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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 16 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1 – 20 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.
The claims are replete with recitations regarding a “stationary” end of the rod lock. The term is used by the claim to mean “not removable from the assembly,” while the accepted meaning is “non-moving.” Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 3 and 15 recite “ the stationary end is not completely removable from the bracket.” This renders the claims indefinite as, definitionally, any component which is part of an assembly can be disassembled.
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 1 – 5 and 11 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan et al. (2012/0153585) in view of Xie et al. (CN214576688). In regard to claims 1, 12 and 20, Ryan discloses a material handling device comprising a frame comprising two uprights (Fig. 1, item 101), each upright having a handle lock orifice (Fig. 1, item 108), a loop handle slidable within the uprights (Fig. 1, item 180), the loop handle having pair of handle poles each handle pole with a handle lock orifice (Figs. 1 and 2, items 182 and 194), a toe plate (Fig. 1, item 122), a pair of wheels (Fig. 1, items 136 and 138), a second frame comprising a pair of handle lock orifices and a pair of caster wheels (Fig. 1, items 150, 158, and 160), and a handle lock mechanism associated with each upright (Fig. 1, items 144 and 148).
In regard to claims 14 and 20, Ryan discloses wherein the lock rod locking end is insertable into one of the second frame handle lock orifices (Fig. 2).
In regard to claims 11 and 18 – 19, Ryan discloses wherein each handle pole comprises multiple handle lock orifices (Fig. 2).
Ryan does not disclose the use of a spring biased lock. In regard to claims 1, 12, and 20, Xie discloses a lock mechanism associated with each upright comprising a bracket mounted to an each upright (Figs. 6 and 8, item 7), a lock rod having a locking end and a stationary end (Figs. 6 and 8, items 9 – 11), a biasing spring (Figs. 6 and 8, item 8), wherein the lock rod locking end is removeable from an upright lock orifice and a lock orifice to allow slidable movement (Fig. 9).
In regard to claims 2 and 13, Xie discloses wherein the lock rod is rotatable about the stationary end (Figs. 8 and 9).
In regard to claims 3 and 15, Xie discloses wherein the stationary end is not completely removeable from the bracket (Figs. 8 and 9).
In regard to claims 4 – 5 and 16 – 17, Xie discloses wherein the biasing spring biases the lock rod against the bracket (Figs. 8 and 9).
Claims 6 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan et al. (2012/0153585) in view of Xie et al. (CN214576688) as applied to claims 1 – 5 and 11 – 20 above, and further in view of Sharp (2007/0096412). Ryan in view of Xie does not disclose the use of stop tabs for handle retention. In regard to claim 6, Sharp discloses wherein a loop handle includes a tab stop that prevents the loop handle from being completely withdrawn from uprights (Fig. 13, item 68).
In regard to claim 7, Sharp discloses wherein the tab stop prevents the loop handle from being completely withdrawn from the uprights by interference from a handle bushing mounted in one of the uprights (Fig. 1, item 40 & paragraph 37).
In regard to claim 9, Sharp discloses wherein each handle pole comprises a tab stop (Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tab stops of Sharp, to the device of Ryan in view of Xie, in order to safely and efficiently retain the components together. This configuration simplifies the design, which lowers costs and weight by limiting the number of components required.
Ryan in view of Xie and Sharp does not disclose the material used for bushing construction. In regard to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make use of a nylon bushing, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to selecta known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DeMars et al. (5,803,471) disclose a collapsible dolly;
Zimmer (7,387,306) discloses a dolly;
Mitchell et al. (9,986,731) disclose a motorized game cart;
Mendoza (10,864,933) discloses a four position hand truck.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DANIEL WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (PT).
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, Allen Shriver 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.
/JOHN D WALTERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights