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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on June 20, 2024 is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 4-7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated; see Specification, Page 5, lines 4-7. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 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.
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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “a pair of left and right omni-directional wheels disposed substantially on a middle of the lower surface of the platform in a front-rear direction”. However, it is unclear as to what “a middle of the lower surface of the platform in a front-rear direction” is referring to. This can be interpreted as, for example, a middle area between the appropriately-introduced pair of omni-directional wheels disposed on a rear of the lower surface of the platform, or a middle area between the fixed wheels and the omni-directional wheels.
When seeking to ascertain the intended structure of the claimed invention, the Examiner reflected upon the intended claim scope in light of the specification. Page 5, Paragraph [0024] of the Specification reads, inter alia, “Fixed wheels 7 are wheels whose direction is fixed in the front-rear direction”. Additionally, the Specification, Page 6, Paragraph [0027] in view of the instant Figure 3 of the application discloses “omni-directional wheels 9 are a pair of left and right omni-wheels, each of which is composed of two omni-directional wheels 9-1 and 9-2”, and that “there are a total of four omni-directional wheels”. Based on this description, and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the recitation of the “middle of the lower surface of the platform” to refer to the area between the fixed wheels and omni-directional wheels, between the pairs of fixed wheels, or between the pairs of omni-directional wheels. The Examiner is also interpreting “in a front-rear direction” to refer to the intended wheel orientation of the additional pair of omni-directional wheels. Based on this analysis, and in view of the intended structure of the instant Figure 3, the Examiner suggests, as an example edit, that Claim 4 read as “a pair of left and right omni-directional wheels disposed substantially on a middle of the rear of the lower surface of the platform, wherein the omni-directional wheels are axially-adjacent to each other, and are oriented in a front-rear direction”. However, please amend the claim to reflect the Applicant’s intention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayama and Shirai (WO2018021208A1), herein after referred to as "Nagayama", in view of McKinnon (WO 2022120430 A1), herein after referred to as "McKinnon".
Regarding Claim 1, Nagayama discloses a handcart, comprising:
a platform; a handle erected on a rear of the platform (Nagayama: English Translation, Page 1, lines 4-5, "trolley (1)", "loading platform (10)"; Page 4, lines 7-8, "handle 16");
a pair of left and right fixed wheels disposed on a front of a lower surface of the platform (Nagayama: English Translation, Page 4, lines 15-17 in view of FIG. 1, "front wheels (casters) 20" mounted to not rotate; see also Page 4, line 12, "underside 14 of the loading platform");
and a pair of left and right swivel casters disposed on a rear of the lower surface of the platform (Nagayama: English Translation, Page 4, lines 20-23 in view of FIG. 1, "rear wheels (casters) 30" are "swivel casters"; see also Page 4, line 12, "underside 14 of the loading platform").
Nagayama does not disclose omni-directional wheels.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, McKinnon discloses omni-directional wheels (McKinnon: Page 20, line 23, “omniwheels 71a-c”).
McKinnon discloses a dollie (10), comprising a holder (30) for supporting an object to be moved, and a mobile structure (50) supporting the holder (30), wherein the mobile structure (50) further comprises a peripheral body (60) and a wheel set (70) (McKinnon: Abstract). The wheel set (70) further comprises a plurality of wheels (71), wherein “multiple-directional wheels (71a-c) are disclosed (McKinnon: Abstract). In a preferred embodiment, the “multiple-directional wheels” are omni-wheels that do not swivel, but are fixed in orientation (McKinnon: Page 6, lines 9 and 12-14, and Page 7, lines 7-14). Lastly, the wheel housing is a “low-profile structure with a low outer edge or lip”, which “provides some protection from overturning as the edge of the platform structure contacts the ground much earlier than most platforms mounted above a swivel castor” (McKinnon: Page 10, lines 25-28).
Similarly, Nagayama discloses a trolley (1), comprising a loading platform (1), and wherein a plurality of casters is mounted on the underside (14) of the loading platform (10) (Nagayama: English Translation, Page 1, lines 4-6, Page 5, line 16). Here, the plurality of casters includes two “front wheels” 20, which are fixed to the loading platform such that they do not rotate, and two “rear wheels” 30, which are rotatably mounted to the loading platform 10 as “swivel casters” (Nagayama: English Translation, Page 4, lines 14-17, and 20-21). A handle portion 16 is also included near the rear wheels for pushing the trolley (Nagayama: English Translation, Page 4, lines 13-14). The loading platform 10 is provided with a lifting mechanism 60 for “preventing the trolley 1 from moving by lifting the loading platform 10” off a floor surface such that the rear wheels do not contact the ground (Nagayama: English Translation, Page 6, lines 35-36).
