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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 75 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please delete the period after the word “and” on line 3 of claim 75. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims make significant use of “configured to” language to further define the hand trolley structure. However, without specific recitations of the structure responsible for said configured language or without positive recitations of the display platform, these recitations only amount to an intended use clause or a functional capability. That is to say, any support structure per se could be interpreted to read on this. This is especially true because the display platform is not positively claimed. Thus the limits of what the support structure could be are very broad, to the point where any surface could be seen as a support structure. The use of the “configured”, currently does not create a 112 b issue if the broadest interpretation of it being considered an intended use is applied, however if Applicant is intending more than that, then it will likely result in a 112 b. As of right now the evidence points to this being an intended use since the display platform is intended use in the preamble and the preamble is specifically limited to the hand trolley which does not include the platform as part of it (it receives it which implies it is separate from the hand trolley subcombination).
The claims also make use of the word “optionally” a lot. It is noted based on the MPEP that this term does not necessarily always constitute a 112 b issue. Many of the uses in these claims amount to simply alternative arrangements or qualifications that are not required. If any of these recitations rise to a level of 112 b they will be addressed below.
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 67, 71, 74, 75 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 67 recites the phase “for example”. This renders the claim unclear as it is not certain whether the language that follows is required or not.
Claim 71 recites “the two fingers” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 74 recites the word “preferably”. This renders the claim unclear as it is not certain whether the language that follows is required or not.
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.
Claim(s) 55-66, 68, 70, 73, 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Schaefer (USP 2814402). (Italicized text is considered intended use)
Regarding claim 55, Schaefer discloses a fractional display platform hand trolley for receiving and transporting a legged fractional display platform, the fractional display platform having a loading surface for carrying items on the fractional display platform and at least one leg for supporting the loading surface, the hand trolley (fig.2) comprising:
a first display-platform-leg lateral support structure (fig.2, bottom elements 51, particularly the two on one side of display platform deck 55) for providing lateral support to the display platform; and
a second display-platform-leg lateral support structure (fig.2, bottom elements 51, particularly the two on the other side of display platform deck 55) for providing lateral support to the display platform,
wherein:
the first display-platform-leg lateral support structure (these elements are capable of providing this intended use given the BRI of this limitation) is configured to engage with a leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the hand trolley such that lateral support of display platform on the hand trolley is provided in a first lateral direction by the first display-platform-leg lateral support structure; and
the second display-platform-leg lateral support structure (these elements are capable of providing this intended use given the BRI of this limitation) is configured to engage with a leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the hand trolley such that lateral support of display platform on the hand trolley is provided in a second lateral direction, opposite to the first lateral direction, by the second display- platform-leg lateral support structure.
Regarding claim 56, Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 55, wherein the first display-platform-leg lateral support structure and second display-platform-leg lateral support structure (the support structures are capable of providing this intended use, any support structure or surface should broadly speaking be capable of doing this because Applicant is not specifically limiting themselves to any particular structural detail) are both configured to engage with a first leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the hand trolley so as to provide lateral support to the first leg in both the first and second lateral directions.
Regarding claim 57, Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 55, wherein: the first display-platform-leg lateral support structure (the support structures can support lateral directional loads) is configured to engage with a first leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the hand trolley so as to laterally support the first leg of the display platform in the first lateral direction, and the second display-platform-leg lateral support structure (the support structures can support lateral directional loads) is configured to engage with the second leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the hand trolley so as to laterally support the second leg of the display platform in the second lateral direction.
Regarding claim 58 Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 57, wherein the first display-platform-leg lateral support structure comprises a support member (the support structure reads on a support member, note this appears to be merely a change in nomenclature) configured to engage with a side of the first leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the hand trolley so as to provide lateral support to the display platform on the trolley in the first lateral direction, optionally (this is optionally not required) wherein the first display-platform-leg lateral support structure comprises a further support member configured to engage with an opposite side of the first leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the hand trolley so as to provide lateral support to the display platform on the trolley in the second lateral direction.
Regarding claim 59, Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 57, wherein the first display-platform-leg lateral support structure comprises at least one finger (51 is embodied as a finger and thus reads on this capability) configured to be slidingly received by a corresponding aperture provided in the first leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the trolley, optionally (not required) so as to provide lateral support to the display platform on the trolley.
