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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/20/2026 has been fully considered and made of record.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 31-50 were presented for consideration with claims 42-50 directed to nonelected invention and species. As such, claims 31-41 were examined on merit as outlined in the nonfinal office action mailed 10/21/2025. However, in response to the nonfinal office action, Applicant has cancelled claims 31-50 and presented new claims 51-62 for examination. Upon further review of the claims, it is determined that claim 52 which is dependent on new independent claim 50 includes both New Matter and directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Previously examined independent claim 1 recited step of detaching at least one first joiner tube and attaching at least one second joiner tube of a different length to change the overall length of the frame. However, new independent claim 51 has no detaching and attaching steps but dependent claim 52 explicitly recites that the configuration is done without replacing any side rails which is contrary to the elected invention of previously examined and rejected claim 31.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 52 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 60 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 60, line 1, the limitation “the from comprises” is amended to - - the frame comprises - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 53, lines 1-4 recites the limitations wherein step (b) comprises: (i) releasing a brake-unlock and slide locking mechanism, (ii) sliding at least one of the first side rail and the second side rail relative to the frame, and (iii) re-engaging the brake-unlock and slide locking mechanism. However, these limitations are considered as New Matter with no support in the originally filed disclosure.
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.
Claim(s) 51 and 53-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 20070096437A1) in view of Hook et al. (US 5,678,842, hereinafter “Hook”).
As applied to claim 51, Watson teaches a method of reconfiguring a modular cleaning cart (paragraph [0037]), the method comprising:
(a) providing the modular cleaning cart comprising a frame , a wheel assembly supporting the frame, a first side rail and a second side rail disposed on opposite sides of the frame, and a plurality of bucket hanger bars that extend between the first side rail and the second side rail (base frame members 66,68 are each composed of a first section 66',68' and second section 66'',68'', respectively; first and second sections 66',66'' of base frame member 66, and first and second sections 68',68'' of base frame member 68, are each disposed in a telescoping arrangement in order that first sections 66',68' are adapted to slidably receive therein second sections 66'',68''; the telescoping arrangement of each of base frame members 66,68 enables the base of trolley 10 to be selectively and manually adjusted to vary the length of base frame members 66,68 to accommodate for more or less bags 12 loaded onto bag support members 28, paragraph [0058]);
(b) positioning at least one of the first side rail and the second side rail relative to the frame to select either (i) a two-bucket configuration in which the cart defines two bucket stations or (ii) a three-bucket configuration in which the cart defines three bucket stations (the telescoping arrangement of each of base frame members 66,68 enables the base of trolley 10 to be selectively and manually adjusted to vary the length of base frame members 66,68 to accommodate for more or less bags 12 loaded onto bag support members 28, paragraph [0058]);
(c) adjusting the plurality of bucket hanger bars along the first side rail and the second side rail so that the plurality of bucket hanger bars define the selected bucket stations (the telescopic portions of 28 are considered as side rails used as bucket hanger bars, paragraphs [0011], [0039]); and
(d) hanging at least two buckets from the plurality of bucket hanger bars by engaging the plurality of bucket hanger bars beneath rims of the buckets such that bottoms of the buckets are suspended above a floor (sleeve 26 of buckets 12 are considered as rims of the buckets, paragraph [0038], Figs. 1a-1c, 9a-9d).
Watson does not explicitly teach the material of the frame that can be autoclaved.
Hook teaches a hand cart (10) with lower and upper frames (14, 16, Fig. 2) made of hollow metal tubing (col. 2, lines 53-60) which metal frame members are well-known to be autoclavable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the method of Watson metal material for the frame members, as taught by Hook, as an effective means of providing the cart with enhanced structural strength (metal material which is autoclavable) that would prolong the operational life of the cart.
As applied to claim 53, Watson as modified by Hook teaches the invention cited. Watson further teaches the cart includes a brake mechanism attached to the wheel in order to lock and unlock the cart as desired (paragraph [0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to disengage and engage the brake system of Watson during the positioning and adjusting of the side rails for reconfiguring the cart with different number of bucket configurations in a steady and controlled state without any concern of unwanted rolling of the cart while being worked on.
As applied to claim 54, Watson as modified by Hook teaches the invention cited. Watson further teaches wherein the bucket hanger bars (28) comprise under hanger bars that contact undersides of the bucket rims (28 contacts the undersides of sleeves 26 which are undersides of the bucket rims).
As applied to claim 55, Watson as modified by Hook teaches the invention cited. Watson further teaches wherein the buckets comprise rectangular buckets.
As applied to claim 56, Watson as modified by Hook teaches the invention cited. Watson further teaches wherein step c) of the adjusting the hanger bars (28) by telescoping motion can be done to accommodate different types of buckets (i.e., narrow or shallow buckets) depending on the type of the buckets and sleeves being utilized.
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 20070096437A1) in view of Hook et al. (US 5,678,842, hereinafter “Hook”) as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Abbott et al. (US 4,826,187, hereinafter “Abbott”).
As applied to claim 57, Watson as modified by Hook teaches the invention cited including the cart comprise a plurality of buckets but does not explicitly teach the buckets are made of stainless steel or plastic.
Abbott teaches a hand cart wherein a plurality of containers/buckets (40, 56, Fig. 1) are constructed from a tough, durable and washable material such as nylon (col. 3, lines 49-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the buckets of Watson/Hook from a plastic material (i.e., nylon), as taught by Abbott, considering the well-known physical and chemical characteristics of the nylon which results in forming a durable, strong and tough bucket that would not only protect the contents held in the buckets but also lasts for a long period of use without the need for replacement.
Claim(s) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 20070096437A1) in view of Hook et al. (US 5,678,842, hereinafter “Hook”) as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Wick (US 20210368909A1).
As applied to claim 58, Watson as modified by Hook teaches the invention cited including Watson teaches the cart comprises a wheel assembly but does not explicitly teach the wheels assembly comprises antimicrobial wheels.
Wick teaches a hand cart comprising a wheel assembly with antimicrobial wheels (abstract, paragraph [0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the wheel assembly of Watson/Hook hand cart to comprise antimicrobial wheels, as taught by Wick, as an effective means of allowing the use of the cart in a variety of selective applications including clean room and medical facilities without any chance of transmitting and spreading undesired biological germs to different environments.
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 20070096437A1) in view of Hook et al. (US 5,678,842, hereinafter “Hook”) as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Wenner (US 8,474,839).
As applied to claim 59, Watson as modified by Hook teaches the invention cited including Watson teaches the cart includes a brake system controlled by a brake lever 112 fixedly connected to the handle bar 106 to immobilize the cart (paragraph [0058]) but does not explicitly teach the brake is a foot-operated wheel brake. However, Watson further teaches that although in the disclosed embodiment of the braking system includes a brake lever positioned on the handle bar, however, it should be understood that many other braking control mechanisms could also be used without departing from the spirit and scope of Watson’s invention (paragraph [0058]).
Wenner teaches that it is well-known to equip hand carts with a braking system 600 preferably built in a way so as to allow easy engagement and disengagement of the brake with one’s hand or foot (col. 9, lines 7-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have operated the brake system of Watson/Hook with a foot lever/pedal instead of the hand lever and kept the cart in stationary position, as taught by Wenner, as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). The resulting method would predictably produce a brake system in a conventional manner without the modification of principles of operation of Watson thus, allowing an easy engagement to stop the cart and kept stationary depending on the specific operating environment.
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 20070096437A1) in view of Hook et al. (US 5,678,842, hereinafter “Hook”) as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Hansen et al. (US 20240016686A1, hereinafter “Hansen”).
As applied to claim 60, Watson as modified by Hook teaches the invention cited including Watson teaches the cart comprises a frame but does not explicitly teach the frame comprises electropolished stainless steel material.
Hansen teaches a medical cart (10) used in patient care (title) made of electropolished stainless (paragraphs [0065] and [0082]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the frame of the hand cart of Watson/Hook from electropolished stainless steel, as taught by Hansen, considering the well-known properties of electropolished stainless steel such as superior hygiene and sanitation by removing microscopic peaks and valleys and surface imperfections that can harbor bacterial and viruses and as such, making routine cleaning and disinfection more effective.
Claim(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 20070096437A1) in view of Hook et al. (US 5,678,842, hereinafter “Hook”) as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Hodges et al. (US 20080149001A1, hereinafter “Hodges”).
As applied to claim 61, Watson as modified by Hook teaches the invention cited but does not explicitly teach after use, disassembling at least a portion of the cart (i.e. frame and bucket supports) and autoclaving the disassembled portion.
Hodges teaches that it is well-known to disassemble hand cart’s components including frame and support elements (i.e., base 101, sleeves 103A-B, and posts 114A-B and 116A-B, Fig. 1) after use and placed in an autoclave device to sanitize and disinfect the cart components (paragraph [0095]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the method of Watson/Hook a step of disassembling the cart components (i.e., frame and bucket supports) after use and autoclaving the components following, as taught by Hodges, as an effective means of sanitizing the cart components that have been exposed to the non-sanitary operating environment.
Claim(s) 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 20070096437A1) in view of Hook et al. (US 5,678,842, hereinafter “Hook”) as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Rouillard et al. (US 20110133417A1, hereinafter “Rouillard”).
As applied to claim 62, Watson as modified by Hook teaches the invention cited including Watson teaches the cart is used for a variety of different environments (paragraph [0002] but does not explicitly teach attaching a handle holder to the cart and retaining a mop handle in the handle holder.
Rouillard teaches a an adjustable cart medical cart (210) comprising attaching a handle holder (brackets 200, Figs. 14-20) to the cart and retaining a mop handle in the handle holder (paragraph [0115]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to attach a handle holder to the cart of Watson/Hook and retaining a mop in the handle holder, as taught by Rouillard, as an effective means of holding the mop to the cart, thus resulting in maximum flexibility of using the cart in multiple environments (rather than use in only a limited specific environment) that results in substantial manufacturing cost savings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 31-41 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 04/27/2026
Prosecution Insights