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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 7/29/2025 cancelled claims 3, 9-11, 13, 15, and 17, and amended Claims 1, 6, 8, and 16. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 12, 14, 16, and 18 are currently pending herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 12, 14, 16, and 18, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments have been addressed below.
On pages 6-7 of the response, Applicant states: “There is no disclosure or teaching in McKelvey of elements that are secured to the rear end of the shopping cart frame. Further, there is no teaching or disclosure in McKelvey of securing the vertical rail elements, which may not be present in McKelvey, with legs (48) appearing as a closest equivalent, to the rear end of the shopping cart frame. Nor are there any fasteners or attachments disclosed which would enable legs (48) to be secured to the shopping cart frame at any position”
Regarding these contentions, the Examiner maintains that the McKelvey reference provides for the disputed claim limitations based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
541
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
530
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Specifically, as provided above, while the McKelvey reference does not specifically recite that the cited components are "vertical rail portions” and “securing elements” it is clear from the disclosure and cited figures that the cited components are fastened or fixed together in the same manner (See, e.g., McKelvey: Fig.1-7). It is clear from the McKelvy reference that at least a portion of elements 48, 28, and 29 as cited are rails that extend vertically (see above), and are provided with securing elements 35 and 36 to either directly or indirectly connect the vertical rail portion elements to the rear end of the McKelvy shopping cart frame element 2 and 4 at the rear end. One of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily interpret the disputed limitations as the Applicant argues. Applicants are reminded, that [t]he invention disclosed in [a] written description may be outstanding in its field, but the name of the game is the claim. In re Hiniker Co., 47 USPQ 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Specifically, if Applicants believe that an invention has differences over the prior art, particularly regarding connection of the elements, Applicants must find a way to convey this argument in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See, e.g., In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
Drawings
The previous objections to the drawings are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the objections that remain are detailed below.
Claim Objections
The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the objections that remain are detailed below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a plurality of frame securing elements” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 limitation “a plurality of frame securing elements” (Claim 1, line 11) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is limited on the structure that performs the function in the claim, and the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function of the “securing elements” in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 12, 14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKelvey (US 6,575,480 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, McKelvey discloses: A multiple child shopping cart extension (See, e.g., Fig.1-7,10) for attachment to a shopping cart frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 2+4), comprising:
a frame structure (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 10) having a base unit (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 11+13) at a bottom end (See, e.g., Fig.1-7) and two side rail portions (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 16+18+48+26+29+30+48), affixed to opposing sides of said base unit (See, e.g., Fig.1-7);
each of said side rail portions having a vertical rail portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 48+29+30), located on an outer side of said frame structure (See, e.g., Fig.1-7), extending from said bottom end to a top end (See, e.g., Fig.1-7), and having transverse rail portions (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 17+50+26+27+28), said transverse rail portions extending from said outer side to an inner side of said frame structure (See, e.g., Fig.1-7), said transverse rail portions being affixed to said vertical rail portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7); and,
a plurality of frame securing elements (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 35+36+etc.), for securing said multiple child shopping cart extension to said shopping cart frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-7), wherein said plurality of frame securing elements attach each of said vertical rail portions to a rear end of said shopping cart frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, McKelvey discloses: wherein said plurality of frame securing elements are releasable frame securing elements (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 35+36+etc.), for releasably securing said multiple child shopping cart extension to said shopping cart frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, McKelvey discloses: said side rail portions further comprising a pair of handle members (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 20+54), each handle member being permanently affixed to each of the side rail portions at the top end (See, e.g., Fig.1-7), and said pair of handle members extending from said inner side towards said outer side (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, McKelvey discloses: the side rail portions being connected at the top end on the inner side by an upper horizontal rail portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 20+54+17).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, McKelvey discloses: further comprising two wheel members (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 80), affixed to said frame structure at said bottom end (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, McKelvey discloses: further comprising a safety strap (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 19+62), said safety strap being releasably or permanently attached to each of the vertical rail portions on the outer side (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, McKelvey discloses: said shopping cart frame comprising a basket portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 3) with a horizontal bottom surface (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, McKelvey discloses: A method of assembling an extended shopping cart with the multiple child shopping cart extension of claim 1, the method comprising: securing, with the frame securing elements, the multiple child shopping cart extension to the shopping cart frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 14] Regarding Claim 14, McKelvey discloses: wherein the multiple child shopping cart extension is releasably secured to said shopping cart frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 35+36).
[Claim 16] Regarding Claim 16, McKelvey discloses: A kit for assembling an extended shopping cart with the multiple child shopping cart extension of claim 1, the kit comprising: the frame securing elements, the multiple child shopping cart extension, and two wheel members (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 18] Regarding Claim 18, McKelvey discloses: further comprising a safety strap (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 19+62).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 3618