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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III, claims 12-20 in the reply filed on 6/8/26 is acknowledged. Claim 19 has subsequently been cancelled.
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/8/26.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble does not contain the term “article” and should be “The decorative article delivery device” to maintain consistency. 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.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the casters" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “passive casters” and “driven casters” were previously claimed. The Examiner notes this should state “the passive casters” to refer to the proper casters and avoid confusion.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the casters" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “passive casters” and “driven casters” were previously claimed. The Examiner notes this should state “the driven casters” to refer to the proper casters and avoid confusion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wan (CN 110 641 527).
In re claim 12, Wan discloses a decorative article delivery device comprising: a housing (2); at least two outriggers (1) attached to a lower surface of the housing, each outrigger comprising two passive casters (6) mechanically attached to the underside of each outrigger at a first end thereof, each of the passive casters configured to be freely rotatable about a respective vertical axis; and two driven casters (4) mechanically attached to the underside of at a second end thereof, each of the driven casters configured to not rotate about a respective vertical axis; an adjustable decorative article holder (9, 10) attached to the housing; a locking and adjusting element (1202; as shown in Figure 10 and 11) attached to the adjustable decorative article holder; and a lock and release element (1205; as shown in Figure 10 and 11) attached to the locking and adjusting element; and at least one handle (7) attached to a surface of the housing.
In re claim 13, Wan further discloses wherein the casters are removably or integrally attached to the underside of the outriggers. The Examiner notes that the casters are inherently either removably or integrally attached as these are the only two methods of attaching wheels.
In re claim 14, Wan further discloses wherein the outriggers are substantially parallel to each other (as shown in Figure 1).
In re claim 16, Wan further discloses further comprising a brake (11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan in view of Schwalbach (US 11,554,943).
In re claim 15, Wan discloses the decorative delivery device of claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the casters have a battery and electric motor associated therewith. Schwalbach, however, does disclose a delivery device wherein the casters have a battery (410) and electric motor (444) associated therewith (as shown in Figure 20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wan such that it comprised the motor drive of Schwalbach to advantageously provide motive power to more easily maneuver the device.
In re claim 17, Wan discloses the decorative delivery device of claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the locking and adjusting element comprises a foot pump or a hydraulic lift. Schwalbach, however, does disclose a delivery device wherein the locking and adjusting element comprises a foot pump or a hydraulic lift (see claim 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wan such that it comprised the hydraulic lift of Schwalbach to advantageously provide additional lifting power.
In re claim 18, Wan discloses the decorative delivery device of claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the handle comprises an electrical control for the casters wherein the control comprises a variable motor speed control, a speed motor control, an on/off switch, a horn, an emergency stop control, and/or a battery-life indicator. Schwalbach, however, does disclose a delivery device wherein the handle comprises an electrical control for the casters wherein the control comprises a variable motor speed control, a speed motor control, an on/off switch, a horn, an emergency stop control, and/or a battery-life indicator (as shown in Figure 21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wan such that it comprised the handle controls of Schwalbach to advantageously provide the user with the proper controls and notifications.
In re claim 20, Wan discloses the decorative delivery device of claim 12, but does not disclose further comprising one or more sensors. Schwalbach, however, does disclose a delivery device further comprising one or more sensors to control movement/speed (column 13, lines 38-45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wan such that it comprised the sensors of Schwalbach to advantageously aid in controlling the movements and speed of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach delivery devices of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights