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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification is not arranged in the preferred layout as specified in 37 CFR 1.77(b).
Specifically, the “Brief description of the drawing”, as filed, includes no description or reference to any of Figures 1-10. The Brief Description of Drawings conventionally includes a list of all the drawings, with an associated brief description of what is shown in each drawing. See MPEP 608.01(f), and also please note the format of the Brief Description of Drawings found in cited US patent documents.
Additionally, the Specification includes no “Detailed Description of Invention” section.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are replete with grammatical errors which require correction.
For example, the claims recite “axis of the shaft at least one wheel”. This phrase should be corrected to read axis of the shaft of the at least one wheel.
The claims also include numerous incidents of improper antecedent basis for claimed elements. For example, claim 1 recites: “a swing at least of one carrier is limited by a stops in the first position and in the second position”. This phrase may be corrected to read: a swing of said at least of one carrier is limited by a first position and in a second position.
Due to the number/extent of grammatical insufficiencies, an extensive list of issues is not provided with this Action.
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 1-8 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.
Grammatical issues have been discussed above. At least some of these issues have yielded indefiniteness in the claims.
For example, the claims include numerous incidents of improper antecedent basis for claimed elements. For example, claim 1 recites: “a swing at least of one carrier is limited by a stops in the first position and in the second position”. Is there one stop of a plurality of stops? What are the first and second positions?
Claim 2 recites: “wherein the draw bar is attached through the pivot pin at a half of length at least of one support spaced further from the first axis at least of one support, and on at least one carrier is attached through the pivot pin at a position whose distance from the second axis of mounting at least of one carrier is smaller than its distance from the axis of the shaft at least of one wheel.” The claimed lengths and distances are not understood, and the metes and bounds of the recitation are indeterminable. Due to the nature of indefiniteness, it would be inappropriate to address claim 2 with prior art.
Claim 8 ends in a semicolon. Claims should conclude with a period. Did Applicant intend to include further limitations in claim 8?
Due to the extensive nature of indefiniteness and improper/insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, an extensive list of issues is not provided with this Action.
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) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celli (US 7,168,712) in view of Vaverek (US 10,919,554).
Regarding claim 1, Celli teaches: a wheelbarrow with a variable position at least of one wheel (8) with a frame (including at least elements 24, 26) and body (12), comprising at least one carrier (42, 44) and a shaft (40), and at least one support (50), wherein,
-at least of one carrier mounted on the frame swinging around a second axis (46) parallel to an axis of the shaft at least of one wheel, where
-at least one support is mounted on the frame swinging in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the shaft at least of one wheel around a first axis parallel to the axis of the shaft at least of one wheel, where
-at least one support is connected by a draw bar (48) to at least one carrier through a pivot pins (the inwardly-curved end of element 48), where
-a swing at least of one carrier is limited by a stops (56) in the first position and in the second position, wherein in the first position the axial distance of the axis of the shaft at least of one wheel from the first axis is smaller than their axial distance in the second position (see the two positions indicated in Fig. 5), while;
- the arrangement at least of one support, at least of one wheel and at least of one carrier is such that while at least one support is at least partially bearing the weight of the wheelbarrow, at least one carrier is in the first position, the horizontal movement of the frame of the wheelbarrow in one direction perpendicular to the axis of the shaft at least of one wheel causes the deflection at least of the support in the plane perpendicular to the axis of the shaft at least of one wheel and thus a turnover at least of one carrier from the first position to the second position and the displacement at least of one wheel (the claimed displacement would occur in the scenario where the wheel and support are ground engaging, such as shown in Fig. 11), wherein
as long as at least one support bears at least partially the weight of the wheelbarrow and at least one carrier is in the second position, horizontal movement of the frame of the wheelbarrow in the opposite direction perpendicular to the axis of the shaft at least of one wheel causes deflection at least of one support in the plane perpendicular to the axis of the shaft at least of one wheel and thus turnover at least of one carrier from the second position to the first position and displacing at least of one wheel (the claimed displacement would occur in the scenario where the wheel and support are ground engaging, such as shown in Fig. 11).
Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 3, 5, 6, and 11.
Celli fails to teach: the carrier comprising a sleeve for mounting the shaft (40), the shaft at least of one wheel is mounted in the sleeve for mounting the shaft. Vaverek teaches: the carrier comprising a sleeve (477) for mounting a shaft (457), the shaft is mounted in the sleeve for mounting the shaft. Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 7A and 7B. Before the effective filing date of invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the shaft from Celli mounted within a sleeve, as suggested by Vaverek; the motivation being: for rotatably supporting and protecting the shaft.
Regarding claim 6, the combination further teaches:two carriers mounted between two wheels, and two supports, wherein the supports are connected by the common foot (51). See at least Fig. 4 from Celli.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celli and Vaverek, as applied above, in further view of Donze (US 5,149,116).
Regarding claim 3, the combination fails to teach: one wheel mounted between two carriers, and two supports, each support is terminated by a foot. Donze teaches a wheelbarrow wherein: one wheel (8) mounted between two carriers (3), and two supports (2), each support is terminated by a foot. See at least Fig. 1. Before the effective filing date of invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to the re-locate the wheels from Celli to be mounted between carriers, and terminate each support with a foot, as suggested by Donze; the motivation being: to establish a smaller footprint and for stability.
Regarding claim 4, the combination further teaches: two supports (50), the supports are connected by the common foot (51). See Fig. 4 from Celli. The combination fails to teach: one wheel mounted between two carriers. Donze teaches: one wheel (8) mounted between two carriers (3). See at least Fig. 1. Before the effective filing date of invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to the re-locate the wheels from Celli to be mounted between carriers, as suggested by Donze; the motivation being: to establish a smaller footprint.
Regarding claim 5, the combination further teaches: two carriers mounted between two wheels. See at least Fig. 4 from Celli. The combination fails to teach: two supports, each support is terminated by a foot. Donze teaches a wheelbarrow wherein: two supports (2), each support is terminated by a foot. See at least Fig. 1. Before the effective filing date of invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to terminate each support with a foot, as suggested by Donze; the motivation being: for stability.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celli and Vaverek, as applied above, in further view of Kim (KR 2011 0005670).
Regarding claim 7 the combination further teaches: a method for handling with the wheelbarrow according to claim 1, comprising:
- if weight of the wheelbarrow lies at least partially at least on one support and, at the same time, if at least one wheelbarrow carrier is in the first position, horizontal displacement of the frame of the wheelbarrow in one direction perpendicular to the axis of the shaft at least of one wheel, which causes deflection at least of one support and thus turnover at least of one carrier from the first position to the second position and displacement at least of one wheel, further comprising:
- if at least one support bears at least partially the weight of the wheelbarrow and, at the same time, if at least one carrier of the wheelbarrow is in the second position, the horizontal displacement of the frame of the wheelbarrow in the opposite direction perpendicular to the axis of the shaft at least of one wheel, which causes the deflection at least of one support and thus the turnover at least of one carrier from the second position to the first position and the displacement at least of one wheel.
Although Celli describes that the movement of the support (50) is done by hand as shown in figure 5, it is obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art that the same shifting between the two positions can be done by contact of support 50 on the ground, when the wheelbarrow of Celli is in the position as shown at least in figure 11. Additionally, a similar principle is also disclosed by Kim: when moving the wheelbarrow in front-rear direction, the force of the ground causes shifting of the wheel assembly between the two positions (compare the positions of the wheel in Figs. 6b and 6c). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to perform movement of the support (50) from Celli using a ground surface (yielding the horizontal position), as suggested by Kim; the motivation being: so that the wheel position can be modified in not only a vertical configuration, but also horizontal.
Regarding claim 8 the combination further teaches: pushing downwards on the handles (24, 26) of the frame of the wheelbarrow when at least one of the supports is in contact with the ground to relieve at least one wheel of the wheelbarrow. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that, from the position shown at least in Fig. 11 from Celli, pushing down on the handles yields upward motion of the wheels; the support acts a fulcrum to facilitate this motion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA K FRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5403. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M, T, F.
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) 297-4324. 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.
/EMMA K FRICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights