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 1-20 are pending herein.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 2/10/2026 in the reply filed on Invention II (Claims 1-10, and 18-20) and Species A (Fig.1-8,47-49,79) is acknowledged.
Claims 11-17 (Invention I) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/10/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/12/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant is advised that the M.P.E.P. states the following with respect to large information disclosure statements: Although a concise explanation of the relevance of information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted. Concise explanations (especially those that point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more is highly relevant to patentability (M.P.E.P. § 609).
Therefore, it is recommended that if any information that has been cited by Applicant in the disclosure statement is known to be material for patentability as defined by 37 CFR 1.56, Applicant should present a concise statement as to the relevance of that/those particular documents therein cited. The references cited by applicants in the IDS and listed on the numerous 1449s have been made of record. While the statements filed clearly do not comply with the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2004 regarding both the number of references cited and the elimination of clearly irrelevant art and marginally cumulative information, compliance with these guidelines is not mandatory. Furthermore, 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 do not require that the information be material, rather they allow for submission of information regardless of its pertinence to the claimed invention. Also, there is no requirement to explain the materiality of the submitted references, however, the cloaking of a clearly relevant reference by inclusion in a long list of citations may not comply with Applicant's duty of disclosure, see Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark boats Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, aff'd 479 F. 2d. 1338.
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,
“horizontal offset” (Claims 1/2/10/18/20 – not clear from figures, see below 35 USC 112 rejections), 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 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a wheelbarrow” (line 4) should be rewritten as: “the wheelbarrow.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1/8/18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the leg bottom portion center line” (Claim 1, line 6; Claim 18, line 9) should be rewritten as: “the center line of the leg bottom portion.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2/20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the leg bottom portion width” (Claim 1, line 2; Claim 20, line 2) should be rewritten as: “the width of the leg bottom portion.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-10, 19, and 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a wheelbarrow” (line 1) should be rewritten as: “the wheelbarrow.” 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 1-10, 18-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1/18, the claim recites the limitation: "horizontally offset", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 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 7, the claim recites the limitation: "unibody construction", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. However, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 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 10, the claim recites the limitation: "wherein horizontal offset is larger at the location of the front tab than the horizontal offset at the location of the rear tab", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18-20 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 10, the claim recites the limitation: "the horizontal offset is larger at the location of the rear tab than the horizontal offset at the location of the front tab", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 19-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitations: "each leg front portion is affixed to its respective handle shaft”, which is of unclear antecedent basis and therefore render the claims indefinite. Specifically, independent claim 18 only recites a single leg front portion.” 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)(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) 1-10, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albert et al. (US 8,523,198 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Albert discloses: A leg (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 24+26) for a wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 10), comprising:
a leg front portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 40), the leg front portion affixed to a handle shaft of the wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 20), the handle shaft having an axis and a planar bottom surface (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 20);
a leg rear portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 42), the leg rear portion affixed to the handle shaft of a wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 20); and
a leg bottom portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 44) intermediate of the leg front portion and leg rear portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7), the leg bottom having a center line and the leg bottom portion center line being parallel to a ground surface upon which the wheelbarrow rests (See, e.g., Fig.1-7); wherein the handle shaft axis and leg bottom portion center line are horizontally offset (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Albert discloses: wherein the leg bottom portion further comprises a width and the horizontal offset is greater than the leg bottom portion width (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Albert discloses: further comprising a leg front portion tab (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 41) and a leg rear portion tab (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 43).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Albert discloses: wherein the leg front portion is affixed to the handle shaft by the leg front portion tab (See, e.g., Fig.1-7) and the leg rear portion is attached to the handle shaft by the leg rear portion tab (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, Albert discloses: wherein the leg front portion tab and leg rear portion tab are planar and parallel to the handle shaft bottom planar surface (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, Albert discloses: wherein the leg front portion tab and leg rear portion tab are parallel to the handle shaft axis (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, Albert discloses: wherein the leg is of a unibody construction (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, Albert discloses: wherein the wheelbarrow comprises a stabilizer (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 60) having a bottom portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7), the stabilizer bottom portion having a center line and the stabilizer bottom portion center line is parallel to the leg bottom portion center line (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, Albert discloses: wherein the leg bottom portion center line and stabilizer bottom portion center line are parallel to the ground surface upon which the wheelbarrow rests (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Albert discloses: wherein horizontal offset is larger at the location of the front tab than the horizontal offset at the location of the rear tab.
[Claim 18] Regarding Claim 18, Albert discloses: A leg (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 24+26) for a wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 10), comprising:
a leg front portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 40) having a tab (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 41), the leg front portion affixed to a handle shaft of the wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 20), the handle shaft having an axis and a planar bottom surface;
a leg rear portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 42) having a tab (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 43), the leg rear portion affixed to the handle shaft of a wheelbarrow (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 20); and
a leg bottom portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 44) intermediate of the leg front portion and leg rear portion and having a center line (See, e.g., Fig.1-7), the leg bottom portion being parallel to a ground surface upon which the wheelbarrow rests (See, e.g., Fig.1-7);
wherein the handle shaft axis and leg bottom portion center line are horizontally offset (See, e.g., Fig.1-7) and the horizontal offset is larger at the location of the rear tab than the horizontal offset at the location of the front tab (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 19] Regarding Claim 19, Albert discloses: wherein each leg front portion is affixed to its respective handle shaft by the leg front portion tab and the leg rear portion is attached to the handle shaft by the leg rear portion tab (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 20] Regarding Claim 20, Albert discloses: wherein the leg bottom portion further comprises a width and the horizontal offset is greater than the leg bottom portion width (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
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