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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8-9, 11-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference character “6” has been used to designate both fixing holes, page 4 line 3, and coupling portion, page 5 line 6. reference character “9” has been used to designate both coupling portions, page 4 line 3, and plate like portion, page 5 line 8. 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 8-9, and 11-14 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 8 recites the limitation "said supporting bracket" in line 4, and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests correction to "said at least one supporting bracket".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said supporting bracket" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests correction to "said at least one supporting bracket".
Claim 8 recites the limitation “said substantially plate-like portion” in line 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests correction to "at least one substantially plate-like portion".
Claim 14 recites the limitation “at least with one or more of parts thereof” in line 2. 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 8-9, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordioli (US 9315285) and further in view of Glaide (WO-2018051267).
In regards to claim 8, Cordioli discloses a trolley (fig. 1) for supporting a labeling station in a labeling machine (2), comprising a trolley body (1) which is provided with wheels(3a,3b & 4a,4b) and defines in an upper region a work surface (top surface) for supporting a labeling station (2), further comprising at least one supporting bracket (found near the wheels, see annotated fig. below) for at least one of said wheels.
PNG
media_image1.png
318
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Cordioli does not expressly disclose that said the supporting bracket has at least one coupling portion for mounting of at least one respective wheel, configured to be fixed to said trolley body in at least two different arrangements in order to vary a position in terms of height of said at least one coupling portion with respect to said trolley body, this type of design would have been an obvious alternative for similarly securing an object and was well-known at the time of invention as taught by Glaide.
Glaide teaches a trolley (fig. 1) similar to that of Cordioli comprising said supporting bracket (2a) having at least one coupling portion (11) for mounting of at least one respective wheel (20), said supporting bracket (2a) being configured to be fixed to said trolley body (1) in at least two different arrangements, in order to vary a position in terms of height of said at least one coupling portion (11) with respect to said trolley body (1)(see fig. 6, coupling portion 11 in a higher position folded, and a lower position extended), wherein said at least one supporting bracket (2a) has at least one substantially plate-like portion (10) and at least two respective said coupling portions (11, one on each side), each one of which defines at least one corresponding fixing region (lower end of 88 where slider 8 is inserted into 11) for a respective one of said wheels (see wheel 20 fixed with 8, fig. 2), said coupling portions (11) being arranged at mutually opposite ends of said substantially plate-like portion ( coupling portions 11 are arranged at the bottom of plate like members 10 on opposite left and right sides of the trolley) and being situated on a same side with respect to a plane of arrangement of said substantially plate-like portion (on the rear side of the trolley with the handle, see fig. 1, 2 or supporting bracket 2b on the front side of the trolley), the fixing region (lower end) of each coupling portion (11) being arranged spaced apart from the plane of arrangement of said substantially plate-like portion(10) along a direction that is substantially perpendicular to the plane of arrangement of said substantially plate-like portion (10) (see fig. 2, wheels 20 at the fixing region of coupling portion 11 are opposite one another and spaced apart), said substantially plate-like portion (10) being configured to be fixed to a lower face of said trolley body, selectively with one of faces thereof or with an opposite face, in order to arrange said coupling portions (11) respectively upward or downward with respect to the plane of arrangement of said substantially plate-like portion (see fig. 6, selective arrangement of the coupling portions 11 when the trolley is fixed with one face of the plate like portion the coupling portions 11 are folded and then when selectively fixed with an opposite face after a 180 rotation of 12 the coupling portions 11 are extended).
In regards to claim 9, Cordioli and Glaide teach in combination wherein said at least one supporting bracket (2a) comprises said coupling portions (10) for at least two of said wheels (see fig. 1,2), said supporting bracket (2a) being configured to be selectively fixed to said trolley body (1) in at least one first arrangement , in which the respective coupling portions are arranged at a first vertical distance with respect to said trolley body (folded, upward arrangement), or in at least one second arrangement, in which said coupling portions are arranged at a second vertical distance with respect to said trolley body (extended, downward arrangement, see selective adjustment in fig. 6).
In regards to claim 11, Cordioli and Glaide as combined teach wherein said at least one supporting bracket (2a) is a single supporting bracket which has, at opposite ends of its own substantially plate-like portion, two pairs of said coupling portions (see coupling portion pairs 11 surrounding 8). Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the supporting bracket see fig.1, 2, including 2 Since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of several parts secured together would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
In regards to claim 12, Cordioli and Glaide as combined teach wherein the fixing region (lower end) of each coupling portion (11) is arranged on a plane (see plane for the fixing of each wheel) that is substantially perpendicular to the plane of arrangement of said substantially plate-like portion (10)(see annotated fig. 1, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
422
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14, Cordioli and Glaide in combination teach wherein said coupling portions (11) are arranged, at least with one of parts thereof, in a position that is laterally spaced apart with respect to side walls of said trolley body (1)(laterally spaced apart at least by the width of 12, 10, and 13, see fig. 2, Glaide).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordioli (US 9315285) and Glaide (WO-2018051267) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Wyse (US 20060027423).
In regards to claim 13, Cordioli and Glaide as combined teach wherein each one of said wheels (20) has a respective adjustment pin (8) with a substantially vertical extension (extending up into 11), along said adjustment pin there being a plurality of fixing holes which are configured to be positioned selectively so as to be aligned with engagement holes, which are defined in the fixing region of the corresponding coupling portion (see annotated fig. below). Cordioli and Glaide fail to explicitly teach the anchoring by means of at least one locking screw, it is clear in fig. 2 by the holes for locking the slider at different heights are made to adapt some type of fixing means. However, Wyse teaches at least one locking screw (locking pin 58) anchoring a sliding member into a leg of a trolley, see fig. 1 and para. 0033, for an adjusted height similar to Glaide and Cordioli. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cordioli and Glaide, to include locking screws as Wyse teaches in the holes clearly shown, making a simple substitution of one known fixing means for another in order for the slider to be properly adjusted to the length adapted for the user with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date.
PNG
media_image3.png
536
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See pto-892 for a list of prior art that teach similar Trolley bodies and support brackets thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
CAITLIN ANNE MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 3614
/C.A.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/KAREN BECK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights