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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending as filed 6/26/2025.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,365,380 B2 and claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,384,438 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-8 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,365,380 B2 and claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,384,438 B2. In other words, claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,365,380 B2 and claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,384,438 B2 fully encompasses the subject matter of claims 1-8 and therefore anticipate claims 1-8. Since claims 1-8 are anticipated by claims 1-9 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claims 1-8. Thus, the invention of claims 1-9 of the patent is in effect a species of the generic invention of claims 1-8. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claims 1-8 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by claims 1-9 of the patents, claims 1-8 are not patentably distinct from claims 1-9, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1-8.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “door holding bars” (Claim 1, line 4) and “the extension bar” (Claim 1, line 8-9), and “having the extension bars extend perpendicular from the support bar” (Claim 5, line 4) and “tables are flat” (Claim 7) must be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 5, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “comprising: having” (line 1-2) should be rewritten as: “comprising:” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the extend from the bottom of said base, and a support bar the extends from said base is comprised” (line 2-3) should be rewritten as: “that extend from a bottom of said base, and a support bar that extends from said base, said base is comprised” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the hinges of the door frame” (line 5) should be rewritten as: “hinges of a door frame” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “which is used secure a door frame” (line 6-7) should be rewritten as: “which is used to secure the door frame”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “where the door support bars and extend out at angle away from each other at an angle with two prongs at the distal end that extends up” (lines 7-8) should be rewritten as: “where the door support bars extend out at an angle away from each other with two prongs at a distal end that extend upwards”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “where one prong shorter than the other” should be rewritten as: “wherein one prong of the two prongs is shorter than the other”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “can be place” should be rewritten as: “can be placed”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “A door cart” (line 1) should be rewritten as: “The door cart”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a door locking bar” should be rewritten as: “one of the adjustable door locking bars” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 and 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “extend perpendicular” should be rewritten as: “extend perpendicularly”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “bin shape” should be rewritten as: “bin-shaped”. 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. Specifically, the limitation “the extension bar” (Claim 1, line 8-9) and “the right foldable bar and the left foldable bar” (Claim 1, line 9-10) are of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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. Specifically, the limitation “at the distal end that extends up where the distal end of the extension bar, the end that does not connect to the support bar,” (Claim 1, line 8-9) are all of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is 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. Specifically, the limitation “having the extension bars extend perpendicular from the support bar” (Claim 5, see above drawing objection) is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6-8 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. Specifically, the limitations of Claims 6-8 regarding “tables” found in Fig.13-14 are directed to a different embodiment which appears to conflict with the limitations of independent Claim 1, and therefore render the claims indefinite. The claims should most likely be canceled. Appropriate correction 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 (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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shern (US 4,810,151 B1).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Shern discloses: A door cart (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 1), comprising: having a base (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 3+5) with a plurality of wheels (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 7) the extend from the bottom of said base (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), and a support bar (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 21+11) the extends from said base is comprised of two halves (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 3+5), a left half and right half (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 3+5),
having a plurality of door holding bars (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 45+43+25+23+71+17+15+etc.), having a plurality of door support bars (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 45+43+25+23+etc.) and adjustable door locking bars (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 71+53+51) connected to the support bars (See, e.g., Fig.1-10) which the hinges of the door frame fit into (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, D) where the adjustable door locking bars are connected to a thumb-turn bracket (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 55+51+53) which is used secure a door frame where the door support bars and extend out at angle away from each other at an angle with two prongs (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 73+15+53+51) at the distal end that extends up where the distal end of the extension bar (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), the end that does not connect to the support bar, connects to the right foldable bar and the left foldable bar (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 51+53) by extension bar hinges and secured through extension bar clasps (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 45+57).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Shern discloses: further comprising: where one prong shorter than the other (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 73+15+17+53+51).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Shern discloses: further comprising: where a door can be place on each of the prongs (See, e.g., Fig.1-10).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Shern discloses: further comprising: where a door locking bar (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 71) is moved down the support bar locking the door (See, e.g., Fig.1-10).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, Shern discloses: further comprising: having the extension bars extend perpendicular from the support bar (See, e.g., Fig.1-10).
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(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shern (US 4,810,151) in view of Le (US 10,407,088 B1).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, Shern fails to explicitly teach further comprising: having tables extend perpendicular from the support bar.
However, Le teaches a similar cart (See, e.g., Le: Fig.1-8, 1) wherein tables (See, e.g., Le: Fig.1-8, 300+160) extend perpendicular from a support bar (See, e.g., Le: Fig.1-8, 150+135).
Le teaches that it is well known in the art of cart design to provide the cart having tables extend perpendicular from the support bar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Shern modified with tables extend perpendicular from the support bar such as taught by Le, for the purpose of conveniently allowing the user to store components and tools related to door installation and removal on the cart in order to increase efficiency at the work site. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int'/ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Shern in view of Le teaches: further comprising: where the tables are flat (See, e.g., Le: Fig.2, 300+160).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Shern in view of Le teaches: further comprising: further comprising: where the tables are bin shape (See, e.g., Le: Fig.1, 300).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613