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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-23 are pending; claims 19-23 are withdrawn.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Claims 1-18 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to apparatus capable of being used with tubular structures, classified in F16B7/00.
II. Claims 19-23, drawn to method of using a cart, classified in B62B5/00.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
There is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct groups due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. The groups require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one group would not likely be applicable to another group; and/or the groups are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
During a telephone conversation with Robert Abrauch on 07/02/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19-23 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 1-18 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.
The recitation of claim 1 wherein “…an alignment lock plate pivotally affixed to the tube retention body configured to retain and lock together a pair of the adjacent structural tubes in aligned substantially parallel relation via a toolless connector…” renders the claim indefinite because in light of the disclosure it is unclear whether the Applicant intend to positively claim a toolless connector or whether the toolless connector is functionally recited.
Claim 10 contains similar issue, since claim 10 positively claims tubular structures, the Examiner has interpreted the toolless connector as being a positively required structure of claimed invention.
The recitation of claim 7 wherein “…securement ledges that pass beneath the horizontal cross members of cart end walls connected to the adjacent cart side walls.” renders the claim indefinite because the recitation is creating ambiguity as to whether the Applicant intends to positively claim the cart side walls or whether the card side walls are functionally recited. Assuming the cart side walls are functionally recited, the Examiner suggests the use of the term “configured”.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-9 and 11-18 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction/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 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 pre-AIA 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Depot (U.S. Pat. No. 7766202 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Depot teaches an apparatus for locking adjacent structural tubes together for adjacent tubular structures, the apparatus comprising:
a tube retention body (18) including a pair of substantially parallel retention bolts (D1 see annotated figure below) configured to be inserted in substantially parallel aligned relation within end portions of the adjacent structural tubes (capable) and retain the adjacent structural tubes; and
an alignment lock plate (58) pivotally affixed to the tube retention body configured to retain and lock together a pair of the adjacent structural tubes in aligned substantially parallel relation via a toolless connector [capable].
PNG
media_image1.png
500
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Depot teaches the alignment lock plate (58 and/or 56) and the tube retention body (18) cooperate to lock the apparatus onto the pair of the adjacent structural tubes constrained in four degrees of freedom [capable].
Regarding claim 3, Depot teaches the alignment lock plate and the tube retention body (18) cooperate to lock the apparatus from translation in an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, and from rotation about the Z axis of each adjacent structural tube.
Regarding claim 4, Depot teaches the apparatus is capable of being used with the adjacent tubular structures that is a cart wall comprising at least one vertical structural tube, and cooperation between the adjacent structural tubes of adjacent cart walls locks the rotation about the Z axis and constrains the adjacent cart walls along a common plane.
Regarding claim 5, Depot teaches the apparatus capable of being used with the adjacent cart walls that are cart end walls including horizontal cross members, and the alignment lock plate comprises a pair of apertures each configured to interlock with a projecting portion of each horizontal cross member.
Regarding claims 6-8, Depot teaches the apparatus capable of being used with tubular structure such that each of the adjacent tubular structures is a cart wall comprising at least one horizontal cross member, and cooperation between the adjacent structural tubes of adjacent cart walls locks the rotation about the Z axis and constrains the adjacent cart walls along a common plane.
[7] the adjacent cart walls are adjacent cart side walls, and the alignment lock plate (56) comprises a plurality of securement ledges (58) that pass beneath the horizontal cross members of cart end walls connected to the adjacent cart side walls.
[8] wherein the alignment lock plate includes a pair of apertures each configured to interlock with a projecting portion of the horizontal cross member [capable].
Regarding claim 9, Depot teaches the apparatus capable of being used with the toolless connector that is a tubing snap clip.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-18 as best undertstood 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 pm.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights