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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶020, bottom, the specification recites that the expandable tote is rigidly affixed to itself rather than to the changing table (as is shown in all of the drawings).
In ¶021, top, the phrase “made of a rigid yet flexible made of plastic etc.” is not grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 cart having more than one baby seats (“or more” language in claim 1) and the tote being rigidly fixed to itself (claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: axles 11A.
The drawings are also objected to because in Fig. 2, reference character 6 does not have a leader line.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, each of the lettered clauses starts with a capital letter. MPEP 608.01(m) provides that a claim should be a single sentence that begins with a capital letter and end with a period. Further, the list of lettered clauses skips clause “(c).”
In claim 9, “to push handle” should be –to a push handle--.
In claim 10, is objected to because it include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-10 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 claims 1, in clause “(d)” the changing table is described as “mini.” The term “mini” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mini” (or miniature) 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.
Further, in claim 1, clause “(f)” recites that the mounting platform is “proprietary.” This term causes the claim to be indefinite as it is unclear what the term “proprietary” means with respect to the structure or use of the mounting platform.
Lastly, clause “(f)” also recites the platform is “attaching baby seats to carriage assembly.” It is unclear if the plural baby seats is referencing the already introduced “one or more baby seats” and it is unclear if the “carriage assembly” is referencing the already introduced carriage. Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, this claim is further indefinite as it is unclear if the recited mounting platform is referring to the already introduced platform or if another platform. Similarly, the “baby seat” lack of an identifier and lack of consistency in the already provided naming convention (one or more baby seats) causes this claim to be indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, this claim also references “the baby seat.” Independent claim 1 recites “one or more baby seats” and it is unclear whether this limitation is to only one baby seat or to all of the “or more” baby seats.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is indefinite as it is unclear how the expandable tote is rigidly affixed to itself. For examination purposes, this claim is interpreted to mean that the tote is affixed to the changing table as shown in the Figures.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. (Canadian Pat. No. ,614760, see provided copy) in view of Rodriguez et al (US 2011/0232000) and Rolicki et al. (10,994,763).
Regarding claim 1, Watson discloses a golfing push cart (100, see top of page 1) comprised of the following parts:
a) A carriage assembly (110);
b) One or more baby seats (120); and
f) a baby seat (120) attached to carriage assembly.
While Watson discloses that the push cart has a frame-mounted baby seat, it does not disclose a platform for attaching the baby seats; a telescoping, mini changing table; or an expandable tote.
Rodriguez teaches another child-transporting push cart having a carriage assembly supporting a baby seat (see e.g., Fig. 1), the cart including a telescoping mini changing table (120; see ¶0033 describing the changing table as telescoping away from the seat). The examiner notes that the changing table (120) is foldable into a portable bag (see ¶0040) reads upon the changing table being “mini” when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term. Rodriguez further teaches the well-known expedient of affixing an expandable tote (140; see e.g., Fig. 1 and ¶0037) to a child transporting wheeled cart/carriage.
Rolicki teaches another child transporting push cart having a carriage assembly and including a mounting platform (302) for attaching baby seats (see e.g., Fig. 7) to the carriage assembly (300, see Fig. 5).
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 golf stroller for infants of Watson to include a rear-mounted telescoping changing table as taught by Rodriguez and the seat mounting platform taught by Rolicki 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 the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., adding additional baby-related features to a stroller; and substituting one baby seat mount on a stroller for another), and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (e.g., carrying both golf clubs and an infant on the same push cart; a collapsible changing table; and a detachable baby seat on a stroller); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g., providing more functionality and features to the combination golf cart and baby stroller of Watson).
Regarding claims 2-3, Watson further discloses that the carriage assembly having an upper bracket (see frame portion that descends to front wheel 114) and a lower bracket (see frame portion that descends to rear wheels 112, 113) connected together. Watson, while disclosing that fold-up strollers are known in the prior art (see page 2, lines 10-16), but does not also disclose that the cart’s frame is interconnected via locking handles.
Rolicki teaches the well-known expedient of using locking elements (e.g., user-manipulated locking actuators, see e.g., Col. 5, lines 7-21 which read upon a locking handle when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the terms “locking” and “handle”) that allow a pushable stroller/cart to fold at the joints (e.g., joint 124) between frame portions.
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 Watson combination to including locking handles to allow for the frame to be folded as taught by Rolicki 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., configuring a stroller frame to be foldable by using selectively lockable elements at frame joints) to known devices (e.g., stroller frames) ready for improvement to obtain predictable results (e.g., a stroller that is readily collapsible to improve transportability/stowage).
Regarding claim 4, Watson further discloses that the cart includes a push handle (158).
Regarding claim 5, Watson further discloses that the cart includes an upper brace (134) and a lower brace (132) with saddle components to hold golf bags (see page 6, lines 1-6 describing how the golf bags are retained by the upper and lower racks to hold a golf bag in place to the frame, which reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “saddle”).
Regarding claim 6 (as best understood), as discussed above, the Watson combination provides for a mounting platform (302 of Rolicki). Rolicki further teaching that the combination’s platform has a post (see Fig.5 showing the vertically offsetting elements connecting the laterally running platform 302 to the rest of the framework, which reads upon a “post” when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term) and attachments (308-312) to hold one or more baby seats (400).
Regarding claim 7 (as best understood), Watson discloses that a baby seat includes restraints (124). Further, the above Watson/Rolicki combination provides for a mounting platform (302) having attachments (308-312) that mate with mating anchoring elements (416, see e.g., Fig. 4) to connect the one or more baby seats (400) to the carriage (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Watson further discloses that the cart includes an expanding canopy (200; see e.g., Fig. 4) with rods (150, 160) and sheeting (e.g., fabric material of the shielding 200). As shown in Fig. 4, the canopy (200) covers/protects the infant in the baby seat, which reads upon the baby seat “having” the canopy. Further, the canopy (200) is described as removable and is attached to the rods (150, 160) by extending the fabric canopy between the two spaced rods, which reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of the canopy being “expanding” as the fabric canopy is brought to its fully installed configuration).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, the Watson combination provides for a telescoping changing table (120 of Rodriguez) mounted to the cart’s frame. Rodriguez further teaching that the changing table is affixed to a push handle with side braces (130; see e.g., Fig. 2 showing the table 120 affixed via mounting elements that support/brace the table to the upright frame portion of the cart’s push-style handlebar).
Regarding claim 10 (as best understood), as discussed above, the Watson combination provides for an expandable tote (140 of Rodriguez). The tote (140) being affixed to the telescoping changing table (120 of Rodriguez) by means of fasteners (i.e., the tote bag is described as being removably attached, implicit to which is that the bag is fastened via some element to the table). While Rodriguez does not explicitly provide that the tote bag (140) is rigidly affixed to the table, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the relevant art prior to the effective filing date of the present application that even a removable bag should be affixed to its supporting element in a manner that securely maintains its desired position. The examiner asserts that providing a secure connection between two structures reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “rigidly.”
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.
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