski et al. (KR 101030323 B1) (hereinafter “Chamurliyski”), and further in view of Kuykendall (US 1565471 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski teaches a beehive frame transport cart comprising a wheeled reservoir container but does not teach a sloped floor. Kuykendall teaches the cart of claim 1, wherein the reservoir container defines a sloped floor which is configured to direct honey in said reservoir towards the tap [Kuykendall Fig. 3, Reference Characters 9 and 22; Kuykendall Paragraph 14: “A port (22) allows the honey to be withdrawn from the receptacle (9).”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a sloped floor in view of Kuykendall. It should be noted that while Kuykendall does not provide an explicit motivation for implementing a sloped floor, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu, Ardoin, Chamurliyski, and Kuykendall because this would have achieved the desirable results of directing honey toward the tap, improving downward movement of the honey, and preventing honey accumulation in higher regions of the receptacle. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 211995629 U) (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Ardoin (US 20220412633 A1), further in view of Chamurliyski et al. (KR 101030323 B1) (hereinafter “Chamurliyski”), further in view of Kuykendall (US 1565471 A) and further in view of Maschio (US 6719164 B2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Liu, Ardoin, Chamurliyski, and Kuykendall teaches a beehive frame transport cart comprising a wheeled reservoir container defining a sloped floor but does not teach striations, ridges, and/or grooves. Maschio teaches the cart of claim 6, wherein the sloped floor defines a plurality of striations, ridges, and/or grooves configured to direct honey in the reservoir towards the tap under the influence of gravity [Maschio Fig. 1, Reference Characters 21 (typ), 20, and 14; Maschio Paragraph 3: “The bottom of the inner plastic container 12 and the metal tray 17 are equipped with a complementary drainage channel 21, which extends sloping from the rear wall to the front wall to convey the liquid towards the tap 14.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a plurality of grooves in view of Maschio. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu, Ardoin, Chamurliyski, and Maschio because this would have achieved the desirable result of directing honey toward the tap, improving downward movement of the honey, and preventing honey accumulation in higher regions of the receptacle. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 211995629 U) (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Ardoin (US 20220412633 A1), further in view of Chamurliyski et al. (KR 101030323 B1) (hereinafter “Chamurliyski”), and further in view of Hwang et al. (KR 100933029 B1) (hereinafter “Hwang”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski teaches a beehive frame transport cart comprising a wheeled reservoir container with a tap but does not teach a filter. Hwang teaches The cart of claim 1, wherein the tap includes a filter configured to sift particulate material from honey [Hwang Fig. 2, Reference Characters 21 and 211; Hwang “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 17: “the filter 211 which can absorb the sugar solution contained in the storage compartment 2a in the state embedded in the upper portion of the feed faucet 21 and provide it to the above-mentioned food supply part is further provided”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a filter in view of Hwang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu, Ardoin, Chamurliyski, and Hwang because this would have achieved the desirable result of absorbing sugar, as recognized by Hwang [Hwang Claim 2: “the filter is further provided to absorb the sugar solution contained in the storage compartment.”].
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 211995629 U) (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Ardoin (US 20220412633 A1), further in view of Chamurliyski et al. (KR 101030323 B1) (hereinafter “Chamurliyski”), and further in view of Johansson et al. (DE 2914025 A1) (hereinafter “Johansson”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski teaches a beehive frame transport cart comprising a wheeled reservoir container but does not teach fasteners. Johansson teaches the cart of claim 1, wherein the reservoir container and/or the frame container(s) include suitable fasteners to facilitate stacking said containers in a sealing manner [Johansson Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Character 16 (typ)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, fasteners in view of Johansson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu, Ardoin, Chamurliyski, and Johansson because this would have achieved the desirable result of securing the stacked containers, as recognized by Johansson [Johannsson Abstract: “securing the boxes to the pallet.”].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski teaches a beehive frame transport cart comprising a wheeled reservoir container but does not teach fasteners. Johansson teaches the cart of claim 9, wherein the fastener comprises an over-centre latch or toggle [Johansson Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Character 16 (typ)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, over-center latches in view of Johansson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu, Ardoin, Chamurliyski, and Johansson because this would have achieved the desirable result of securing the stacked containers, as recognized by Johansson [Johannsson Abstract: “securing the boxes to the pallet.”].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 211995629 U) (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Ardoin (US 20220412633 A1), further in view of Chamurliyski et al. (KR 101030323 B1) (hereinafter “Chamurliyski”), and further in view of Chandler (US 5062539 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski teaches a beehive frame transport cart comprising a wheeled reservoir container but does not teach complementary cross-section profiles. Chandler teaches the cart of claim 1, wherein the reservoir and frame containers and the lid comprise similar cross-sectional profiles in order to complementarily engage when stacked to form a unitary cart [Chandler Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Characters 16 and 48]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, similar cross-sectional profiles in view of Chandler. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu, Ardoin, Chamurliyski, and Chandler because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing interchangeability between containers and lids, as recognized by Chandler [Chandler Abstract: “when there are more than two modules in the stack, this lid may serve in turn as a coupler for the pair of modules above and below it, just as the first mentioned lid served as such.”].
Claims 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 211995629 U) (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Ardoin (US 20220412633 A1), further in view of Chamurliyski et al. (KR 101030323 B1) (hereinafter “Chamurliyski”), and further in view of Harvey (US 20210400925 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski teaches a beehive frame transport cart comprising a wheeled reservoir container but does not teach a seal. Harvey teaches the cart of claim 1, wherein the reservoir container and/or the frame container(s) includes a seal to allow airtight and/or fluid tight sealing between stacked containers and/or the lid [Harvey Paragraph 0034: “Present around the top end of a component (e.g., the base 110, the first box 120, the second box 130) is a gasket 145 to improve sealing between the components. The gasket 145 is present at the top of the wall assembly, around the top perimeter of the component (e.g., the base 110, the first box 120, the second box 130). In some implementations, a gasket may be additionally or alternately present at the bottom or base end of a component.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a seal in view of Harvey. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu, Ardoin, Chamurliyski, and Harvey because this would have achieved the desirable result of inhibiting airflow, as recognized by Harvey [Harvey Paragraph 0034: “The gasket 145 inhibits air flow into and out from the interior of the assembly 100 through the joints. The gasket 145 can be, e.g., rubber, polyurethane, or isocyanate.”].
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski teaches a beehive frame transport cart comprising a wheeled reservoir container but does not teach insulating material. Harvey teaches the cart of claim 1, wherein the reservoir and/or frame containers are manufactured from an insulating material in order to regulate an internal temperature of said containers [Harvey Fig. 2, Reference Character 205; Harvey Paragraph 0024: “The boxes 120, 130 have insulated walls…The roof structure 140 may also be insulated”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, insulating material in view of Harvey. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu, Ardoin, Chamurliyski, and Harvey because this would have achieved the desirable result of regulating temperature, as recognized by Harvey [Harvey Paragraph 0018: “The beehive assembly of this disclosure solves the fundamental issue of a better insulated box to help any compromised bee colonies through the winter as well as keeping them cooler in the summer months, helping them regulate their temperature better.”].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 211995629 U) (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Ardoin (US 20220412633 A1), further in view of Chamurliyski et al. (KR 101030323 B1) (hereinafter “Chamurliyski”), and further in view of Schubert (DE 202018005640 U1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski teaches a beehive frame transport cart comprising a wheeled reservoir container but does not teach a tool tray. Schubert teaches the cart of claim 1, which includes a tool tray configured to be complementarily stacked with the reservoir and frame containers, said tool tray configured to store beekeeping tools [Schubert Fig. 9, Reference Character 71; Schubert “Description of the Constructive Components of the Comfort Bees Box System” Paragraph 56: “There are left and right each tray to the base frame clamped and fixable in order to park tools such as smoker, stick chisels and brushes, etc.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a tool tray in view of Schubert. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu, Ardoin, Chamurliyski, and Schubert because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a comfortable access height, as recognized by Schubert [Schubert “Description of the Constructive Components of the Comfort Bees Box System” Paragraph 56: “park tools such as smoker, stick chisels and brushes, etc. in comfort height”].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 211995629 U) (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Ardoin (US 20220412633 A1), further in view of Chamurliyski et al. (KR 101030323 B1) (hereinafter “Chamurliyski”), and further in view of Zhang (CN 206517978 U). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski teaches a beehive frame transport cart comprising a wheeled reservoir container but does not teach food-grade polymers. Zhang teaches the cart of claim 1, wherein the reservoir and frame containers and the lid are manufactured from food-grade polymers [Zhang Fig. 1, Reference Characters 1-4; Zhang “Example 1” Paragraph 2: “box body 3, box cover 2, the honey-storing box 4 and the comb foundation frame 1 are made of food-grade plastic”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, food-grade plastic in view of Zhang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu, Ardoin, Chamurliyski, and Zhang because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing food safety, as recognized by Zhang. Note that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Note further that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 211995629 U) (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Ardoin (US 20220412633 A1), further in view of Chamurliyski et al. (KR 101030323 B1) (hereinafter “Chamurliyski”), and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 108142324 A) (hereinafter “Wang”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski teaches a beehive frame transport cart comprising a wheeled reservoir container but does not teach transparent or translucent polymer. Wang teaches the cart of claim 1, wherein the reservoir and frame containers and/or the lid are manufactured from a transparent or translucent polymer to facilitate visual inspection of an interior of said containers [Wang Abstract: “the boxbody is made of a transparent plastic material”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the beehive frame transport cart of the combination of Liu, Ardoin, and Chamurliyski to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a transparent polymer in view of Wang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu, Ardoin, Chamurliyski, and Wang because this would have achieved the desirable result of facilitating observation of a breeding bee colony, as recognized by Wang [Wang Abstract: “the observation on a state of a breeding bee colony is facilitated”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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 II, 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613