DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election of invention I consisting of claims 1-10 without traverse filed on 3/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 3/16/2026.
Priority
The priority claim to provisional application PRO 63/579,061 filed on 8/28/2023 is acknowledged.
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 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.
(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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Stahler (US 6328319 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Stahler teaches a convertible hand truck comprising:
a frame comprising a pair of uprights (12 “primary frame” taught by figures 1-3, and 5-7), each upright comprising an axle bracket (60 “flange” taught by figure 2);
a loop handle (22 “secondary frame” taught by figure 1) comprising a pair of legs (122 “legs” taught by figures 1-3), each leg comprising a caster wheel (18 “second pair of wheels” taught by figures 2-3);
a toe plate connected to the frame (62 “nose piece” taught by figures 1-3);
a pair of wheels (14 “first pair of wheels” taught by figures 1-3) connected by an axle (64 “an axle” taught by figures 2-3), the axle supported by the axle brackets (taught by figures 2-3); and
a latch mechanism for selectively locking and unlocking the loop handle to the frame (52 “cam locking device” taught by figures 2-5), the latch mechanism comprising:
a latch bar (48 “cart axle” taught by figures 3-5);
a pair of latch housings, each housing mounted to a respective frame upright (52 “cam locking device” taught by figures 3-4b), each latch housing comprising a latch flipper arm (56 “cam” taught by figures 3-4b), a latch flipper arm biasing member (58 “elastic member” taught by figures 4a-4b), and a latch housing notch (taught by annotated figure 4a attached below); and
a latch release comprising a latch release bar (48 “cart axle” taught by figures 3-5) and a pair of latch release plates (54 “bar securing rockers” taught in figures 4a-4b), each latch release plate being pivotal to a respective latch housing at a respective latch release plate pivot located in front of the latch release bar and having (taught by figures 4a-4b) a latch release plate indent (taught by figure 4a).
PNG
media_image1.png
548
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Stahler teaches the convertible hand truck of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stahler also teaches wherein the biasing member is a torsion spring (taught by figures 4a-4b and by column 11 lines 52-53 “the elastic member 24 is preferably a torsional spring”).
Regarding claim 3, Stahler teaches the convertible hand truck of claim 2 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stahler also teaches wherein each latch flipper arm biasing member biases its respective latch flipper arm against the latch bar (taught by figures 4a-4b).
Regarding claim 4, Stahler teaches the convertible hand truck of claim 2 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stahler also teaches wherein each latch flipper arm biasing member biases the latch bar against its respective latch release plate indent (taught by figure 4a).
Regarding claim 5, Stahler teaches the convertible hand truck of claim 4 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stahler also teaches wherein the loop handle is unlocked from the frame by lifting the latch release bar (taught by figures 4a-7 and by column 9 lines 33-38 “To release the secondary frame 22, the cam lock release handle 50 is rotated downwardly to cause the first leg 134 to move clockwise out of abutment with cam 56 and thereby rotates the second leg 136 of the bar securing rocker 54 clockwise to allow the cart axle 48 to exit the groove 138 in the cam locking device 52”).
Regarding claim 6, Stahler teaches the convertible hand truck of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stahler also teaches wherein at least a portion of the latch bar extends beyond each latch housing notch when the latch mechanism is unlocked (taught by figures 3 and 4b).
Regarding claim 7, Stahler teaches the convertible hand truck of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stahler also teaches wherein the latch release plates rest on the latch bar when the latch mechanism is locked (taught by figure 4a).
Regarding claim 8, Stahler teaches the convertible hand truck of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stahler also teaches wherein the latch release bar is moveable to a position completely exterior of the pair of latch housings (taught by figure 4b).
Regarding claim 9, Stahler teaches the convertible hand truck of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stahler also teaches wherein each latch flipper arm biasing member is fixed to its respective latch housing (taught by figures 4a-4b).
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 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahler (US 6328319 B1) in view of Su (US 9688298 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Stahler teaches the convertible hand truck of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stahler does not teach wherein the latch flipper arms do not contact the latch release.
Su teaches wherein the latch flipper arms (42 “a pair of pivoting members” taught by figure 6) do not contact the latch release (41 “a pair of fixed members” taught by figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the latch flipper arms and latch release of Stahler to not touch as taught by Su, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because when parts don’t touch they wear out slower.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (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 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights