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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, the word “receiving” should be “receive”, and in line 4, the word “is” should be deleted, for better grammar and form.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 as follows.
“a hybrid locking device” in Claim 12, line 1.
“a transport carriage” in Claim 12, line 1.
“a gripping arm” in Claim 12, lines 5 and 6.
“a transport carriage” in Claim 12, line 1.
“a first transport carriage” in Claim 13, line 1.
“a second transport carriage” in Claim 13, line 2.
“an ejection element” in Claim 14, line 2.
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 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 12 and 15-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "key" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 also recites the limitations “gripping arm” in lines 5 and 6, which are both configured to lock a key and a coin in the lock. However, it is unclear if these are the same or different elements, thus rendering Claim 12 unclear and indefinite.
Regarding Claim 15, the phrase “wherein the coin slide is configured to cause the slide to initiate the release movement via a coin input” is unclear and indefinite. How can the slide cause itself to initiate the release? It appears there are missing elements that cause the slide to initiate the release.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kolless (WO 2021/224468 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kolless discloses
a hybrid locking device, i.e., coin deposit lock (1), as illustrated in figure 1, of a transport carriage, i.e., object (39) which is mentioned as a shopping cart, as mentioned at The English Translation of Kolless, paragraph 57, for releasably connecting to a key of a further transport carriage, wherein the locking device (1) is configured to at least partially receiving (receive) the key, as illustrated in figure 1, wherein (the) key, i.e., (38), as mentioned at paragraph 57 and as illustrated in figure 1, is releasable from the locking device (1) via coin input (8), as mentioned at paragraph 52, and/or via electrical or electromagnetic signal, i.e. control signal (82), as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned at paragraphs 72-80, for example, the locking device (1) is comprising:
a gripping arm, i.e., deposit bar (44), ball (48) and latch (46), as mentioned at paragraphs 51 and 52 and as illustrated in figure 1, configured to lock the key (38);
a gripping arm, i.e. coin bolt (13), holding tongs (18) and Jaws (22), as mentioned at paragraphs 60 and 61, configured to lock the coin (8), wherein an insertion of the coin (8) into the locking device (1) results in a release movement of a slide, i.e., switching mechanism (6) and switching element (62), which is mentioned as optionally being in the form of a slide, as mentioned at paragraphs 31 and 63-65, noting paragraph 63 in particular, and as illustrated in figure 1, for example;
an electric motor (60) and/or an actuator configured to drive an eccentric disc, i.e., construed as the gear or cam for moving the gear rack/slide as mentioned in paragraph 63, for example, for initiating a release movement of the slide, i.e., switching element (62); and
a receiver, i.e., radio receiving unit (50), configured to communicate with a transmitter (54) via Bluetooth, Near Field Communication or WLAN signals, as mentioned at paragraphs 16, 62 and 65, wherein the receiver (50) is configured to control the motor (60) via electrical or electromagnetic signal, i.e., radio signal output by control unit (66), as mentioned at paragraph 65, for example, and as illustrated in figure 1,
wherein the release movement of the slide leads to a release of the key (38), as illustrated in figures 1, 2 and 4, for example.
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.
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) 13-15 and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolless (WO 2021/224468 A1) in view of Alvarez Mata et al (US 5,421,445).
Regarding Claims 13-15 and 20-24, Kolless teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 13, Kolless does not expressly teach a first transport carriage comprising a gripping arm configured to lock a key of a second transport carriage.
Regarding Claim 13, Kolless does not expressly teach, but Alvarez Mata teaches a first transport carriage, i.e., any one of cars (2), as illustrated in figure 1, comprising a gripping arm, as taught by Kolless, configured to lock a key of a second transport carriage, i.e., any one of cars (2), as mentioned at paragraph 4 of the English Translation of Alvarez Mata.
Regarding Claim 13, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a first transport carriage comprising a gripping arm configured to lock a key of a second transport carriage, as taught by Alvarez Mata, in Kolless’ hybrid locking device for the purpose of securing multiple retail shopping carts to each other in a nested, compact but secure configuration.
Regarding Claim 14, Kolless teaches ejection mechanism (32) which ejects the coin (8) from coin receptacle (16) as mentioned at paragraph 56 and as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, for example.
Regarding Claim 14, Kolless does not expressly teach
wherein the slide is configured to interact with an ejection element such that the ejection element ejects the key.
Regarding Claim 14, Kolless does not expressly teach, but Alvarez Mata teaches
wherein the slide, i.e,. bar (19), is configured to interact with an ejection element, i.e., springs (21), such that the ejection element (21) ejects the key, i.e., closure locking plate (10), attached to chain (9), as mentioned at col. 2, line 67-col. 3, line 25 and as illustrated in figure 2, for example.
Regarding Claim 14, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the slide is configured to interact with an ejection element such that the ejection element ejects the key, as taught by Alvarez Mata, in Kolless’ hybrid locking device for the purpose of encouraging the removal of the key when a coin is present in the device.
Regarding Claim 15, as best understood, Kolless teaches further comprising a coin slide, i.e., switching element (62) as illustrated in figure 1, wherein the coin slide (62) is configured to cause the slide (62) to initiate the release movement via a coin (8) input, as mentioned at paragraphs 63-65, and particularly paragraph 66, for example.
Regarding Claim 20, see the rejection of Claim 13, above.
Regarding Claim 21, see the rejection of Claims 12 and 13, above.
Regarding Claim 22, see the rejection of Claim 13, above.
Regarding Claim 23, see the rejection of Claim 14, above.
Regarding Claim 24, see the rejection of Claim 15, above.
Claim(s) 16-19 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolless (WO 2021/224468 A1) in view of Alvarez Mata et al (US 5,421,445) and further in view of Fuchs (WO 9419775 A1).
Regarding Claims 16-19 and 25-27, Kolless teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 16, Kolless does not expressly teach
wherein the coin slide comprises a first inclined surface cooperating with a second inclined surface of the slide to initiate the release movement.
Regarding Claim 16, Kolless does not expressly teach, but Fuchs teaches
wherein the coin slide, i.e., control bolt (40, 41), as illustrated in figures 3-5, comprises a first inclined surface cooperating with a second inclined surface of the slide to initiate the release movement. See annotated figures 4 and 5, as follows.
PNG
media_image1.png
682
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
840
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the coin slide comprises a first inclined surface cooperating with a second inclined surface of the slide to initiate the release movement, as taught by Fuchs, in Kolless’ hybrid locking device for the purpose of encouraging the removal of the key when a coin is present in the device by including surfaces that are biased toward locking and releasing the key and the coin alternatively so that a cart attached to the locking system can be used
and returned.
Regarding Claim 17, Kolless does not expressly teach
wherein each of the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface has an angle of 48°.
Note that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 617 F. 2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 17, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to have provided wherein each of the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface has an angle of 48°, as a matter of design choice as Applicant’s specification and disclosure provides no criticality to this particular angular value and it would have been well within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan to have arrived at the correct angle of the inclined surfaces in order to optimally cause the removal of either the coin or the key or either the retention of either of those so that a cart attached to the locking system can be used and returned
Regarding Claim 18, Kolless teaches further comprising an ejection element, wherein the ejection element (32) is configured to interlock with the slide (6, 62) and/or is spring biased when the key (38) is inserted into the locking device (1), and/or wherein the ejection element (32) is configured to release an interlock, i.e., holding jaws (22), by the release movement of the slide (6, 32), as mentioned at paragraphs 51-57, for example.
Regarding Claim 19, Kolless does not expressly teach
wherein the ejection element comprises a stop surface on which a stop face of the gripping arm is restable when the ejection element is interlocked with the slide so that the gripping arm locks the key and/or so that the gripping arm is spring-biased.
Regarding Claim 19, Kolless does not expressly teach, but Fuchs teaches
wherein the ejection element, i.e., both ends of the coin bolt (40, 41), comprises a stop surface, i.e., any one of the surfaces that interface with functional parts (21, 22, 31, 32, 21’, 22’, 31’, 32’), on which a stop face of the gripping arm, i.e., any one of functional parts functional parts (21, 22, 31, 32, 21’, 22’, 31’, 32’), is restable when the ejection element (40, 41) is interlocked with the slide so that the gripping arm (21, 22, 31, 32, 21’, 22’, 31’, 32’) locks the key (36) and/or so that the gripping arm (21, 22, 31, 32, 21’, 22’, 31’, 32’) is spring-biased, i.e., by springs (43, 44, 45, 46), as illustrated in figures 1 and 3-5, for example.
Regarding Claim 25, see the rejection of Claim 16, above.
Regarding Claim 26, see the rejection of Claim 17, above.
Regarding Claim 27, see the rejection of Claim 18, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wieth ‘757 is cited as another example of a deposit lock system including accepting a coin/token (3) as well as using an NFC transponder with communication based on NFC Data Exchange Format (NDEF), as mentioned at col. 4, lines 39-45 and col. 5, lines 35-47, and mentioning a mobile communications terminal as mentioned at col. 5, lines 55-67, that can be used with both coins and electronically, as mentioned at col;. 1, lines 49-60 and as illustrated in figures 1-3, for example.
Ammendolia ‘581 is cited as teaching another shopping cart locking system including a smart lock (112) with key (506) and NFC tap screen (510) as well as barcode (514) and QR code (512), as illustrated in figures 5 and 10-15, for example.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 6:30PM.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights