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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/084,391 in view of Chen et al. (CN201231775, see applicant provided translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present application to modify the mounting element of the ‘391 application to include extending portions (31/33) on the mounting element as taught by Chen to arrive at the claimed device. The motivation being to ensure a secure connection between the terminal and the supporting cart mount.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the orientation element and counter orientation element configured to allow only one orientation must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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, 6, 8, 11, and 14 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, this claim limits the antecedent claim’s “at least one first extending portion” to now have “at least two first extending portions.” The claim, however, is indefinite because it then applies other limitations associated with the “at least one extending portion” language.
Regarding claim 6, in its fourth line, this claim references “a connecting arm axis,” but this designation has already been used in the second line. It is unclear if another, different axis is being introduced or if this is simply referring to the anteceding axis.
Regarding claim 8, in its first line, this claim references “connecting arms of the wagon.” It is unclear whether the arms are intended to be recited as part of the wagon or if this is typographical error and “wagon” should have been –handle bar--.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites the limitations: "the at least two first extending portions" in its second line; and “the at least two mating portions” in its fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for either of these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites the limitation "the scanner" in its last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 201231775, see applicant provided translation).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a shopping cart with a detachable terminal, the shopping cart comprises:
a wagon (13) configured to be pushed in a pushing direction and having a main receiving area (see Fig. 2);
a handle bar (14) configured to be coupled to the wagon and for pushing the wagon in the pushing direction, wherein the handle bar comprises a mounting element (31-33) with at least one first extending portion (31/33); and
a terminal (2) configured to be coupled to the handle bar, wherein the terminal comprises a housing with at least one mating portion (21), wherein the mating portion is configured to be coupled with the at least one first extending portion (31/33).
Regarding claim 3¸ Chen further discloses that the mounting element (3) comprises at least two first extending portions (31, 33) extending in an extending direction which forms a sharp angle with the pushing direction and an extending direction of the at least one first extending portion forms a right angle with a length axis of the handle bar (14, see e.g., Figs. 1-2 showing the acute/sharp angle of the rails 31/33 which run perpendicular to the direction of the push handle’s axis).
Regarding claim 4, Chen further discloses that the mounting element is formed integral with the handle bar (see e.g., Fig. 2 showing continuous framework 14 and 31-36, which read upon the mounting element being formed integral with the handle bar when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “formed integral with.”
Regarding claim 5, Chen further discloses that the handle bar (14) comprises two gripping portions (e.g., the two distal ends of the handlebar proximate to the bends toward the shopping basket in Fig. 1) along a direction of a length axis of the handle bar which forms substantially a right angle with the pushing direction (i.e., the handle bar 14 is oriented laterally while the pushing direction is longitudinal), wherein the mounting element (31-33) is positioned between the two gripping portions (e.g., the two outer portions of the handle 14 are outside of the centered terminal mounting element 31-33, which reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “positioned between.”
Regarding claim 9, Chen further discloses that the mounting element (e.g., terminal mounts 41-43 in Fig. 4) further comprises one or two second extending portions (45), wherein the one or each one of the two second extending portions extends in an opposite direction of one of the at least one first extending portions (see Fig. 4 showing the support 45 extending oppositely from the mounting rails 41/43).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 15, Chen further discloses that each mating portion (21) is configured to be coupled with one of the at least two first extending portions (31/33 which are narrow tubular frame elements which read upon a reasonable interpretation of the term “a rib structure”) by means of a slider-rail system comprising:
a rail (e.g., each mounting element rail 31 and 33 mates with the complementarily shaped groove 21) on each one of the at least two first extending portions; and
a slider on each one of the at least two mating portions (i.e., the groove 21 on each side of the terminal housing slides along the longitudinal axis of each frame rail 31/33).
Regarding claim 13, Chen further discloses that the housing of the terminal (2) is form-fit (see e.g., Fig. 1 showing the complementarily shaped rails 31/33 and grooves 21) with the mounting element (31/33) of the handle bar when the terminal is coupled to the handle bar and the housing of the terminal forms a plane surface with the mounting element of the handle bar after being coupled with the mounting element (e.g., the complementary shape of the mounting element’s rails 31/33 and the terminal’s grooves 21 read upon a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “forms a plane surface.”
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Cheng (11,004,053).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses that the terminal includes a screen and an energy storage unit (e.g., built-in power – see ¶0034), but does not disclose that the terminal includes a touch screen, scanner, or camera pointed at the shopping basket.
Cheng teaches another shopping cart mounted terminal (3) that is mounted to a handle bar (1) disposed mounting element (12, see e.g., Figs. 1-3) of the cart/wagon. The terminal including a touchscreen (13) configured to output information related to a product and to receive user input;
a scanner element (9) configured to scan a code related to the product (see Col. 6, lines 24-26); and
a camera (8) configured to capture an image of the main receiving area (see Col. 6, lines 63-67 and Fig. and wherein the terminal further comprises a processor configured to identify the product by means of the code scanned by the scanner element and to verify whether the identified product is visible in the image of the main receiving area captured by the camera (see Col. 6, lines 24 to Co. 7, line 7 describing the scanning and monitoring of items placed into the sopping cart).
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 shopping cart of Chen to include a bar code scanner and basket-monitoring camera on the terminal as taught by Cheng 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., providing self-checkout features to an electronic terminal accessible to shoppers) to known devices (e.g., shopping carts having electronic terminals) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a shopping cart that allows for secure self-checkout in addition to providing a user-viewable display).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Sinha (10,266,196) and Schlieffers et al. (US 2004/0111320).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses comprises two connecting arms (e.g., the forward turning distal ends supporting the handle bar (14), each one extending from one of two gripping portions (e.g., the terminal ends of the laterally running handle bar 14) along a direction of a connecting arm axis (e.g., generally forward in Fig. 1), wherein the direction of the connecting arm axis is either parallel to the pushing direction or forms a sharp angle with the pushing direction and [the] connecting arm axis is substantially perpendicular to a length axis of the handle bar (see Fig. 1), but does not disclose that the connecting arms are detachable from the handle bar and from connection arms of the wagon.
Sinha teaches another smart/computerized shopping cart including a handle bar (200, see Fig. 2A) having a pair of outwardly extending connectors (204) allowing for the handle bar to be readily detached from the rest of the cart (see e.g., Col. 7, line 61 to Col. 8, line 5).
Schlieffers teaches another shopping cart having a detachable terminal on its handle bar. The handle bar (900) is mounted via a two connecting arms (950/960, see Fig. 1) that are detachably mounted to connection arms (see rearwardly extending cart wireframe in Fig. 12) of the wagon.
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 shopping cart of Chen to include a detachable handle bar as taught by Sinha and to have the handle bar attaching arm be detachable as taught by Schlieffers 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., making a component that was otherwise integral to be separable) to known devices (e.g., shopping carts having wagon-mounted handle bars) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., handle assembly that is readily detachable for repair or replacement).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Sinha.
Regarding claim 7, while Chen discloses a metal shopping cart having a likely metal handle bar (14), it does not disclose a hollow steel core that is sheathed or that the core is oval or polygonal.
Sinha teaches another smart/computerized shopping cart including a handle bar (200, see Fig. 2A) having a pair of outwardly extending connectors (204) allowing for the handle bar to be readily detached from the rest of the cart (see e.g., Col. 7, line 61 to Col. 8, line 5). The handle bar (200) is steel and has a tubular shape (see Col. 8, lines 12-14) that is polygonal (see Col. 8, lines 44-54). A sheathing element (e.g., PV covers 208,) at least partially surround the core element of the handle bar (see Fig. 2A).
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 shopping cart of Chen to include a have a polygonal shaped steel core tube for its handle that is sheathed over the metal at a gripping region as taught by Sinha 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 (steel polygonal tube shopping cart handle with covers) for another (a generic elongated tubular shopping cart handle) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a handle assembly that readily matches known/typical shopping carts for ease of retrofitting/replacement – see Col. 8, lines 44-48 of Sinha).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Sinha as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20120050032, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, the Sinha handle bar from the above combination has a cross-sectional shape that is intended to be shaped to be readily retrofit into known shopping carts. Implicit to such a connection is that the ends of the handle bar are complementarily shaped to mate with the cart (see Col. 8, lines 38-48). While such complementary connections orient the handle in fixed positions, it does not specifically provide for only one orientation.
Lee teaches another separable shopping cart handle (231) having ends (2313) that are complementary in shape to sockets (2331) of an end connecting arm (232/233), the ends (2313) are shaped such that only a single orientation (following the narrow slot’s direction) is possible.
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 shopping cart of Chen to include a cart mating end shape as taught by Sinha and to use a position limiting connection shape as taught by Lee 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 complementary shaped inserts and sockets to orient connected elements in a desired position) to known devices (e.g., shopping carts having wagon-mounted handle bars) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a cart handle assembly that more easily and accurately assembled).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Schlieffers and Dolci et al. (8,655,889).
Regarding claim 14 (as best understood), the above Chen/Schlieffers combination of claim 2 provides for a shopping cart having a handle mounted terminal that is mounted via a mounting element (31-33), the terminal including a scanner, but the mounting arrangement associated with the scanner has not been discussed. Chen, while an electronic terminal, does not provide for an under-mounted power button.
Schlieffers teaches a cart-mounted terminal including a scanner (300) mounted within a recessed portion (230) of the terminal housing (see e.g., Fig. 2). As shown in Fig. 15, the handle’s mounting element is recessed relative to the terminal such that the recesses shape allows the scanner element (300) to scan code, which reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “scanner element recess.” Further, Schlieffers teaches the well-known expedient of providing a recess or additional clearance within a housing/support to grant access to underlying buttons (see Fig. 2 showing the notched recess allowing access to buttons 340/345 while the scanner is held in its cradle).
Dolci teaches a digital terminal that is intended to be available to the public at-large and including additional protections to prevent unauthorized/unintentional pressing of button. The terminal having a touch screen (102), the terminal is mounted with a mounting element (200/400) that supports and protects the sides and rear (104) of the terminal. The power button is arranged on the rear surface (104) of the terminal (see e.g., Col. 3, lines 56-57). An aperture/recess is formed in the rear/bottom surface (414b; see e.g., Fig. 4A) allow access to the rear-disposed power button when the terminal is mounted within the support housing (200/400, see e.g., Col. 16, lines 48-51)
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 shopping cart of Chen to include a recessed arrangement of the underlying terminal mount to allow the terminal-mounted scanner to scan code as taught by Schlieffers and to locate the power button on a public-facing electronic device on the rear of the terminal while still providing an access opening to that button as taught by Dolci 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., shaping sensors environments to provide adequate coverage/range; and hiding controls in public-facing electronics) to known devices (e.g., publicly available shopping carts having electronic terminals) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a cart that is both readily usable by a shopper and which is protected from unwanted de-powering).
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.
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 STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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
