3DETAILED 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg.
Regarding claim 1, Brunner teaches of
A cart body, said cart including a top wall, a bottom wall, a rear wall, a pair of side walls, and a front wall (Figure 1A, Embodiment 22)
A pair of wheels, said wheels being rotatably mounted on said cart body at said bottom wall (Figure 1A, Embodiment 94)
A handle, said handle being coupled to said cart body to manually push said cart body, said handle being positioned to extend vertically from said top wall (Figure 1A, Embodiment 80)
Brunner does not teach the said bottom wall possessing a semi-circular projection extending convexly beyond said top wall, said front wall, and said side walls, with said front wall being concave to for with said bottom wall a receptacle shaped to receive and hold a multi-gallon bucket.
Vanderberg teaches of a recess in its body that serves as a receptacle that is shaped to receive and hold a container.
One with ordinary skill in the art could see that the cart body of Brunner could be modified to possess a similar receptacle as taught in Vanderberg shaped to receive a multi-gallon bucket. The combination of elements does not create a resulting product that is unexpected.
Claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ottaway.
Regarding claim 2, Brunner in view of Vanderberg teaches of the dolly cart described in claim 1. However the limitation of the dolly cart having a receptacle configured to receive and hold a multi-gallon bucket designed to contain at least 5 gallons of liquid is not taught.
Ottaway, in a similar field of endeavor as Brunner and Vanderberg, teaches of a dolly cart intended and explicitly stated to carry a five-gallon bucket (Column 3, Line 60).
One with ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the teachings of Ottaway to provide a reasonable expectation for success that the modification of the receptacle in Vanderberg such that a five-gallon bucket would securely fit within the receptacle.
Regarding Claim 3, Brunner in view of Vanderberg teaches of the dolly cart as described in claim 1. However, the limitation that the receptacle of the dolly cart further comprising a lip about the perimeter of the receptacle is not taught.
Ottaway, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a lip surrounding a receptacle (Figure 2, Embodiment 38) within which a five-gallon bucket is held.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to provide a physical barrier around the object being transported to prevent an object from moving around or falling out of the receptacle.
Regarding Claim 8, Brunner in view of Vanderberg teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not teach the plurality of apertures in the bottom wall.
Ottaway, in the same field of endeavor, possesses a platform upon which a five-gallon bucket sits, where multiple apertures can be seen (Figure 1). While not explicitly stated in the disclosure, these apertures can be clearly identified within their invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that these apertures would provide for ventilation or drainage as mentioned in the claimed invention, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating that into Brunner and Vanderberg to result in an equivalent invention.
Regarding Claim 9, Brunner in view of Vanderberg teach on the limitations of claim 1, however fail to teach on the bracket which is configured to engage with the rim of the bucket while it sits in the receptacle.
Ottaway, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a bracket (Figure 3, Embodiment 41) which is configured to engage with the rim of a bucket to keep said bucket held by the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a bracket that engages with the rim of the bucket to assist in retaining the bucket within the receptacle.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg and Ottaway as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Vanderberg.
Regarding claim 4, Brunner in view of Vanderberg and Ottaway as described above in the claim 3 rejection teaches the limitations of claim 3, but does not teach of the pair of curved flanges.
In Vanderberg (Figure 4, Embodiment 32) the curved sidewalls of the body around the receptacle extend horizontally from the sides and about the perimeter of the receptacle as of those of the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to incorporate the further teachings of Vanderberg to add the curved flanges to a receptacle with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so to create an equivalent invention to that which is claimed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ralls.
Regarding claim 5, Brunner in view of Vanderberg teaches on the limitations of claim 1, but lacks the teaching for a front wall with a semi-circular profile.
Ralls, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a front-facing wall possessing a semi-circular profile. Applying the semi-circular profile as disclosed in Ralls to the arcuate recess profile of Vanderberg would arrive at the invention as claimed in the application. One with ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lopez.
Regarding claim 6, Brunner in view of Vanderberg teaches the limitations of claim 1, but lacks teaching for the storage space featuring an orifice in the top wall to provide access to the contents within the cart body.
Lopez, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a cart body with a front wall, a rear wall, a pair of side walls, a bottom wall, and a top wall featuring an orifice, where within the body is a storage space. The orifice is disclosed as a top lip in Figure 1, Embodiment 22.
The teachings of Lopez provide to one of ordinary skill in the art a reasonable expectation of success that providing an orifice in the top wall of a hollow container would provide a storage space as is described in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wong Hahn.
Regarding claim 7, Brunner in view of Vanderberg teaches the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach of a pivotally mounted drawer where items can be stored.
Wong Hahn discloses a hand truck featuring pivotally mounted drawers for the storage of items.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Wong Hahn to include a pivoting drawer to the rear wall of the cart body described in Brunner in view of Vanderberg to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brunner.
Regarding claim 10, Brunner, in view of Vanderberg, as described in the earlier rejection for claim 1, teaches the limitations of claim 1, but lacks teaching on the handle being retractable into and out of the body.
Expanding the teachings taken from Brunner, a retractable handle is taught in Figure 1A, Embodiment 84. One with ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating a retractable handle to arrive at an equivalent invention as that which is claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Brunner, in view of Vanderberg, as described in the earlier rejection for claim 1, teaches the limitations of claim 1, but lacks teaching on the wheels being attached to the side walls at an intersection between the rear and bottom walls.
Expanding the teachings of Brunner, Figure 1C, Embodiment 94 shows the wheel being proximate to the rear and bottom walls, while mounted to the side walls, such that the body could pivot on the axis of the wheel and pushed to move the contents of the container. One with an ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that incorporating such teachings would create an equivalent invention as that which is claimed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg and Ottaway as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ottaway.
Regarding Claim 12, Brunner in view of Vanderberg and Ottaway as described in the rejection of claim 2 teaches of the dolly cart for carrying a five-gallon drum as described in claim 2. However the limitation that the receptacle of the dolly cart further comprising a lip about the perimeter of the receptacle is not taught.
Ottaway, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a lip surrounding a receptacle (Figure 2, Embodiment 38) within which a five-gallon drum is held.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to provide a physical barrier around the object being transported to prevent an object from moving around or falling out of the receptacle.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg and Ottaway as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Vanderberg.
Regarding claim 13, Brunner in view of Vanderberg and Ottaway teaches the limitations of claim 12, but fails to teach the pair of curved flanges.
In Vanderberg, Figure 4, Embodiment 32, the curved sidewalls of the body around the receptacle extend horizontally from the sides and about the perimeter of the receptacle as of those of the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to incorporate the further teachings of Vanderberg to add the curved flanges to a receptacle with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg and Ottaway as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ralls.
Regarding claim 14, Brunner in view of Vanderberg and Ottaway teaches on the limitations of claim 13, but lacks the teaching for a front wall with a semi-circular profile.
Ralls, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a front-facing wall possessing a semi-circular profile. Applying the semi-circular profile as disclosed in Ralls to the arcuate recess profile of Vanderberg would arrive at the invention as claimed in the application. One with ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so to create an equivalent invention as that which is claimed.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg, Ottaway, and Ralls as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lopez.
Regarding claim 15, Brunner in view of Vanderberg, Ottaway, and Ralls teaches the limitations of claim 14, but lacks teaching for the storage space featuring an orifice in the top wall to provide access to the contents within the cart body.
Lopez, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a cart body with a front wall, a rear wall, a pair of side walls, a bottom wall, and a top wall featuring an orifice, where within the body is a storage space. The orifice is disclosed as a top lip in Figure 1, Embodiment 22.
The teachings of Lopez provide to one of ordinary skill in the art a reasonable expectation of success that providing an orifice in the top wall of a hollow container would provide a storage space as is described in the claim.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg, Ottaway, Ralls, and Lopez as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wong Hahn.
Regarding claim 7, Brunner in view of Vanderberg, Ottaway, Ralls, and Lopez teaches the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach of a pivotally mounted drawer where items can be stored.
Wong Hahn discloses a hand truck featuring pivotally mounted drawers for the storage of items.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Wong Hahn to include a pivoting drawer in the rear wall of the cart body described in Brunner in view of Vanderberg to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg, Ottaway, Ralls, Lopez, and Wong Hahn as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ottaway.
Regarding Claim 17, Brunner in view of Vanderberg, Ottaway, Ralls, Lopez, and Wong Hahn teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the plurality of apertures in the bottom wall.
Ottaway, in the same field of endeavor, possesses a platform upon which a five-gallon bucket sits, where multiple apertures can be seen (Figure 1). While not explicitly stated in the disclosure, these apertures can be clearly identified within their invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that these apertures would provide for ventilation or drainage as mentioned in the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg, Ottaway, Ralls, Lopez, and Wong Hahn as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ottaway.
Regarding Claim 18, Brunner in view of Vanderberg, Ottaway, Ralls, Lopez, and Wong Hahn teach on the limitations of claim 17, however fail to teach on the bracket which is configured to engage with the rim of the bucket while it sits in the receptacle.
Ottaway, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a bracket (Figure 3, Embodiment 41) which is configured to engage with the rim of a bucket to keep said bucket held by the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a bracket that engages with the rim of the bucket to assist in retaining the bucket within the receptacle.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg, Ottaway, Ralls, Lopez, and Wong Hahn as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Brunner.
Regarding claim 19, Brunner, in view of Vanderberg, Ottaway, Ralls, Lopez, and Wong Hahn, as described in the earlier rejection for claim 18, teaches the limitations of claim 18, but lacks teaching on the handle being retractable into and out of the body.
Expanding the teachings taken from Brunner, a retractable handle is taught in Figure 1A, Embodiment 84. One with ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating a retractable handle to arrive at an equivalent invention as that which is claimed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Vanderberg, Ottaway, Ralls, Lopez, and Wong Hahn as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Brunner.
Regarding claim 20, Brunner, in view of Vanderberg, as described in the earlier rejection for claim 19, teaches the limitations of claim 19, but lacks teaching on the wheels being attached to the side walls at an intersection between the rear and bottom walls.
Expanding the teachings of Brunner, Figure 1C, Embodiment 94 shows the wheel being proximate to the rear and bottom walls, while mounted to the side walls, such that the body could pivot on the axis of the wheel and pushed to move the contents of the container. One with an ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that incorporating such teachings would create an equivalent invention as that which is claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L DINKEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1743. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 4 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
JOHN LOUIS DINKEL
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GREGORY W ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
