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 § 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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "said manually slidable and rotatable components" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 4 (from which claim 5 depends) recites “manually slidable or rotatable components”.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conaway in view of Gressianu. Conaway discloses in the Figures and specification an interactive toy comprising a plastic panel having front and back surfaces and mounting members for mounting the device to an external support (see paragraph [0014]), sensory accessories 16-24 disposed on the front surface of the device and configured to provide visual, audio, tactile and mental stimulation to a user (paragraph [0012]), and a battery power source and control unit for controlling operation of the device (paragraph [0013]). Conaway does not disclose that the device is configured for attachment to a shopping cart. However, this feature is known in the art, as taght for example by Gressinau at Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0035-36]), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of providing a device which can be used during a shopping trip. With respect to claims 6-8, the sensory accessories of Conaway include pressable buttons that emit light or sound, and visual displays comprising static images. With respect to claim 9, Gressinau discloses at paragraph [0042] an electronic display screen for an electronic game. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such a screen would customarily display changing images.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conaway in view of Gressianu, and further in view of Aboukrat. Conaway as viewed in combination with Gressianu discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of a C-clamp mounting element as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Aboukrat at paragraph [0066] (see element 90), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of providing a more secure mounting of the device to an external support. The provision of a plurality of C-shaped clamps is considered to be an obvious duplication of the single clamp element of Aboukrat yielding no new or unexpected results under MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conaway in view of Gressianu, and further in view of Chininis. Conaway as viewed in combination with Gressianu discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of a layer of gripping material on an inner surface of a mounting material as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Chininis at col. 4, lines 3-10 (see friction pad 53), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing a more secure mounting of the device to an external support.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conaway in view of Gressianu, and further in view of Brown. Conaway as viewed in combination with Gressianu discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of a manually slidable element as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Brown at Fig. 1A (see element 102C), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of providing an additional type of tactile and fine motor skill activity to a user.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conaway in view of Gressianu and Brown, and further in view of Jeon. While Conway discloses at Fig 1A that sliding element 102C is on a curved or zigzag track, Conaway does not disclose meshed gear elements as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Jeon, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conaway in view of Gressianu, and further in view of Givens. Conaway as viewed in combination with Gressianu discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of a sliding cover over a visual display. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Givens at paragraph [0027], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of providing an additional type of tactile/visual activity to a user.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conaway in view of Gressianu, and further in view of Strauss. Conaway as viewed in combination with Gressianu discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of an automotive theme to the device. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Strauss, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of teaching a child about various features associated with automobiles and driving. With respect to claims 12-14, Straus discloses the provision of each of the recited features in its device, including a rotatable steering wheel with a horn button 42, a gear shift knob assembly 62, and an ignition switch 56 with corresponding insertable key 58. The recited emission of a motor sound when the key is inserted into the ignition switch and turned is suggested by Strauss, which discloses at col. 4, line 65 to col. 5, line 2 that such action “simulates the starting of a car by turning an automobile ignition key in an ignition keyhole”, and further discloses at col. 2, lines 15-18 that “[a]nother object of this invention is to provide a toy which simulates a driving environment and produces an immediate visual or audio response to a child's manipulation of the toy”.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conaway in view of Gressianu and Strauss, and further in view of Weir. Conaway as viewed in combination with Gressianu and Strauss discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of a display screen as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Weir, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of providing a more comprehensive and immersive simulation of a driving experience.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conaway in view of Gressianu and Strauss, and further in view of Brown. Conaway as viewed in combination with Gressianu and Strauss discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of a slidably mounted element on a zig-zag or curved track. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Brown as discussed above with respect to claim 4, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conaway in view of Gressianu and Strauss, and further in view of Jeon. Conaway as viewed in combination with Gressianu and Strauss discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of meshed rotatable gears. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Jeon, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 19 are 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.
Claim 20 is allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
March 4, 2026