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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification lacks antecedent basis for the claimed locking system, sliding position(s), lock actuator, and manually actuated system.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,560,168.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,560,168.
Claims 3-4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,221,148.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because respective claims from US 12,221,148 or 11,560,168 encompass all of the limitations from respective claims of the present application, and more (some of the claims from the present application may be broader than those of US 12,221,148 or 11,560,168).
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 1-4 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.
Claims 1 and 2 require a locking system. The claimed locking system is not understood. What components correspond to the locking system? Does the locking system include the claimed lock actuator?
In claims 1 and 2, what are the sliding positions, and how are they different from the other claimed positions?
Claim 3 requires a manually actuated system. The claimed manually actuated system is not understood. What components correspond to the manually actuated system? How is it different from the earlier claimed head assembly?
The confusion arises because a locking system, sliding position(s), lock actuator, and manually actuated system are not found in the specification/detailed description of the present application. Attempts to understand the claims, in light of the specification, are limited to speculation. As such, the metes and bounds of these elements are not understood. Clarification is needed.
In claim 2 (see line 14), there is improper antecedent basis for a plurality of rotational positions, because a plurality of rotational positions is introduced earlier within the claim.
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) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stahler (US 6364,328).
Regarding claim 1, Stahler teaches: a multi-position hand truck, comprising:
a frame (including at least element 28) having a first end on which main wheels (16) are mounted and a second opposite end,
a handle (14) including two elongated side handle members (62) and a wheel (60) mounted on a bottom end of each elongated side handle member,
two handle brackets (including at least element 26) rotatably mounted at least indirectly to the frame for rotation about a handle rotation axis, the handle brackets also being arranged to slidably receive the elongated side handle members, so that the handle is able to rotate with respect to the frame between a first rotational position (Fig. 1) and a second rotational position (Fig. 5) and so that the handle is able to be slidably adjusted with respect to the frame between a first retracted position (Fig. 1) and a second extended position (Fig. 5),
a locking system (including at least elements 20, 22) locking the handle in at least one of a plurality of rotational positions and locking the degree of sliding extension of the handle in at least one of a plurality of extended positions (see at least the positions shown in Figs. 1 and 5, where sliding and rotation are locked), at least one of the plurality of rotational positions for locking is a position in which the handle is partially rotated between the first and second rotational positions and at least one sliding position is one in which the handle is able to be locked is the first retracted position so that the handle is able to be upright and the frame is able to be inclined (see the “inclined-cart-position” shown in Fig. 3), and,
a lock actuator (including elements 150 and 116) that is arranged for locking and unlocking the locking system so that rotational positioning is unlocked before the sliding positioning is unlocked (see column 13, lines 6-50, and the progression from Figs. 1 to 5; the arrows in Figs. 2 and 4 indicate the handle is rotated before it slides).
Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 1-5.
Regarding claim 2, Stahler teaches: a multi-position hand truck, comprising:
a frame (including at least element 28) having a first end on which main wheels (16) are mounted and a second opposite end,
a handle (14) including two elongated side handle members (62) and a wheel (60) mounted on a bottom end of each of said elongated side handle members,
handle brackets (including at least element 26) rotatably mounted at least indirectly to the frame on opposite sides thereof for rotation about a handle rotation axis, the handle brackets also being arranged to slidably receive the elongated side handle members, so that the handle is able to rotate with respect to the frame between a plurality of rotational positions including a first rotational position (Fig. 1) and a second rotational position (Fig. 5), and so that the handle is able to be slidably adjusted with respect to the frame between a plurality of sliding positions including a first retracted position (Fig. 1) and a second extended position (Fig. 5),
a locking system (including at least elements 20, 22) locking said handle in at least one of a plurality of rotational positions and said handle in at least one of a plurality of sliding positions, wherein one of the positions in which said handle is able to be locked is a position (Fig. 3) in which the rotational position of the handle is between the first and second rotational positions such that the handle is able to be upright and the frame is able to be inclined, and,
a lock actuator (including elements 150 and 116) arranged to unlock rotational positioning and sliding positioning which unlocks rotational positioning and sliding positioning in a sequential fashion (see column 13, lines 6-50, which describes going from a hand truck position to cart position).
Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 1-5.
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahler (US 6,364,328) in view of Ryan (US 2012/0153585).
Regarding claim 3, Stahler teaches: a multi-position hand truck, comprising:
a frame (including at least element 28) having a top end and a pair of spaced apart wheels (16) mounted at an opposite end,
a handle (14) including spaced apart side members (62) each having a wheel (60) at a bottom end,
a head assembly (including at least elements 20,66), fixed to the frame adjacent the top end, including a frame bracket (66) fixed to the frame,
handle brackets (26) rotatably mounted to the frame bracket, each handle bracket slidably receiving one of the side members therein,
the head assembly further including rotational (90) and sliding locks (20),
a manually actuated system (including at least element 116 and/or 150) to control locking and unlocking of the rotational and sliding motion of the handle so that the frame and the handle can be moved in a variety of positions including a first dolly position (Fig. 1) in which the handle is locked and unrotated and not extended so as to be generally parallel to the frame, a separate third inclined position (Fig. 3) in which the handle is not extended and partially rotated and locked to be angled with respect to said frame so that the handle is able to be upright and the frame is able to be inclined and a fourth cart position (Fig. 5) wherein the handle is fully rotated and the frame is slid to the bottom of the handle so that the frame is in a level orientation, and
the rotational and sliding locks being arranged to releasably secure the handle from sliding and rotating when in the first, second and third positions and also arranged to releasably secure the handle at least from rotation when in the fourth cart position.
Stahler fails to disclose a second dolly position in which the handle is unrotated and slidably extended and locked. Ryan teaches an extendable handle (180), capable of achieving a second dolly position (shown in Fig. 3) in which the handle is unrotated and slidably extended and locked. Compare Fig. 1, in which the handle is not extended, to Fig. 2-3, where the handle is extended. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the handle from Stahler as extendable, such that the hand truck is able to reach a second dolly position in which the handle is unrotated and slidably extended and locked. The motivation being: extendibility of the handle enables the hand truck to reach variable heights, such that loads of varying sizes can be accommodated, and cart attendants may choose an ergonomically comfortable height.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches: wherein locking and unlocking to permit the rotational and sliding positions occurs sequentially. When switching between positions, the hand truck starts in a locked position, then is unlocked to permit sliding and rotation, and is then locked again, in sequence.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited art relates to hand trucks having multiple positions, and hand trucks having features relevant to the claimed subject matter of the present application.
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