DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Election filed on 7/1/2026, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 17-20 are newly added. Claims 9-16 are withdrawn based on the restriction requirement. Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-8 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 7/1/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/1/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 7/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Australia (AU2024203539) on 05/28/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the AU2024203539 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “34” has been used to designate multiple parts in Figure 1. 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. 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 Interpretation
The Examiner wishes to point out the application claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114-2115 for further details).
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the core” in line 3 should read as “the inner core” for the purpose of consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 and 18-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the relevant side wall" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the shape, configuration and pattern of apertures" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the base of the basket body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the inner surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the basket body is for a shopping trolley, comprising…”. It is unclear if the limitation following the term “comprising” is referring to “a shopping trolley” or referring to “the basket body”. If the limitation is referring to “the basket body”, then it is unclear if “a base” is referring to the same base as in claim 3, which claim 5 is depended upon, or a different base. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation as the limitations following the term “comprising” is referring to the basket body and the base is the same base as mentioned in claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the apparatus comprising first, second and third mold sides…”, where claim 1, which claim 5 is depended upon, recites that the apparatus comprises “a plurality of mold sides, one per side wall of the basket body,” and “the basket body comprising at least three side walls”. As such, it’s not clear if the first, second, and third mold sides introduced in claim 5 are intended to further define the at least three “mold sides” of claim 1 or if they are new/different mold sides.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “four static mold sides”, where claim 1, which claim 5 is depended upon, recites that the apparatus comprises “a plurality of mold sides, one per side wall of the basket body,” and “the basket body comprising at least three side walls”. As such, it’s not clear if “four static mold sides are intended to further define the at least three “mold sides” of claim 1 or if they are new/different mold sides.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “comprising four side walls and a base” , where claim 1, which claim 5 is depended upon, recites that the apparatus comprises “a plurality of mold sides, one per side wall of the basket body,” and “the basket body comprising at least three side walls”. As such, it’s not clear if “four static mold sides are intended to further define the at least three “mold sides” of claim 1 or if they are new/different side walls and base.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “comprising four movable side walls” , where claim 1, which claim 5 is depended upon, recites that the apparatus comprises “a plurality of mold sides, one per side wall of the basket body,” and “the basket body comprising at least three side walls”. As such, it’s not clear if “four static mold sides are intended to further define the at least three “mold sides” of claim 1 or if they are new/different side walls and base.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “…to move the four mould sides” which is unclear as to whether the limitation references “the four static mold sides” or “the four movable mold sides”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the shape" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the shape" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the inner core". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites “the customer specific formations” in the next to last line, which is unclear as to whether it refers to the customer specific formations of the at least three form insert panels or the second at least three form insert panels.
Claims 3-8 are rejected by virtue of depending upon a rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the apparatus comprises four movable mould sides”. Claim 7, which claim 8 is depended upon, recites “with the apparatus comprising four static mold sides”. Thus, claim 8 fails to include all the limitations of the claim 7 upon which it depends as it is unclear if the four mold sides are static, as in claim 7, or movable as in claim 8.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR101953880 (Yang), machine translation provided, and in view of US2014/0316307 (Yuan).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang teaches an apparatus for forming a plastic shopping basket body (abstract), the basket body comprising at least three side walls (Figure 13, the plastic basket product comprises at least three side walls), the apparatus (Figure 9) comprising;
a plurality of mould sides (Figure 9, outer mold 100 includes four side walls 110) , one per side wall of the basket body ([0014]), each mould side including a form insert panel to mould the relevant side wall with customer-specific formations and/or apertures (Figure 9 and [0014]-[0015], the sides have apertures at the inner surface of a side wall 110).
Yang fails to teach the form insert panels being readily interchangeable to enable a plurality of basket bodies to be moulded with different customer-specific formations and/or apertures, for a plurality of different customers.
However, Yuan teaches the form insert panels being readily interchangeable to enable a plurality of basket bodies to be moulded with different customer-specific formations and/or apertures, for a plurality of different customers ([0024] and [0047], the internal mould core is separable and/or detachable, easing the processing of the internal mould core and furthermore only the internal mould insert may be replaced when a need to replace the mould arises. As the insert is detached, it is capable of introducing different formation and/or information and thus is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114).
Yang and Yuan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using injection molding to form an object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Yang such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Yuan to lowers the budget and reduces the maintenance and care time ([0024]).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the customer-specific formations include branding and/or logos (optional limitations, thus no patentable weight given), and the customer-specific apertures include the shape, configuration and pattern of apertures defined in the walls of the basket body that is specific or specifically assigned to a particular customer (Yuan, [0024] and [0047]. As the insert is detached, it is capable of introducing different formation and/or information and thus is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Yang teaches the apparatus of either claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above) or claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection above), wherein the apparatus includes a base mould to define the base of the basket body (Yang, see annotated Figure 15).
Yang fails to teach the base mould including an interchangeable form insert panel to mould the base of the basket body, which may also include customer-specific formations and/or apertures.
However, Yuan teaches the base mould including an interchangeable form insert panel to mould the base of the basket body, which may also include customer-specific formations and/or apertures. ([0024] and [0047], the internal mould core is separable and/or detachable, easing the processing of the internal mould core and furthermore only the internal mould insert may be replaced when a need to replace the mould arises. As the insert is detached, it is capable of introducing different formation and/or information and thus is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Yang such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Yuan to lowers the budget and reduces the maintenance and care time ([0024]).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the apparatus includes an inner core (Yang, Figure 9, inner mold 200), with a mould cavity being defined between the inner core and the inner surfaces of the plurality of mould sides and the base mould (Figure 11, the cavity space between the inner mold 200 and the side walls 110 of the outer mold 100), into which molten plastic may be injected to form the basket body ([0046]).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the basket body ( the claims contain limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details Here, the basket body is worked upon by the apparatus and is accordingly given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed apparatus; in this case, the structure of the product does not add any additional structural limitation to the apparatus itself) is for a shopping trolley, comprising a first side wall, a second, opposite side wall, a front wall and a base (Yang, Figure 13), with the apparatus comprising first, second and third mould sides, to mould the first side wall, the second, opposite side wall, and the front wall, respectively (Figure 9 and [0046]).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the first, second and third mould sides are movable relative to each other (Yang, [0064]), with the apparatus including a sliding mechanism ([0064] and [0084]) to move the first, second and third mould sides between an opened, inoperative configuration to a closed, operative configuration in which the first, second and third mould sides form a unitary arrangement ([0084], the side walls moving between opened and closed position), in conjunction with the base mould, to enable a unitary shopping trolley basket body to be moulded ([0064] and [0084]).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the basket body (the claims contain limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2115. Here, the basket body is worked upon by the apparatus and is accordingly given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed apparatus; in this case, the structure of the product does not add any additional structural limitation to the apparatus itself) is for a shopping handbasket comprising four side walls and a base (Yang, Figure 13), with the apparatus comprising four static mould sides, which, in conjunction with the base mould, enables a unitary shopping handbasket basket body to be moulded (Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the apparatus comprises four movable mould sides (Yang, [0064]), with a sliding mechanism ([0064] and [0084]) being provided to move the four mould sides from an opened, inoperative configuration to a closed, operative configuration in which the four mould sides form a unitary arrangement ([0084], the side walls moving between opened and closed position), in conjunction with the base mould, to enable a unitary shopping handbasket basket body to be moulded ([0064] and [0084]).
Regarding Claim 17, Yang teaches an apparatus (abstract) for forming a plastic shopping basket body (Figure 13, the plastic basket product comprises at least three side walls) comprising:
an inner core (Figure 9, inner mold 200);
at least three mould sides arranged around the core to form plastic shopping basket body sidewalls (Figure 9, outer mold 100 includes four side walls 110 and [0014]);
at least three form insert panels, wherein each of the form insert panels is positioned between the inner core and one of the at least three mould sides (Figure 9 and [0014]-[0015], the sides have apertures at the inner surface of a side wall 110);
Yang fails to teach wherein the at least three form insert panels is interchangeable with a second at least three form insert panels with different customer-specific formations and/or apertures.
However, Yuan teaches wherein the at least three form insert panels has customer-specific formations and/or apertures and wherein the at least three form insert panels is interchangeable with a second at least three form insert panels with different customer-specific formations and/or apertures ([0024] and [0047], the internal mould core is separable and/or detachable, easing the processing of the internal mould core and furthermore only the internal mould insert may be replaced when a need to replace the mould arises. As the insert is detached, it is capable of introducing different formation and/or information and thus is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114).
Yang and Yuan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using compression molding to form an object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Yang such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Yuan to lowers the budget and reduces the maintenance and care time ([0024]).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein a form insert panel in the at least three form insert panels is comprised by a pattern of the customer-specific formations over the entire form insert panel (Yuan, [0024] and [0047]. As the insert is detached, it is capable of introducing different formation and/or information and thus is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the customer specific formations are apertures in the shape of logos of a customer (Yuan, [0024] and [0047. As the insert is detached, it is capable of introducing different formation and/or information and thus is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114).]).
Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape of the apertures is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Yang teaches an apparatus (abstract) for forming a plastic shopping basket body (Figure 13, the plastic basket product comprises at least three side walls) comprising:
at least three mould sides (Figure 9, outer mold 100 includes four side walls 110) arranged to form plastic shopping basket body sidewalls ([0014]);
at least three form insert panels, wherein each of the form insert panels is positioned between the inner core and one of the at least three mould sides (Figure 9 and [0014]-[0015]);
wherein the at least three form insert panels has customer-specific formations (Figure 9 and [0014]-[0015]).
Yang fails to teach wherein the at least three form insert panels is interchangeable with a second at least three form insert panels with different customer-specific formations; and wherein the customer specific formations are apertures in the shape of logos of a customer.
However, Yuan teaches wherein the at least three form insert panels is interchangeable with a second at least three form insert panels with different customer-specific formations ([0024] and [0047], the internal mould core is separable and/or detachable, easing the processing of the internal mould core and furthermore only the internal mould insert may be replaced when a need to replace the mould arises. As the insert is detached, it is capable of introducing different formation and/or information and thus is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114) and wherein the customer specific formations are apertures in the shape of logos of a customer (Yuan, [0024] and [0047]. As the insert is detached, it is capable of introducing different formation and/or information and thus is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape of the apertures is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Yang and Yuan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using compression molding to form an object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Yang such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Yuan to lowers the budget and reduces the maintenance and care time ([0024]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights