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
Claims 8, 10 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “the front wall, left wall, and front wall”. Examiner believes this should be “the front wall, left wall, and the right wall”.
Claim 10 recites “a strap slop”. Examiner understands this should be “strap slot”.
Claim 13 recites “one of wheels” in line 3. This should be corrected to “one of the wheels.”
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.
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.
In regards to claim 1, 16 and 20, it is unclear how “an axle” is connected to the stackable cart.
In regards to claim 1, 16, and 20 recites the limitation “a handle” in line 9 it is unclear if this is the same handle as that claimed in line 4 or another one. Clarification needed.
Claim 1 line 13-14 recites “the pair of wheels and a tub of a second stackable cart” it is unclear if the pair a wheels are that of a stackable cart or for that of a second stackable cart, the second stackable cart wasn’t positively claimed in a clear way.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the cart" in line 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests correcting to “the stackable cart”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the cart" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests correcting to “the stackable cart”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the lip" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the lip" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the other stackable cart" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claim 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parker (US 7290775).
In regards to claim 1, Parker discloses a stackable cart (10) comprising:
a tub (12) comprising a front wall (28), a rear wall (30), a bottom (24), a right wall (34), a left wall (32), and an interior volume (52);
a handle (80);
a pair of legs (68), each leg (68) having a leg bottom front portion and a leg bottom rear portion (the front and rear portion of the legs 68 directionally wherein the front is closer to front wall 28);
a pair of axle supports (20,22), each axle support (20,22) having an axle support bottom (bottom of the support);
an axle (14);
a pair of wheels (16) rotatably connectable to the tub (12); and
a handle (80) operably connected to the tub (12);
wherein the interior volume (52) is configured to receive the pair of wheels (16) and a tub of a second stackable cart (10, see fig. 7 stacked carts) within the interior volume (52) when the second stackable cart (second cart) is nested within the stackable cart (see fig. 7, clearly showing the wheels and cart stacked inside of the tub of the first cart); and
wherein the second stackable cart (10) comprises:
a pair of legs (68), each leg having a leg bottom front portion and a leg bottom rear portion (legs 68, identical to the first, the front and rear portion of the legs 68 directionally wherein the front is closer to front wall 28);
a pair of axle supports (20, 22), each axle support (20, 22) having an axle support bottom (identical to the first stackable cart); and
wherein the second stackable cart leg bottom front portions (front portion of leg 68) and axle support bottoms (bottom of the axle support 22, and 20) rest on the stackable cart tub bottom (24) when the second stackable cart is nested within the stackable cart (see fig. 7).
In regards to claim 2, Parker discloses wherein the tub bottom (24) is parallel to the axle support bottoms (20, 22, see fig. 3) and the leg bottom front portions (front bottom of legs 68, see fig. 7).
In regards to claim 3, Parker discloses wherein when the axle (14) is operably connected to the axle supports (20, 22, through holes 70, see fig. 4), the wheels (16) are operably connected to the axle (14), and the cart (10) rests on the wheels (16) and the leg bottom rear portions (leg bottom rear portion see top of legs 68) and when the wheels (16) are not operably connected to the axle,(14) the cart rests on the leg bottom front portion (in contact with the ground) and the axle support bottom (bottom of support 20, 22, see fig. 7-9, wheels inside tub).
In regards to claim 4, Parker discloses wherein the leg bottom rear portion (leg 68 bottom rear portion) and the axle support bottom (bottom of axle support 20, 22) are parallel to the tub bottom (24).
In regards to claim 5, Parker discloses wherein the cart bottom slopes from the front wall to the rear wall (see claim 1, bottom 24 sloped between front and rear 28, 30).
In regards to claim 6, Parker discloses wherein the front wall (28) is generally perpendicular to a surface upon which the cart rests (64, see fig. 3).
In regards to claim 7, Parker discloses further comprising a tub lip (74) proximate the top of the right wall, left wall, and front wall (top of the 44, 46, 48, and 50 of the sidewalls and front walls, fig. 1-8) wherein the stackable cart (10) wheels (16) do not protrude beyond the tub lip (see the inner hole 70 for the axle holding the wheels in further to not protrude beyond the tub lip 74).
In regards to claim 8, Parker discloses wherein the front wall (28), left wall (34), and front wall (28) are connected to the tub lip (74) via ribs (76, see fig. 1).
In regards to claim 9, Parker discloses wherein the ribs (76) connecting the front wall (28) to the lip is two-tiered (tiers 76 and 77).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 7290775) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Picozza (US 4505506).
In regards to claim 10, Parker fails to teach further comprising a strap slop in the lip of the front wall. However, Picozza teaches stacked containers with a strap (18) receiving slot (64) in the collar surrounding the stacked containers (see fig. 1,2, and 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a strap slot in the front portion of the lip in the cart Parker teaches, including the securement technique Picozza teaches to permit a strap to engage, compress the carts during shipment, and resist separation or shifting of the carts. Forming the passage directly in the existing molded rim would have predictably eliminated a separate strap guiding component, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 7290775) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Easterling (US 2010/0201091).
In regards to claim 11, Parker discloses further comprising a leg separation (distance between the legs 68, fig. 5), an axle support separation (distance between the axle supports 20). Parker is silent on the wheel diameter wherein the leg separation and axle support separation are greater than the wheel diameter. However, Easterling teaches a container with a pair of wheels 106a,b, axle brackets 126a, b, and a wheel with a diameter smaller than the separation between the legs and axle supports (see fig. 1-3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to dimension the separation between the legs of the car to be greater than the diameter of the detached wheels so that the wheels can be placed flat on the tub floor as Easterling teaches as an improved storage technique in order to optimize space for a second stacked cart, such a modification would have been made with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 12, Parker, as combined above, discloses wherein one of the stackable cart (10) wheels (16) rests on the stackable tub bottom (24) between the second stackable carts legs (68) and the other stackable cart wheel (16) rests on the stackable tub bottom between the between the second stackable cart axle supports (22)(see fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 13, although a drain orifice and packing disk are commonly found in cart tub bottoms, the closest related prior art fail to suggest alone or in common a wheel packing strap wherein the packing disk and wheel packing strap secure one of the wheels to the tub bottom through the drain orifice and (regarding claim 14) further comprising a wheel strap securing the two wheels together. Regarding claim 15, the prior art Parker teaches the wheels (16) are secured between the second stackable cart legs (68) and axle supports (22) when the second stackable cart (second cart 10) is nested within the stackable cart (10)(see fig. 2, 7, 9).
In regards to 16 and 20, similar to claim 13, the prior art fails to teach or suggest wherein the wheel strap secures the two wheels together and the wheel packing strap and packing disk secure at least one wheel to the tub bottom through the drain orifice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for a listing of relevant prior art that teach
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