It would have been obvious to combine Nagayama in view of McKinnon such that the trolley (1), disclosed by Nagayama, further includes omni-wheels, disclosed by McKinnon, to replace the rear swivel casters 30, and wherein the omni-wheels are fixedly connected to the underside 14 of the loading platform 10 such that the omni-wheels do not rotate about a vertical axis. Additionally, the loading platform 10 will include a low-profile structure with a lip functioning as a housing for the wheels. One would be motivated to do this as the omni-wheels are regarded as having greater stability than casters due to having “a fixed relationship with the centre of the load” (McKinnon: Page 7, lines 10-12). Additionally, as a swivel or fixed caster mount is not required, the platform height of a trolley when an omni-wheel is installed is lower than a platform height when a caster is installed, thus resulting in increased stability by reducing the risk of tipping (McKinnon: Page 7, lines 12-14). As a result of the low-profile structure caused by the omni-wheels, the lip structure around the housing of the wheels also helps prevent the platform structure from overturning, as the lip will contact a ground surface sooner than that of a caster trolley with increased platform height (McKinnon: Page 10, lines 25-28). For these reasons, one would be motivated to make this combination.
Regarding Claim 2, Nagayama in view of McKinnon disclose the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Nagayama further discloses the handcart according to claim 1, further comprising:
a stopper disposed on the rear of the platform to be vertically movable (Nagayama: English Translation, Page 6, lines 35-36, Page 6, line 1, in view of FIG. 1, "lifting mechanism 60"), the stopper being positioned above lower ends of the omni-directional wheels in a raised position (Nagayama: English Translation, Page 7, lines 19-27 in view of FIG. 3, wherein the lifting mechanism 60 is positioned above lower ends of the swivel casters 30 in a raised, "initial state") and positioned below the lower ends of the omni-directional wheels in a lowered position (Nagayama: English Translation, Page 7, lines 28-30 in view of FIG. 4, wherein lifting mechanism 60 is positioned below the lower ends of the swivel casters 30 to contact a running surface F in a lowered position; see also McKinnon, Page 20, line 23, “omniwheels 71a-c”).
Regarding Claim 3, Nagayama in view of McKinnon disclose the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Nagayama further discloses the handcart according to claim 1, wherein a cover surrounding the omni-directional wheels is disposed on the platform (McKinnon: Page 10, lines 25-28 in view of Annotated Figure 1, and FIGS. 15-16, "Housing of the wheels within a low-profile structure with a low outer edge or lip"; see also McKinnon, Page 20, line 23, “omniwheels 71a-c”).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Nagayama in view of McKinnon disclose the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Nagayama further discloses the handcart according to claim 1, wherein the omni-directional wheels are omni-wheels (McKinnon: Page 7, lines 10-12, "omni wheel").
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayama and Shirai (WO2018021208A1), herein after referred to as "Nagayama", in view of McKinnon (WO 2022120430 A1), and in further view of Li and Chen (CN217146027U), herein after referred to as “Li”.
Regarding Claim 4, Nagayama in view of McKinnon disclose the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Nagayama further discloses the handcart according to claim 1.
Modified Nagayama does not disclose an additional pair of left and right omni-directional wheels disposed substantially on a middle of the lower surface of the platform in a front-rear direction.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Li discloses a pair of left and right omni-directional wheels disposed substantially on a middle of the lower surface of the platform in a front-rear direction (Li: English Translation, Page 7, lines 3-5 in in view of FIGS. 1 and 3, wherein “several wheel sets are located at the bottom of the frame 1”, and “each wheel set includes at 3 least two omnidirectional wheel assemblies 2 arranged side by side”).
Li discloses an omnidirectional transport vehicle, comprising a frame, and having several wheel sets disposed on the bottom of the frame, wherein each wheel set further comprises at least two omnidirectional wheel assemblies arranged “side by side” (Li: English Translation, Page 1, lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined Nagayama, including the trolley, and the omniwheels and lip, disclosed by McKinnon, with the wheel sets and the associated omnidirectional wheel assemblies 2, disclosed by Li, such that the trolley has a pair of wheel sets on the underside 14 of the rear of the loading platform 10, wherein the fixed-orientation rear omniwheels are replaced by the wheel sets. This results in the rear wheels instead having two omnidirectional wheels, arranged side by side, and present in place of where a singular omniwheel had been. One would be motivated to do this in support of creating a more efficient design, wherein McKinnon already discloses additional omniwheels to assist in managing increased weight on the dollie (McKinnon: Page 20, lines 23-25), and Li discloses the placement of fixed orientation omni-directional wheels allows for “precise linear movement” (Li: English Translation, Page 4, lines 22-27).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Isaacs (US4863179A) discloses a pallet-platform truck, comprising a rigid base frame 2 supported by front caster wheels 3 and rear wheels 4 (Isaacs: Abstract, and Col. 5, lines 51-53). In particular, a “foot-operated floor lock 9” for holding the platform in a vertical position is disclosed (Isaacs: Col. 5, lines 58-61).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JON M HEGEMIER whose telephone number is (571)467-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/JON M HEGEMIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights