DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
Claims 1-33 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 112(b), the applicant’s remarks filed 08/14/2026 are persuasive. The rejections made under 112(b) are withdrawn.
Regarding the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections, the amendments to copending application #18/666,147 do not remove any limitations from any of the claims that were relied upon. Accordingly, the arguments regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejections are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, 25-26, 28, 30 and 32, the applicant argues that Bidram (US 20200156868 A1) fails to disclose that battery (92) is, “configured to provide power to the shelf lift mechanism to move the first shelf up and down”.
Bidram discloses an electric motor as an actuator for moving the first shelf up and down (see paragraph [0018]). Bidram further discloses, “The power bank supplies electricity to any one or more of the functional sensors or actuators that are operably attached to the cart” (paragraph [0028]). Since the electric motor is an actuator that is operably attached to the cart, and the power bank is configured to supply electricity to any actuator that is operably attached to the cart, the power bank is configured to supply electricity to the actuator that is configured to provide power to the shelf lift mechanism. Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive. Note, feature (92) of Bidram is referred to as a “battery bank” in paragraph [0318]. In paragraph [0152], Bidram describes that Fig. 8 is a multi-shelf cart of Fig. 1 further comprising a “power bank”. By comparing Fig. 1 to Fig. 8, it is evident that feature (92) is the “power bank”. Accordingly, the “power bank” and the “battery bank” described by Bidram are the same feature.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, 25-26, 28, 30, and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Bidram (US 20200156868 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Bidram discloses: a warehouse cart (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a cart body having a bottom, a first side, an opposite second side, and a back; a first shelf (16) coupled to a shelf lift mechanism (18) coupled to or positioned relative to the cart body; and a battery (92, Fig. 8) is configured to provide power to the shelf lift mechanism to move the first shelf up and down (see paragraph [0318]). Note, Figure 8 of Bidram is described as illustrating the cart of Figure 1, further comprising additional features (see paragraph [0152]). Figure 1 is accordingly relied upon for illustrative purposes of certain features in combination with Figure 8.
With respect to claim 2, Bidram discloses: the warehouse cart of claim 1, further comprising: a powered wheel coupled to the cart body, the powered wheel having a motor or having a motor coupled thereto (see "motorized wheels to facilitate powered transportation of the apparatus", paragraph [0252]).
With respect to claim 7, Bidram discloses: the warehouse cart of claim 1, further comprising: one or more shelf controls ("user interface…or via a remote controller", paragraph [0019]) configured to control movement of the first shelf up and down.
With respect to claim 8, Bidram discloses: the warehouse cart of claim 1, wherein one or more warehouse bins can be positioned upon the first shelf and be moved up and down with the first shelf by way of the shelf lift mechanism (see paragraph [0030]).
Note, Bidram discloses loading “articles” onto the shelves of the cart. Nothing disclosed by Bidram would preclude warehouse bins from being loaded. Accordingly, “warehouse bins can be positioned upon the first shelf” as claimed.
With respect to claim 9, Bidram discloses: The warehouse cart of claim 1, further comprising: a battery dock configured to retain the battery (92). Bidram discloses that the rechargeable battery bank (92) is “disposed on the wheeled structure 12” (paragraph [0318]). Any portion of the wheeled structure to which the battery bank is coupled to may be considered a battery dock.
With respect to claim 11, Bidram discloses the warehouse cart of claim 1, wherein the battery can be charged using external AC power (see “battery”, paragraph [0318]). Note, in paragraph [0318] of Bidram, “researchable” appears to be typographical error. The examiner believes that Bidram intended to disclose a “rechargeable battery” as “researchable battery” is not recognized by the examiner as a term of art, and Bidram further discloses a “rechargeable battery” in a different embodiment of the invention (see paragraph [0363]). Further note, any rechargeable electronic device could be charged using external AC power because AC power can be rectified to provide DC power directly to the rechargeable device.
With respect to claim 13, Bidram discloses: the warehouse cart of claim 1, wherein the first shelf is configured to move to a lowest position that is above a warehouse bin positioned upon the bottom of the cart body.
Note, the recitation, “configured to move to a lowest position that is above a warehouse bin positioned upon the bottom of the cart body” is considered functional language because it describes a manner in which the first shelf is intended to be used without further limiting the structure of the shelf. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2144 II).
Further note, the first shelf disclosed by Bidram is capable of moving to a lowest position that is above a warehouse bin positioned upon the bottom of the cart body because the lift mechanism can be controlled by a human operator (see paragraph [0019]) and accordingly, a human operator could affect the shelves to move to a lowest position above a warehouse bin positioned upon the bottom of the cart body by moving the shelf until the shelf reaches such a position.
With respect to claim 14, Bidram discloses: the warehouse cart of claim 1, wherein the first shelf is configured to move to a lowest position that is above two stacked warehouse bins positioned upon the bottom of the cart body.
Note, the recitation, “is configured to move to a lowest position that is above two stacked warehouse bins positioned upon the bottom of the cart body” is considered functional language because it describes a manner in which the first shelf is intended to be used without further limiting the structure of the shelf. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2144 II).
Further note, the first shelf disclosed by Bidram is capable of moving to a lowest position that is above two stacked warehouse bins positioned upon the bottom of the cart body because the lift mechanism can be controlled by a human operator (see paragraph [0019]) and accordingly, a human operator could affect the shelves to move to a lowest position above two stacked warehouse bins positioned upon the bottom of the cart body by moving the shelf until the shelf reaches such a position.
With respect to claim 15, Bidram discloses: the warehouse cart of claim 14, wherein when an additional warehouse bin is positioned upon the first shelf, the first shelf can operate to move upward, creating a space below the first shelf and above the two stacked warehouse bins so that a third bin can be stacked upon the two stacked warehouse bins (see paragraph [0030]).
With respect to claim 17, Bidram discloses: The warehouse cart of claim 1, further comprising: a second shelf (see 16/16, Fig. 1) positioned above the first shelf, the second shelf coupled to the shelf lift mechanism (18, Fig. 3A), wherein the shelf lift mechanism can be operated to move the second shelf up and down (see paragraph [0273]).
With respect to claim 19, Bidram discloses: The warehouse cart of claim 17, further comprising: a third shelf (see 16/16/16, Fig. 1) positioned below the first shelf, the second shelf coupled to the shelf lift mechanism, wherein the shelf lift mechanism can be operated to move the third shelf up and down (see paragraph [0272]).
With respect to claim 25, Bidram discloses the warehouse cart of claim 1, further comprising: a powered wheel coupled to the cart body; a motor coupled to the powered wheel (see "motorized wheels to facilitate powered transportation of the apparatus", paragraph [0252])”); and a central processing unit operably coupled to the motor and configured to instruct the motor to operate the powered wheel to move the cart (see “navigating, via the processing unit”, paragraph [0012]).
With respect to claim 26, Bidram discloses the warehouse cart of claim 1, further comprising: a location mechanism (see “autonomous navigation”, paragraph [0120]) coupled to the central processing unit, the location mechanism configured to facilitate movement of the cart to a desired location (see “send signals regarding the location of the apparatus to the processing unit”, paragraph [0110]).
With respect to claim 28, Bidram discloses: the warehouse cart of claim 1, further comprising: a cart controller (“external driving unit”, paragraph [0121]) configured to direct movement of the cart when operated by a user (“a human operator”, paragraph [0121]).
With respect to claim 30, Bidram discloses: the warehouse cart of claim 1, further comprising: a second shelf (see 16/16, Fig. 1), the second shelf movable up and down using the shelf lift mechanism (18; also see paragraph [0273]).
With respect to claim 32, Bidram discloses: the warehouse cart of claim 1, further comprising: a sensor (“one or more sensors”, paragraph [paragraph [0139]]) positioned relative to the first shelf, the sensor configured to alert a user to an obstacle above the shelf when the first shelf is moving up or down (“checking…if there is no available space”, paragraph [0139]).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidram (US 20200156868 A1) in view of Park (EP 3943366 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Bidram discloses: the warehouse cart of claim 2, but is silent in teaching: when the cart is initially pushed or pulled in a first direction, the powered wheel operates to assist movement of the cart, and wherein when the cart is then pushed or pulled in an opposite, second direction, the powered wheel stops operating.
Park teaches a cart for transporting articles, wherein, when the cart is initially pushed or pulled in a first direction, the powered wheel operates to assist movement of the cart (see paragraph [0028]), and wherein when the cart is then pushed or pulled in an opposite second direction, the powered wheel stops operating (see paragraph [0059]). Note, Park discloses that while in the “power-assist mode”, the cart, “travels according to the intention of the user”. Accordingly, if a user intended to stop the cart by applying a force in a direction opposite the travel direction, the cart and its motor would stop when the user applies such a force.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bidram in view of Park to arrive at the claimed invention and to allow a user to easily move the cart without having to manually activate and deactivate a power-assist mode.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidram (US 20200156868 A1) in view of Lovell (US 4081047 A).
With respect to claim 5, Bidram discloses the warehouse cart of claim 2 but is silent in teaching that the powered wheel has a slope resistance configuration so that the cart will not accelerate downhill when the powered wheel is in operation.
Lovell teaches a motorized cart (see abstract) comprising a slope resistance configuration so that the cart will not accelerate downhill when the powered wheel is in operation (see Col. 3, LL. 15-27).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bidram in view of Lovell to arrive at the claimed invention and to prevent a user from losing control of the cart while travelling on a sloped surface.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidram (US 20200156868 A1) in view of Ting (US 20200383499 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Bidram discloses the warehouse cart of claim 9, but is silent in teaching that the battery can be removed from the dock and replaced with a charged second battery.
Ting teaches a cart (100, Fig. 1; also see “cart”, paragraph [0043]) comprising a battery (114, Fig. 5) retained within a battery dock (112, Fig. 4; also see paragraph [0049]), wherein when the battery is depleted, the battery can be removed from the dock and replaced with a charged second battery (see paragraph [0052]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bidram in view of Ting to arrive at the claimed invention and to allow the cart to be nearly continuously operable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidram (US 20200156868 A1) in view of Cha (WO 2023132501 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Bidram discloses the warehouse cart of claim 1, further comprising proximity sensors (“LiDAR sensor data or vision cameras”, paragraph [0051]) but is silent in teaching that the sensors are configured to provide obstacle avoidance means.
Cha teaches a cart comprising: proximity sensors (112) configured so that the cart can avoid obstacles while it is being moved (see paragraph [0124]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bidram in view of Cha to arrive at the claimed invention, to protect the cart against collision with inanimate obstacles and to prevent injury to humans working near the cart.
Claims 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidram (US 20200156868 A1) in view of Durkee (US 20200065748 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Bidram discloses: the warehouse cart of claim 1 but is silent in teaching a first scale positioned upon the first shelf, the first scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon.
Durkee teaches a motorized cart (see paragraph [0044]) for transporting articles comprising a scale (1102) disposed upon a first shelf (see paragraph [0091]), the scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon (see paragraph [0086]). Durkee further discloses that the scales are useful for determining whether or not a storage container has been removed from or added to a shelf.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bidram in view of Durkee to arrive at the claimed invention and so that the cart can determine whether or not a storage container has been added or removed from the shelf.
With respect to claim 18, Bidram discloses the warehouse cart of claim 17 but is silent in teaching a first scale positioned upon the first shelf, the first scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon; and a second scale positioned upon the second shelf, the second scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon.
Durkee teaches a motorized cart (see paragraph [0044]) for transporting articles comprising a scale (1102) disposed upon a first shelf (see paragraph [0091]), the scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon (see paragraph [0086]) and a second scale (see “under each storage container”, paragraph [0091]) positioned upon the second shelf, the second scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bidram in view of Durkee to arrive at the claimed invention and so that the cart can determine whether or not a storage container has been added or removed from a specific shelf.
With respect to claim 20, Bidram discloses the warehouse cart of claim 17 but is silent in teaching a first scale positioned upon the first shelf, the first scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon; a second scale positioned upon the second shelf, the second scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon; and a third scale positioned upon the third shelf, the third scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon.
Durkee teaches a motorized cart (see paragraph [0044]) for transporting articles comprising a scale (1102) disposed upon a first shelf (see paragraph [0091]), the scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon (see paragraph [0086]) and a second scale (see “under each storage container”, paragraph [0091]) positioned upon the second shelf, the second scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon; and a third scale positioned upon the third shelf, the third scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon (see “under each storage container”, paragraph [0091]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bidram in view of Durkee to arrive at the claimed invention and so that the cart can determine whether or not a storage container has been added or removed from a specific shelf.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidram (US 20200156868 A1) in view of Radetzki (US 20190344699 A1).
With respect to claim 21, Bidram discloses the warehouse cart of claim 1 but is silent in teaching independent shelf control.
Radetzki teaches a mobile cart comprising a first shelf (11, Fig. 4A) coupled to a first shelf lift mechanism (32) and a second shelf (11) coupled to a second shelf lift mechanism (31), wherein the second shelf lift mechanism can operate to move the second shelf independent of movement of the first shelf (see paragraph [0068]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bidram in view of Radetzki to arrive at the claimed invention and to increase the number of possible shelf configurations.
With respect to claim 23, Bidram in in view of Radetzki as modified above discloses the warehouse cart of claim 21 but is silent in teaching a third shelf coupled to a third shelf lift mechanism, wherein the third shelf lift mechanism can operate to move the third shelf independent of movement of the first shelf and the second shelf.
Radetzki teaches a third shelf (see 11/11/11, Fig. 5) coupled to a third shelf lift mechanism (shelf lift mechanism illustrated in Figs. 4A/B) wherein the shelf lift mechanism can operate to move the third shelf independent of movement of the first shelf and the second shelf (see paragraph [0068]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bidram in view of Radetzki to arrive at the claimed invention and to increase the number of possible shelf configurations.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidram (US 20200156868 A1) in view of Radetzki (US 20190344699 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Durkee (US 20200065748 A1).
With respect to claim 22, Bidram in view of Radetzki as modified above discloses the warehouse cart of claim 21 but is silent in teaching a first scale positioned upon the first shelf, the first scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon; and a second scale positioned upon the second shelf, the second scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon.
Durkee teaches a motorized cart (see paragraph [0044]) for transporting articles comprising a scale (1102) disposed upon a first shelf (see paragraph [0091]), the scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon (see paragraph [0086]) and a second scale (see “under each storage container”, paragraph [0091]) positioned upon the second shelf, the second scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bidram in view of Radetzki in further view of Durkee to arrive at the claimed invention and so that the cart can determine whether or not a storage container has been added or removed from a specific shelf.
With respect to claim 24, Bidram in view of Radetzki discloses the warehouse cart of claim 23 but is silent in teaching a first scale positioned upon the first shelf, the first scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon; a second scale positioned upon the first shelf, the second scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon; and a third scale positioned upon the third shelf, the third scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon.
Durkee teaches a motorized cart (see paragraph [0044]) for transporting articles comprising a scale (1102) disposed upon a first shelf (see paragraph [0091]), the scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon (see paragraph [0086]) and a second scale (see “under each storage container”, paragraph [0091]) positioned upon the second shelf, the second scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon; and a third scale positioned upon the third shelf, the third scale configured to weigh one or more items positioned thereupon (see “under each storage container”, paragraph [0091]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bidram in view of Radetzki in further view of Durkee to arrive at the claimed invention and so that the cart can determine whether or not a storage container has been added or removed from a specific shelf.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidram (US 20200156868 A1) in view of Gil (US 20220129831 A1).
With respect to claim 27, Bidram discloses the warehouse cart of claim 1 but is silent in teaching a shroud configured to be positioned relative to the first shelf and configured to prevent a user from injuring their hand or fingers while the first shelf moves up and down.
Gil teaches a mobile cart (62, Fig. 8) comprising a first shelf (70, Fig. 7) coupled to a lifting mechanism (80, Fig. 9) and a shroud (95) configured to be positioned relative to the first shelf and configured to prevent a user from injuring their hand or fingers while the first shelf moves up and down (see “restrict other objects on the object-support structure 85 from interfering with the operation of the object-shifting apparatus 80”, paragraph [0079]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bidram in view of Gil to arrive at the claimed invention, to prevent operator injury, and to prevent articles from falling into the lift mechanism.
Note, the recitation, “configured to prevent a user from injuring their hand or fingers while the first shelf moves up and down” is configured functional language because it describes a manner in which the shroud is intended to be used without further limiting the structure of the shroud. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2144 II).
Further note, since shroud (95) is disposed between an opening of the cart and the lift mechanism (see Fig. 10), the shroud would also function to prevent a user from injuring their hands or fingers while the first shelf moves up and down by creating a physical barrier between the opening of the shelf and the lifting mechanism.
Claims 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bidram (US 20200156868 A1).
With respect to claims 29 and 31, Bidram discloses the warehouse cart of claims 1 and 30 but is silent in teaching that they are assembled by: providing a kit to an existing cart, the kit comprising the first shelf, the shelf lift mechanism, the second shelf, the second shelf lift mechanism, and the battery; and assembling the warehouse cart by coupling elements of the kit to the cart. Note, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (see MPEP 2113). Since Bidram discloses all of the structural limitation associated with claims 29 and 31, the process limitations of the claims do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed product over the prior art.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assemble the cart disclosed by Bidram according to the processes of claims 29 and 31, because the first shelf, shelf lift mechanism, and battery are coupled to the frame of the cart. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to first assemble a cart to provide mounting points for the first shelf, shelf lift mechanism, and battery, and then couple those features to the mounting points on the cart.
Claims 3, 6, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidram (US 20200156868 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Bidram discloses: the warehouse cart of claim 2, wherein the motor (see "motorized wheels", paragraph [0252]) is configured to operate the powered wheel to facilitate powered movement of the cart (“powered transportation of the apparatus”, paragraph [0252]) but is silent in teaching that the battery (92) is configured to provide power to the motor.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bidram to have battery (92) provide power to the motors so that the motors are operable to facilitate powered movement of the cart without installation of additional batteries.
With respect to claim 6, Bidram discloses: the warehouse cart of claim 1 but is silent in teaching one or more passive wheels or casters coupled to the cart body.
Bidram, in a separate embodiment, teaches using castor wheels in place of some of the powered wheels (paragraph [0027]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the embodiment of Bidram relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 in view of the above-mentioned separate embodiment to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide a cart capable of autonomous navigation while reducing the weight of the cart by obviating the need for some of the powered wheels.
With respect to claim 33, Bidram discloses a method of using a warehouse cart, comprising the steps of: placing one or more articles upon the first shelf of the warehouse cart of claim 1; operating the shelf lift mechanism to lift the first shelf to an upper position; and placing one or more additional articles upon the bottom of the cart body of the warehouse cart (see paragraph [0030]). Bidram is silent in teaching that the articles are bins. Since the cart disclosed by Bidram is configured for use in a warehouse (see paragraph [0013]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cart to transport warehouse bins to facilitate the transport of warehouse bins throughout the warehouse while reducing the physical stresses of transporting bins experienced by warehouse workers.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6087. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (7:30 - 5:00 EST).
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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571) 272-2706. 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.
/MATTHEW D LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/DREW J BROWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights