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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “101” has been used to designate both the bracket and the seat (in Fig. 5, “101” should be --108--). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 3, The term “special” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “special” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 9, this claim recites the limitation "the transverse brace" in its second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (6,789,809) in view of German Patent document DE202017002587 (see attached machine translation; hereinafter “Demby”).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a portable shopping cart capable of serving as a seat, comprising a body part (e.g., the tubular frame) and a cloth part (e.g., 77/78 that carries the transported items), wherein:
the body part is provided with an upper transverse brace (see bar “40” between columns 42, 44 in Fig. 1) which is sized and shaped to operate as a seat part;
the body part comprises a bottom supporting frame (10), a column supporting frame (40), a handle (60) and wheels (50);
a rotating positioning mechanism (20, see Fig. 3A) is arranged between the bottom supporting frame (10) and the column supporting frame (40), and the rotating positioning mechanism is used for realizing rotation and support of the bottom supporting frame (see e.g., Col., 4 lines 19-21 and rotation arrows in Fig. 1).
While Lin discloses that it carts uses a material (77/78) mounted to the frame to support a load (see Fig. 5), it does not disclose a cloth pocket part.
Demby teaches another tiltable portable shopping cart including a top mounted seat (300) and having a cloth pocket part (900).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the cart of Lin to use a cloth pocket/bag with the cart as taught by Demby to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a bag to retain items to be carried) for another (a pair of side walls to retain items to be carried) to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Lin further discloses that the rotating positioning mechanism (20, generally, see Fig. 3A) comprises positioning parts (pin 84) and a rotating part (bracket 87), the positioning parts (84) are fixed to the bottom of the column supporting frame (42, 44), and the rotating part (87) is fixed to one end of the bottom supporting frame (10).
Regarding claim 6, Lin further discloses that the handle (60 is a handle that can adjust a rotation angle in multiple gears (721, 741; see Figs. 2A-2B showing the angular adjustment).
Regarding claim 7, while Lin discloses that the upper transverse rod of frame (see Fig. 1) fixedly connected to an upper part of the column supporting frame (40) and is configured to allow a user to sit thereon, it does not disclose that this seat is a rectangular structure.
Demby teaches that the seat (300) mounted to the upper part of the cart’s column supporting frame (200) is rectangular (see e.g., Fig. 11 showing the seat 300 has a generally rectangular shape).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the cart of Lin to use an enlarged rectangular frame portion for a seat as taught by Demby to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (rectangular seat having a larger area) for another (a tubular seat having a smaller area) to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 8-9 (as best understood), Lin further discloses that the bottom supporting frame (10) is a rectangular frame structure (see Fig. 1), and comprises a transverse brace (e.g., bars 30 in Fig. 3A and “11” in Fig. 1 form the transverse bars forming the bottom frame 10) and a vertical brace (e.g., bars generally denoted by reference character “10” in Figs. 1, 3A, and 4); the bottom of one end is provided with two supporting legs (13); the supporting legs adopt supporting legs individually (see Fig. 1) and fixedly on the vertical brace (“10”) of the bottom supporting frame; or an end part of the vertical brace of the bottom supporting frame is bent to form the supporting legs; or individual plastic pieces are adopted as the supporting legs; wherein the column supporting frame comprises two columns (42, 44), and the transverse brace (30) is arranged between the two columns (see Fig. 3A).
While Lin does not disclose that the support legs (13) are fixedly welded to the cart bottom frame, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to fix the legs to the cart bottom frame, since the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would have required only routine skill in the art (see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)). The motivation for doing so would be to have a more rigid foot/base for the cart.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Demby as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Graben et al. (10,1555,525).
Regarding claim 3, while Lin discloses that the interconnection between the column-mounted posts (84) and a rotating locking feature (87) having an open slot (871) to lock the bottom frame in position (see Fig. 3A) it does not disclose two up-down arranged pins or the recited slot and notch arrangement for the pivot locking mechanism.
Graben teaches another lockable pivoting joint for a cart that is lockable between a horizontal and upright orientation. The locking joint including positioning parts that are two positioning columns (155. 160, see Figs. 4) arranged up and down upon a column (150); a rotating part (145) is a rotating supporting control piece (e.g., the joint portion of the device controls the folding operation); the rotating supporting control piece is provided with a strip-shaped hole (170) and a special-shaped track notch (165); the strip-shaped hole (170) is adapted to the lower positioning column (160); and the special-shaped track notch (165) is adapted to the upper positioning column (155).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the cart of the Lin combination to use a slot captured pivot pin and locking notch folding joint lock such as that taught by Graben to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a captured pivot pin and locking notch type of joint lock) for another (a rotating locking notch type of joint lock) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a joint that can be unlocked without reaching down into the folding framework).
Regarding claim 4, the special-shaped track notch (165) of Graben from the above combination has an open laterally portion along the bracket (145) which the pin (155) follows prior to settling into the notch (165), this open ended travel path along with the notch cooperate to define a T-shape opening when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “T-shaped, ” wherein the edge of the bracket forms an internal hook part arranged at the opening (see the notch-closing hooked portion at the end of the leader line for reference character 145 in Figs. 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 5, Lin further discloses that the frame-mounted positioning columns (84) are provided with enlarged distal heads (see Fig. 3A), which reads upon the columns being provided with bulges.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over I Lin in view of Demby, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cook (US 2012/0031935).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses that the material-carrying portion (77, 78) of the cart includes retention straps (783) and also provides that the material-carrying portion (78) overlaps the metal framework (“40”, see Fig. 1) that is usable as a seat. Further, Demby from the above combination teaches the well-known expedient of placing the carrying bag (900) onto the load supporting frame elements (100) of a shopping cart and also teaches that the seat (300) can include padding (800). Neither Lin or Demby, however, specifically provide for a cloth pocket part with tiedowns or that the cloth part has a seat cushion.
Cook teaches another load-carrying cloth pocket part (1) including a plurality of tie-downs (see ¶0029 describing how these fastening elements can include any fastening and attaching mechanism, which one skilled in the art would appreciate would include the well-known expedient of tear/hook-and-look type fasteners) that allow the back to be secured and also provides that the bag (1) includes a seat cushion portion (10) when the bag is secured upon a seat (50; see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the cart of the Lin combination with the fasten-mountable bag with a seat cushion taught by Cook to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using fasteners to secure a bag to objects; and using a padded cloth element as a seat cushion) to known devices (e.g., trolleys having seating elements) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------a seated trolley that uses its demountable bag’s cushioning to pad its seat).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
The prior art made of record in the attached Notice of References Cited and not relied
upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights