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
The reply filed on 7/02/2026, cancelled claim 11, and amended claims 1-6, 8, and 10. Claims 1-10 are currently pending herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 7/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments not rendered moot have been addressed below.
On pages 8-10 of the response, Applicant states: “…amended claim 1 requires a platform disposed on an upper surface of the handcart main body and movable in a left-right direction perpendicular to the front-rear direction. The present specification defines the front direction as the direction in which the handcart travels when pushed by a user, defines the rear direction as the opposite direction, and defines the left-right direction with respect to the front direction as the lateral direction. The specification further describes that the platform is disposed on guide rails so as to be movable in the lateral direction. Accordingly, the claimed platform movement is not a loading/unloading movement for transferring a battery between a cart and a storage rack, as in Johnson. Rather, the claimed platform is movable in the left-right direction perpendicular to the front-rear direction of the handcart main body.”
PNG
media_image1.png
820
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding these contentions, the Examiner maintains that the Johnson reference provides for the disputed claim limitations based on the below interpretation of the claims. Specifically, while the Johnson reference does not specifically recite that the cited components are provided to move in a left-right it is clear from the disclosure and cited figures (see above) that the cited components are assembled in the same manner as currently claimed (See, e.g., Johnson: Fig.1-5). One of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily interpret the disputed limitations to be fixed from pivoting as the Applicant argues. Applicants are reminded, that [t]he invention disclosed in [a] written description may be outstanding in its field, but the name of the game is the claim. In re Hiniker Co., 47 USPQ 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Specifically, if Applicants believe that an invention has differences over the prior art, particularly regarding left-right movement of the claimed elements, Applicants must find a way to convey this argument in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See, e.g., In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
Drawings
The previous objections to the drawings are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the objections that remain are detailed below.
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 platform disposed on an upper surface of the vehicle-handcart main body to be movable in a left-right direction perpendicular to the front-rear direction” (Claim 1; see below 35 USC 112b rejection) and “the handcart main body is provided with a guide rail along the left-right direction, and the platform is guided on the guide rail in the left-right direction” (Claim 4 – 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.
Specification
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Objections
The previous objections of the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the rejections that remain are detailed below.
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 1-10 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 “a platform disposed on an upper surface of the vehicle-handcart main body to be movable in a left-right direction perpendicular to the front-rear direction” and “the handcart main body is provided with a guide rail along the left-right direction, and the platform is guided on the guide rail in the left-right direction” (Claim 1/4, emphasis added – the platform is indicated as element 30 and the guide rail element 22, however in the figures, as best understood, the platform 30 does not appear to move in the left-right direction on the guide rails 22) are unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 4,120,411 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Johnson discloses: A handcart (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 10), comprising: a handcart main body (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 14+15) including wheels (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 12) on a lower surface (See, e.g., Fig.1-5) and a handle (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 20+16+18+66) erected on a rear portion in a front-rear direction (See, e.g., Fig.1-5); and a platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, C+48+50) disposed on an upper surface of the handcart main body to be movable in a left-right direction perpendicular to the front-rear direction (See, e.g., Fig.1-5; see above annotated figure 1 & 2).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Johnson discloses: further comprising: a lock mechanism for locking movement of the platform in the left-right direction (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 66).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Johnson discloses: wherein the lock mechanism includes a lock hole formed in the platform, a lock pin disposed on the handcart main body and enterable in the lock hole, a biasing member for biasing the lock pin such that the lock pin enters in the lock hole, and an operation member for operating the lock pin in a direction in which the lock pin retracts out of the lock hole against a biasing force of the biasing member (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 66+80+etc.).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Johnson discloses: wherein: the handcart main body is provided with a guide rail (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 21+46) along the left-right direction, and the platform is guided on the guide rail in the left-right direction (See, e.g., Fig.1-5; see above annotated figure 1 & 2).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, Johnson discloses: further comprising: a lifting table (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, B) disposed to be movable up and down with respect to the handcart main body (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), wherein the platform is disposed so as to be movable in the left-right direction with respect to the lifting table (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, Johnson discloses: wherein: the lifting table is provided with a guide rail along the left-right direction (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 21+46), and the platform is guided on the guide rail in the left-right direction (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, Johnson discloses: wherein: the platform is provided with a pair of left and right guide members spreading out forward (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 21+46).
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.
Claims 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Gilland et al. (US 9,850,114 B2).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, Johnson fails to explicitly teach: a biasing member for biasing the platform toward a center in the left-right direction.
However, Gilland teaches a similar handcart (See, e.g., Gilland: Fig.1-27, 402) wherein a biasing member for biasing a part of a handcart platform (See, e.g., Gilland: Fig.1-27, 422+425)
Gilland teaches that it is well known in the art of handcart design to provide a biasing member for biasing a part of a handcart platform. 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 Johnson modified so that a biasing member biases the platform toward a center in the lateral direction, such as taught by Gilland, for the purpose of conveniently providing the platform component of the cart to provide effective control and movement at the proper time and thereby prevent component damage through inadvertent movement. Furthermore, it is well known in handcart design that biasing members are used to apply a constant, controlled force to components in order to ensure that the component returns to a specific position, stays in contact with another component; such biasing elements are crucial for stabilizing motion, managing energy, and improving efficiency. 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)).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Johnson in view of Gilland teaches: wherein the biasing member is an elastic member (See, e.g., Gilland: Fig.1-27, 425).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Erickson et al. (US 11,165,115 B2).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Johnson discloses: wherein the wheel includes front wheels including a pair of left and right fixed wheels (See, e.g., Fig.1-5) and rear wheels including a pair of left and right wheels (See, e.g., Fig.1-5)
Johnson fails to explicitly teach: where the rear wheels include a pair of left and right omni-directional wheels.
However, Erickson teaches a similar handcart (See, e.g., Erickson: Fig.1-5, 100) where the rear wheels include a pair of left and right omni-directional wheels (See, e.g., Erickson: Fig.1-5, 104).
Erickson teaches that it is well known in the art of handcart design to provide where the rear wheels include a pair of left and right omni-directional wheels. 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 Johnson modified so that the where the rear wheels include a pair of left and right omni-directional wheels, such as taught by Erickson, for the purpose of conveniently allowing the user to move the cart in any direction to allow for easier maneuverability (See, e.g., Erickson: Fig.1-5; col.1, Ln.51). 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)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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