Regarding claim 60, Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 59, wherein the first display-platform-leg lateral support structure comprises two, optionally laterally spaced-apart, fingers (two fingers on each side) configured to be slidingly received by corresponding apertures provided in the first leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the trolley so as to provide lateral support to the display platform on the trolley.
Regarding claim 61, Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 60, wherein the two fingers define a finger void space (they are spaced and thus define a void) therebetween, the finger void space being configured to receive a first leg of the display platform.
Regarding claim 62, Schaefer discloses hand trolley of Claim 57, wherein the second display-platform-leg lateral support structure comprises a support member (same rationale as claim 57) configured to engage with a side of the second leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the hand trolley so as to provide lateral support to the display platform on the trolley in the second direction, optionally (not required) wherein the second display-platform-leg lateral support structure comprises a further support member configured to engage with an opposite side of the second leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the hand trolley so as to provide lateral support to the display platform on the trolley in the first direction.
Regarding claim 63, Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 62, wherein the second display-platform-leg lateral support structure comprises at least one finger (51) configured to be slidingly received by a corresponding aperture provided in the second leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the trolley, optionally so as to provide lateral support to the display platform on the trolley.
Regarding claim 64, Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 62, wherein:the second display-platform-leg lateral support structure comprises two, optionally laterally spaced-apart, fingers (two fingers 51) configured to be slidingly received by corresponding apertures provided in the second leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the trolley so as to provide lateral support to the display platform on the trolley; and the two fingers define a finger void space (space in between) therebetween, the finger void space being configured to receive a first leg of the display platform.
Regarding claim 65, Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 55, wherein the hand trolley further comprises a display platform deck (65 reads on this) for receiving thereupon and thereafter transporting thereupon a legged fractional display platform when the legged fractional display platform is received by the trolley.
Regarding claim 66, Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 65, wherein the display platform deck comprises a ledge (65) arranged between the first and second display-platform-leg lateral support structures (depending on the structure of a display platform, all this functionality is possible), the ledge being configured to extend underneath the display platform and between the first and second legs of the display platform when the display platform is received by the trolley so as to support the display platform thereupon.
Regarding claim 68, Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 65, wherein one or more of: the display platform deck is substantially planar (see fig.2, it is planar); the first and/or second display-platform-leg lateral support structures are integrally formed with the display platform deck; or the first and/or second display-platform-leg lateral support structures are substantially co- planar with the display platform deck or ledge.
Regarding claim 70, Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 55 wherein the first and second display-platform-leg lateral support structures (51 could be inserted into a leg and interlocked or interlocked through other means) are configured to provide interlocking engagement with the first and second legs of the display platform respectively.
Regarding claim 73, Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 65, wherein the trolley comprises at least one locomotive wheel (30) comprising a wheel rotation axis, and wherein the trolley is user-tiltable about a tilt-axis for lifting the display platform, wherein the tilt-axis is coaxial with the locomotive wheel rotation axis, into a wheeled transportation mode for transporting the display platform on the trolley (seen in fig.4).
Regarding claim 74, Schaefer discloses the hand trolley of Claim 73, wherein the trolley comprises at least one handle (33, 34), preferably two handles, for maneuvering the trolley, wherein the at least one handle is provided on one side of the tilt-axis and wherein the display platform deck is provided on the other side of the tilt-axis such that pushing the handle in one direction on one side of the tilt-axis causes the display platform deck to move in the opposite direction such that the trolley tilts about the tilt- axis so as to lift a display platform received by the trolley (evident in figures).
Claim(s) 55-58, 62, 63, 65-69, 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Koenig (USP 6237925). (Italicized text is considered intended use)
Regarding claim 55, Koenig discloses a fractional display platform hand trolley for receiving and transporting a legged fractional display platform, the fractional display platform having a loading surface for carrying items on the fractional display platform and at least one leg for supporting the loading surface, the hand trolley (fig.4) comprising:
a first display-platform-leg lateral support structure (fig.4, 132) for providing lateral support to the display platform; and
a second display-platform-leg lateral support structure (fig.4, 134) for providing lateral support to the display platform,
wherein:
the first display-platform-leg lateral support structure (these elements are capable of providing this intended use given the BRI of this limitation) is configured to engage with a leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the hand trolley such that lateral support of display platform on the hand trolley is provided in a first lateral direction by the first display-platform-leg lateral support structure; and
the second display-platform-leg lateral support structure (these elements are capable of providing this intended use given the BRI of this limitation) is configured to engage with a leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the hand trolley such that lateral support of display platform on the hand trolley is provided in a second lateral direction, opposite to the first lateral direction, by the second display- platform-leg lateral support structure.
Regarding claims 56-58, 62, 63, the support structure as defined for claim 55 would read on all this intended use clauses and will not be discussed in greater detail.
Regarding claim 65, Koenig discloses the hand trolley of Claim 55, wherein the hand trolley further comprises a display platform deck (124 reads on this) for receiving thereupon and thereafter transporting thereupon a legged fractional display platform when the legged fractional display platform is received by the trolley.
Regarding claim 66, Koenig discloses the hand trolley of Claim 65, wherein the display platform deck comprises a ledge (124) arranged between the first and second display-platform-leg lateral support structures (depending on the structure of a display platform, all this functionality is possible), the ledge being configured to extend underneath the display platform and between the first and second legs of the display platform when the display platform is received by the trolley so as to support the display platform thereupon.
Regarding claim 67, Koenig discloses the hand trolley of Claim 66, wherein the ledge comprises a guide portion of reduced width (124 is reduced width compared to the support structures that extend outward from it), for example the guide portion comprising a first and a second angled or rounded guide edge on respective opposed lateral sides of the ledge so as to facilitate the engagement of the ledge between the first and second legs of the display platform.
Regarding claim 68, Koenig discloses the platform deck is substantially planar (see fig.4).
Regarding claim 69, Koenig discloses the hand trolley of Claim 57, wherein: the hand trolley further comprises a display platform deck for receiving thereupon and thereafter transporting thereupon a legged fractional display platform when the legged fractional display platform is received by the trolley, and the display platform deck comprises: a first display-platform-leg lateral support surface, or edge (edge of 132), configured to engage with the first leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the hand trolley so as to provide lateral support the first leg of the display platform in the second lateral direction; and a second display-platform-leg lateral support surface (surface/edge 134), or edge, configured to engage with the second leg of the display platform when the display platform is received by the hand trolley so as to provide lateral support to the second leg of the display platform in the first lateral direction.
Regarding claim 72, Koenig discloses the hand trolley of Claim 65, wherein the display platform deck is substantially planar and wherein the first and second display-platform-leg lateral support structures are defined by a profiled edge of the display platform deck (seen in fig.4).
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.
Claim(s) 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (USP 2814402) in view of Soule (USP 0653826).
Regarding claim 75, Schaefer discloses the trolley comprises a substantially or generally upright frame to which the locomotive wheel, the display platform deck and at least one handle are attached, and the hand trolley comprises a substantially planar display platform deck for receiving thereupon and transporting thereupon a fractional display platform (seen in figures)
Schaefer fails to disclose wherein the frame extends generally upwardly so as to define an obtuse angle with the planar loading surface.
Soule teaches and/or suggests the concept of placing the frame at an obtuse angle with the loading surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle of the frame with respect to the loading surface, disclosed in Schaefer, to be an obtuse angle as taught by Soule in order to provide the predictable result of providing easier leverage when using the hand truck. It is old and well known within the art of hand trucks to either have a 90 degree frame or slightly obtuse angles that help with tipping.
Claim(s) 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig (USP 6237925) in view of Soule (USP 0653826).
Regarding claim 75, Koenig discloses the trolley comprises a substantially or generally upright frame to which the locomotive wheel, the display platform deck and at least one handle are attached, and the hand trolley comprises a substantially planar display platform deck for receiving thereupon and transporting thereupon a fractional display platform (seen in figures)
Koenig fails to disclose wherein the frame extends generally upwardly so as to define an obtuse angle with the planar loading surface.
Soule teaches and/or suggests the concept of placing the frame at an obtuse angle with the loading surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle of the frame with respect to the loading surface, disclosed in Koenig, to be an obtuse angle as taught by Soule in order to provide the predictable result of providing easier leverage when using the hand truck. It is old and well known within the art of hand trucks to either have a 90 degree frame or slightly obtuse angles that help with tipping.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 76-79 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Similar hand truck art with relevant references to various aspects of the disclosed/claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights