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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
Claims 16-17, and 19-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, this claim includes the limitation “the activator moving from a normal position to a biased position and having angled slots to adjust the latching pins to allow the basket to traverse up and down on the legs.” No shopping cart was found with angled slots and latching pins as claimed. Every shopping cart that contained similar slots, contained straight slots which a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand to be angled slots (for examples see Stauff US 20140238992 A1 figures 35 and 50, Lupi WO 2017191591 A1 figures 4-5, and Zeng CN 218280563 U figure 3). Thus, no reference or obvious combination of references were found to teach all the limitations of claim 1, and it is allowed.
Regarding claims 2-12, these claims appropriately depend upon allowed claim 1 and are thus allowable at least by merit of their dependency.
Regarding claims 16-17, and 19-20, these claims include angled slots similar to those of claim 1. Thus, no reference or obvious combination of references were found to teach all the limitations of these claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 8/19/2024 has been fully considered.
Priority
The priority claim to provisional application PRO 63/495,308 filed on 4/11/2023 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims, 1, 13, and 18 are objected to for minor informalities.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, they say “is in the normal positon, and the latching pin” (emphasis added). “Positon” is clearly a typographical error, so it is examined below as though it says “position.” 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 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) 13, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Zeng (CN 218280563 U).
Regarding claim 13, Zeng teaches a shopping cart comprising:
a base (8 “tray” taught by figure 3) having a plurality of wheels (3 “roller” taught by figure 3) and a leg extending upwardly (61 “adjusting rod” taught by figure 3), the leg having openings about a length (611 “adjusting holes” taught by figure 3) thereof;
a basket having a cavity for supporting items therein (7 “containing basket” taught by figure 2), a receiver for receiving the leg of the base (62 “sliding seat” taught by figure 3), and a handle for pushing the shopping cart (4 “handle” taught by figure 2), the handle being provided adjacent a second end of the basket (taught by figure 2); and,
a latching mechanism (6 “telescopic mechanism” taught by figures 1-3) to secure the basket to the base, the latching mechanism being connected to the basket and comprising an activator (63 “adjusting piece” taught by figure 3), a bias member (64 “elastic piece” taught by figure 3), and a latching pin (631 “adjusting bump” taught by figure and paragraph 50 “the adjusting bump 631 is clamped in any one adjusting hole 611”), the activator moving from a normal position to a biased position, the bias member biasing the activator from its biased position to its normal position, the latching pin moving from an engaged position when the activator is in the normal position, to a disengaged position when the activator is in the biased position, the latching pin engaging one of the openings in the leg when the activator is in the normal position, and the latching pin being removed from the openings in the leg when the activator is in the biased position to secure the basket at a variety of positions about the leg (taught by figure 3 and by paragraph 50 “adjusting piece 63 for the sliding seat 62 when driven by the elastic piece 64 to rotate relative to the sliding seat 62, so that the adjusting bump 631 is clamped in any one adjusting hole 611, the adjusting piece 63 is further used for overcoming the elastic force of the elastic piece 64 to rotate relative to the sliding seat 62 when pressing force, so that the adjusting bulge 631 the adjusting hole 611”).
Regarding claim 15, Zeng teaches the shopping cart of claim 13, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Zeng also teaches wherein the activator has a handle for a user to move the activator to the biased position (taught by figures 1-3, and 7).
Regarding claim 18, Zeng teaches a shopping cart, comprising:
a base (8 “tray” taught by figure 3) having a plurality of wheels (3 “roller” taught by figure 3) and a plurality of legs extending upwardly (61 “adjusting rod” taught by figure 3), the legs having a plurality of openings about a length of each leg (611 “adjusting holes” taught by figure 3);
a basket having a cavity for supporting items therein (7 “containing basket” taught by figure 2), a plurality of receivers adjacent a second end of the basket for receiving the legs of the base (62 “sliding seat” taught by figure 3), and a handle for pushing the shopping cart (4 “handle” taught by figure 2), the handle being provided adjacent the second end of the basket (taught by figure 2); and,
a latching mechanism (6 “telescopic mechanism” taught by figures 1-3) to secure the basket to the base, the latching mechanism being connected to the basket and comprising an activator (63 “adjusting piece” taught by figure 3), a bias member (64 “elastic piece” taught by figure 3), and latching pins (631 “adjusting bump” taught by figure and paragraph 50 “the adjusting bump 631 is clamped in any one adjusting hole 611”), the activator moving from a normal position to a biased position, the bias member biasing the activator from its biased position to its normal position, the latching pins moving from an engaged position when the activator is in the normal position, to a disengaged position when the activator is in the biased position, the latching pins engaging openings in the legs when the activator is in the normal position, and the latching pins being removed from the openings in the legs when the activator is in the biased position to secure the basket at a variety of positions about the legs (taught by figure 3 and by paragraph 50 “adjusting piece 63 for the sliding seat 62 when driven by the elastic piece 64 to rotate relative to the sliding seat 62, so that the adjusting bump 631 is clamped in any one adjusting hole 611, the adjusting piece 63 is further used for overcoming the elastic force of the elastic piece 64 to rotate relative to the sliding seat 62 when pressing force, so that the adjusting bulge 631 the adjusting hole 611”).
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (CN 218280563 U) in view of Schroll (DE 202012008195 U1).
Regarding claim 14, Zeng teaches the shopping cart of claim 13, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
However, Zeng does not explicitly teach wherein the latching mechanism is secured to a bottom of the basket.
Schroll teaches wherein the latching mechanism is secured to a bottom of the basket (taught by figure 1).
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 basket of Zeng to attach to the latching mechanism at a bottom of the basket, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because having the basket attached at the bottom because having the basket higher up will allow the lower basket to be more easily loaded and unloaded.
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