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
The Amendment filed 4/16/2026 amended claims 1, 3, 4, 7-10, and 20. Claims 1-20 are pending herein, however Claims 2, and 4-19 were previously withdrawn in response to a Restriction requirement.
Applicant should take note that the claims amendments filed provide the wrong application number at the top of the page: “19/266,344”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, and 20 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.
Drawings
The previous objections to the drawings are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the objections that remain are detailed below.
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, “manually removed from the axle mount slot by a user's fingers to allow removal of the axle pin without tools” (Claim 3), 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
The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the objections that remain are detailed below.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the axle” (line 8) should be rewritten as: “the first axle.” Appropriate correction is required
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the pin” should be rewritten as: “the axle pin.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the rejections that remain are detailed below.
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.
Claim 3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation: "without tools", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. However, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the rejections that remain are detailed below.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 20 is/are rejected is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donze et al. (US 5,149,116) and further in view of Albert et. al. (US PG PUB 2010/0109).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Donze teaches: A wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-8), comprising:
a tub (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 10) supported by two handle shafts (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 1+1a+16), each handle shaft supported by a respective leg (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 2), the two handle shafts connected by a wheel guard (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 5);
an axle mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 4) on each handle shaft located between the wheel guard and leg (See, e.g., Fig.1-8);
an axle mount slot (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 4) traversing one of the axle mounts (See, e.g., Fig.1-8);
a first axle (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 6) traversing each handle shaft axle mount, the axle comprising a pin orifice (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 9a); and
a first wheel (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 8) mounted on the first axle between the two handle shafts (See, e.g., Fig.1-8);
wherein the axle is held inside the axle mounts by an axle pin (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 9) traversing pin orifice of the axle (See, e.g., Fig.1-8).
Donze fails to explicitly teach: wherein the axle is held inside the axle mounts by an axle pin traversing the axle mount slot.
However, Albert teaches a similar wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Albert: Fig.1-10, 10) with an axle mount slot (See, e.g., Albert: Fig.1-10, 68) traversing one of the axle mounts (See, e.g., Albert: Fig.1-10, 50); wherein the axle (See, e.g., Albert: Fig.1-10, 42) is held inside the axle mounts by an axle pin (See, e.g., Albert: Fig.1-10, 66) traversing the axle mount slot (See, e.g., Albert: Fig.1-10).
Albert teaches that it is well known in the art of wheelbarrow design to provide . the axle held inside the axle mounts by an axle pin traversing the axle mount slot. 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 Donze modified with the axle held inside the axle mounts by the axle pin traversing the axle mount slot and the axle pin orifice such as taught by Albert, for the purpose of conveniently maintaining the axle in a securely attached configuration when in use, beneficially allowing a user to remove the axle easily (e.g., by grasping the coupling pin) for replacement/repair or disassembly/storage, and additionally presenting a neat and concise visual appearance when mounted on the wheelbarrow. 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 l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Donze in view of Albert teaches: wherein the axle pin can be manually removed from the axle mount slot by a user's fingers to allow removal of the axle pin without tools and the first axle removed from the axle mounts to remove the first wheel from the wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Donze: Fig.1-8 in view of Albert: Fig.1-10).
[Claim 20] Regarding Claim 20, Donze teaches: A wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-8), comprising:
a tub (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 10) supported by two handle shafts (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 1+1a+3+16), each handle shaft having an axis and supported by a respective leg (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 2);
an axle mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 4) coupled to each handle shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-8), at least one axle mount comprising an axle mount slot (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 4);
a first axle (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 6) traversing each handle shaft axle mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-8), the axle comprising a pin orifice (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 9a); and
a wheel (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 8) mounted on the axle between the two handle shafts (See, e.g., Fig.1-8);
wherein the first axle is held inside the axle mounts by an axle pin (See, e.g., Fig.1-8, 9) traversing the pin orifice of the axle (See, e.g., Fig.1-8).
Donze fails to explicitly teach: wherein the axle is held inside the axle mounts by an axle pin traversing the axle mount slot.
However, Albert teaches a similar wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Albert: Fig.1-10, 10) with an axle mount slot (See, e.g., Albert: Fig.1-10, 68) traversing one of the axle mounts (See, e.g., Albert: Fig.1-10, 50); wherein the axle (See, e.g., Albert: Fig.1-10, 42) is held inside the axle mounts by an axle pin (See, e.g., Albert: Fig.1-10, 66) traversing the axle mount slot (See, e.g., Albert: Fig.1-10).
Albert teaches that it is well known in the art of wheelbarrow design to provide the axle held inside the axle mount slot by an axle pin traversing the axle mount slot. 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 Donze modified with the axle held inside the axle mounts by the axle pin traversing the axle mount slot and the axle pin orifice such as taught by Albert, for the purpose of conveniently maintaining the axle in a securely attached configuration when in use, beneficially allowing a user to remove the axle easily (e.g., by grasping the coupling pin) for replacement/repair or disassembly/storage, and additionally presenting a neat and concise visual appearance when mounted on the wheelbarrow. 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 l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights