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 .
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, 3, 5, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,953,667 to Bigo.
Re-claim 1, Bigo discloses a wheeled cart comprising: a basket assembly (such as a shopping trolley, the phrase “trolley” is a British term for basket) for transporting items; a plurality of wheel assemblies 3a/3b rotatably coupled to the assembly; a brake lever arm is pivotably attached to the assembly and pivotable about a brake lever arm axis 2, the brake lever arm includes a brake lever arm distal end 9a extending perpendicularly in relation to the brake lever arm axis, wherein the brake lever arm pivots by engaging the brake lever arm distal end between a released position and a braked position, the brake lever arm includes a brake assembly; wherein at least one of the plurality of wheel assemblies includes a plurality of stops 16a radially disposed about a common radial axis; wherein, in the braked position, the brake assembly is positioned between at least two of the plurality of stops preventing rotation of the at least one of the plurality of wheel assemblies (figure 2); wherein, in the released position, the brake assembly is positioned outside the plurality of stops allowing rotation of the at least one of the plurality of wheel assemblies (figure 3); and wherein the brake assembly includes a raised bump 19a and a flexure (i.e. bend) formed by a slot 20a, the flexure is not engaged by the raised bump when the brake lever arm is in either the released position or the braked position and the flexure is engaged by the raised bump when moving between the released position and the braked position. The phrase “flexure” can define a bend or turn, see Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition:
flexure
noun
1 : the quality or state of being flexed : flexion
2 : turn, bend, fold
Re-claim 3, axle 2 couples two of the plurality of wheels.
Re-claim 9, Bigo discloses a wheeled cart comprising: a wheel 3a with a plurality of stops 16a radially disposed about a common radial axis; a brake assembly is coupled between at least two of the plurality of stops, the brake assembly comprising a raised bump 19a and a flexure (bend formed by a slot, see figure 2) formed by a slot 20a; a brake lever arm 14 is coupled to the brake assembly and pivots about a brake lever arm axis 2, the brake lever arm comprises a brake lever arm distal end 9a extending perpendicularly in relation to the brake lever arm axis, the brake lever arm pivots the brake lever arm distal end 9a between a released position (figure 3) and a braked position (figure 2); wherein, in the braked position, the brake assembly is positioned between at least two of the plurality of stops 16a preventing rotation of the wheel (figure 2); in the released position, the brake assembly is positioned outside the plurality of stops allowing rotation of the wheel (figure 3); the flexure (i.e. bend) is not engaged by the raised bump 19a when the brake lever arm is in either the released position or the braked position and the flexure is engaged by the raised bump when moving between the released position and the braked position.
Re-claims 5, 13 and 17, the brake assembly comprises a brake extension extending outwardly from the brake lever arm towards the wheel in a direction parallel to the brake lever arm axis.
Re-claim 14, the wheel is selected from a group consisting of a front right wheel, a left front wheel, a back right wheel and a back left wheel.
Re-claim 16, Bigo discloses a wheeled assembly comprising: a first wheel 3a and a second wheel 3b each rotatably coupled to a frame, the first wheel and the second wheel are aligned along a central axis 2, the first wheel comprises a plurality of stops 16a radially disposed about the central axis; a brake assembly is removably coupled with at least one the plurality of stops, the brake assembly comprising a raised bump 19a and a flexure (bend in slot 20a) formed by a slot 20a; a brake lever arm is coupled to the brake assembly and pivotable about a brake lever arm axis 2, the brake lever arm comprises a brake lever arm distal end 9a extending perpendicularly in relation to the brake lever arm axis, the brake lever arm pivots by engaging the brake lever arm distal end between a released position and a braked position; in the braked position, the brake assembly is positioned between at least two of the plurality of stops preventing rotation of the first wheel (figure 2); in the released position, the brake assembly is configured to be positioned outside the plurality of stops allowing rotation of the first wheel (figure 3); the flexure engages the raised bump 19a when switching between the released position and the braked position and disengages the raised bump in either the released position or the braked position.
Re-claim 19, the brake lever arm is configured to remain in the braked position or released position until moved to the other position.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigo in view 2012//0274052 A1 to Zhu.
Re-claims 2, 10 and 18, Bigo fails to provide specifics of the basket, such as configured to collapse to a stored position and expand to an opened position.
Zhu teaches a basket assembly that collapses when in a stored position and expands to an opened position. This allows for easy storage of the basket when not in use, and minimizes the necessary storage space for the basket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the basket assembly of Bigo with a collapsing basket structure of the type taught by Zhu, thus minimizing the storage space necessary for the basket when not in use.
Re-claim 6, Bigo fails to teach the plurality of wheel assemblies comprise a left front swivel wheel assembly and a right front swivel wheel assembly.
Zhu teaches a basket assembly with a left front swivel wheel 41 and a right front swivel wheel 41. The swivel wheels allow for directional control of the basket, see paragraph 45. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the basket assembly of Bigo with left and right front swivel wheels as taught by Zhu, thus allowing for easy directional control of the basket when being pushed by a user.
Re-claims 7, 8, 15 and 20, Bigo fails to show the basket assembly comprising a rectangular floor defining a front edge, a rear edge, a left edge and a right edge, wherein a front wall is pivotably connected to the front edge of the rectangular floor, and wherein a back wall is pivotably connected to the rear edge of the rectangular floor, or when in the opened position the front wall and rear wall are perpendicular in relation to the rectangular floor, and wherein in the stored position the front wall is aligned with the rectangular floor and the back wall is adjacent to the rectangular floor.
Zhu teaches a folding basket assembly comprising a rectangular floor 24 defining a front edge, a rear edge, a left edge and a right edge, a front wall 21 is pivotably connected to the front edge of the rectangular floor (see figure 5), a back wall 23 is pivotably connected to the rear edge of the rectangular floor (figure 5), and when in the opened position the front wall and rear wall are perpendicular in relation to the rectangular floor (figure 3), and when in the stored position the front wall is aligned with the rectangular floor and the back wall is adjacent to the rectangular floor (see figure 6). This provides a basket having a compact storage condition, thus minimizing the necessary storage area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the basket assembly of Bigo with a collapsing basket structure having a floor, front wall, and rear wall of the type taught by Zhu, thus minimizing the storage space necessary for the basket when not in use.
Re-claim 11, an axle 12 rotatably couples the wheel to the basket assembly.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 9-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,326. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all that is recited in claims 1-20 is found in patented claims 1-6 and 9-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,326.
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See 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). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-6 and 9-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,326. As such claims 1-6 and 9-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,326 fully encompasses the subject matter of claims 1-20 and therefore anticipates claims 1-20. Thus the invention of claims 1-6 and 9-13 of the patent is in effect a "species” of the “generic” invention of claims 1-20. 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 1-20 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by claims 1-6 and 9-13 of the patent, claims 1-20 are not patentably distinct from claims 1-6 and 9-13, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1-6 and 9-13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haus, Troendle, Shamie and Zhu each teach a groove receiving a bump displaced between two positions indicative of a brake on condition and an brake off condition.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi, can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
December 18, 2025
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616