Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/924,902

CARRYCOT TO BE DETACHABLY MOUNTED ON A BASE BEING DISMOUNTABLY ATTACHED IN A VEHICLE OR ON A STROLLER FRAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 11, 2022
Examiner
GABLER, PHILIP F
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
BAMBINO PREZIOSO SWITZERLAND AG
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
900 granted / 1228 resolved
+21.3% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1281
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1228 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25 November 2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102, 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 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. 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. Claim(s) 24-26 and 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heisey et al. (US Patent Number 8876208). Regarding claim 24, Heisey discloses a child carrier comprising a first carrier frame (16) and a carrycot detachably installed on the first carrier frame, wherein the carrycot comprises: a carrycot body (interior portions of 12); a mounting bracket (including 20) on an outer surface of the carrycot body; a first connecting assembly (at 31 and/or 32) on one of the carrycot body and the mounting bracket, the first connecting assembly being configured for detachably connecting the carrycot to the first carrier frame; and a second connecting assembly (at 21 and/or 22) on the mounting bracket, the second connecting assembly being configured for detachably connecting the carrycot to a second carrier frame (14) different from the first carrier frame, wherein the first connecting assembly comprises at least one engaging slot structure (the structure at 31 forms a slot; see Figures 6 and 7 for instance), an entirety of the at least one engaging slot structure being formed by an inward recession from a lateral portion of the mounting bracket (see figures including those annotated below showing the entire slot structure inwardly recessed from a lateral portion of 20), the at least one engaging slot structure includes a first (lower) portion, a second (upper) portion connected to the first portion, and an engaging portion (hook portion of 31) the engaging portion is on the second portion (i.e. the hook is on the upper portion) and configured to engage with a portion of a cooperating component of the first carrier frame (i.e. the hook of 31 engages with at least a portion of 38 for instance), a width of the first portion is greater than a width of the second portion (see annotated figures below). Regarding claim 25, Heisey further discloses the carrycot is detachably installed on the carrier frame by a cooperation of the first connecting assembly and the cooperating component (this is the general arrangement). Regarding claim 26, Heisey further discloses the carrier frame is a stroller frame or a crib frame (see Figure 1). Regarding claims 41-43, Heisey further discloses the width of the first portion of the at least one engaging slot structure gradually decreases toward the second portion to guide the portion of the cooperating component of the first carrier frame to move toward the second portion and to allow the portion of the cooperating component of the first carrier frame to enter into and directly engage with the engaging portion (the portions are sized in this manner and capable of functioning as claimed; see figures), wherein a maximum width of the first portion of the at least one engaging slot structure is at least two times of the width of the second portion of the at least one engaging slot structure (see for instance annotated Figure 7 of Heisey), and wherein the engaging portion includes a slot recessed laterally from an outermost sidewall of the carrycot body (the hook portion forms such a slot recessed from the outermost sidewall). PNG media_image1.png 1329 969 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure 1: Annotated figures from Heisey Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisey. Heisey discloses a child carrier as explained above and would appear to disclose a plurality of ribs at an edge of the mounting bracket, the plurality of ribs protruding from an inner surface of the mounting bracket toward the carrycot body (see at least rib structure at the headrest as seen in Figure 3 and/or the backrest as seen in Figure 7) but description of such structure may not be explicit. Changes in arrangement and duplication of components, as well as changes in size and shape require only routine skill in the art, and moreover ribs as claimed are old and well-known in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide ribs as claimed based on normal variation and/or Heisey’s pictured structure to improve safety and comfort for various users. Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Von Wimmersperg (US Patent Number 3833946). Regarding claim 27, Von Wimmersperg discloses a carrycot comprising: a carrycot body (at least 16) made of foam material (see the paragraph bridging columns 2 and 3), the carrycot body comprising a first wall (a bottom wall for instance) and a second wall (a side wall for instance), the first wall extending along a first direction of the carrycot body and the second wall extending along a second direction of the carrycot body, wherein a thickness of an entirety of the first wall is greater than a thickness of an entirety of the second wall (see Figure 3 showing the thickness of the entirety of the bottom wall greater than the entirety of a side wall); and a mounting bracket (12 and/or 14) made of hard material and on an outer surface of the carrycot body (see figures), the mounting bracket covering a bottom portion of the carrycot body (see figures), the mounting bracket and the carrycot body cooperatively forming an integral structure (this is the general arrangement). While Von Wimmersperg is thus viewed as meeting the limitations as set forth, verbal description of the wall thicknesses may not be explicit. Even if the walls were not shaped as apparently shown however, as changes in size and shape require only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide walls as claimed based on normal variation to improve safety, security, and comfort for various users. Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Wimmersperg. Wimmersperg discloses and/or renders obvious a carrycot as explained above, but does not clearly disclose a weight ratio. Changes in size and shape require only routine skill in the art, and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide weight ratio as claimed based on normal variation to ensure proper operation or improve function and security for various users. Claim(s) 28-33, 35, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Wimmersperg in view of Pormente (WO 2018007243 as provided by Applicant; machine translation previously provided). Regarding claims 28-31, Von Wimmersperg discloses and/or renders obvious a carrycot as explained above, but does not clearly disclose details of the mounting bracket. Pormente, discloses a related device including a mounting bracket (1) partially embedded into a carrycot body (2), wherein an upper edge of the mounting bracket is embedded into the carrycot body, wherein the carrycot body covers an upper edge of the mounting bracket, and wherein at least one rib protrudes from a surface of the mounting bracket cooperating with the carrycot body, and the at least one rib is embedded into the carrycot body (the bracket is generally embedded in the body including upper edges embedded in and covered by the body; see for instance rib 120b arranged in groove 223 meeting these limitations). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a mounting bracket arrangement as taught by Pormente in Von Wimmersperg’s device because this could improve safety and comfort for various users. Regarding claims 32 and 33, Von Wimmersperg discloses and/or renders obvious a carrycot as explained above, but does not clearly disclose materials. Material selection is a routine design choice and Pormente discloses a related device including a mounting bracket (1) made of Polypropylene (see section 5.1.1 disclosing the use of polypropylene) and a carrycot body (2) made of Expanded Polystyrene, Expanded Polypropylene, Expanded Polyolefin, or Expanded Polyethylene (see section 5.1.2 disclosing the use of (expanded polypropylene or polystyrene). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide materials as taught by Pormente in Von Wimmersperg’s device because this could improve safety and comfort for various users. Regarding claims 35 and 36, Von Wimmersperg discloses and/or renders obvious a carrycot as explained above, but does not disclose through holes. Pormente discloses a related device including at least one through hole (at 212 for instance) on carrycot body, wherein the at least one through hole is located on a lateral wall or a bottom wall of the carrycot body (see figures). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide carrycot through holes as taught by Pormente in Von Wimmersperg’s device because this could improve convenience and comfort for various users. Claim(s) 37-39, 44-46, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Wimmersperg in view of Heisey. Regarding claims 37-39, Von Wimmersperg discloses and/or renders obvious a carrycot as explained above but does not disclose specifics of connection assemblies. Heisey discloses a related device including a first connecting assembly (at 31 and/or 32) on a mounting bracket and configured for detachably connecting a carrycot to a first carrier frame (16); and a second connecting assembly (at 21 and/or 22) on the mounting bracket and configured for detachably connecting the carrycot to a second carrier frame (14) different from the first carrier frame, wherein the second connecting assembly comprises a plurality of fixing blocks (on either side of the slot receiving 33 for instance; see Figure 5) and a plurality of engaging components (at least hook/anchors 21, 22), the plurality of fixing blocks protrude from the mounting bracket, each of the plurality of engaging components is between corresponding two of the plurality of fixing blocks and for detachably engaging with the second carrier frame, and each of the plurality of fixing blocks is configured for guiding the corresponding engaging component to detachably engage with the second carrier frame (see again Figure 5; the blocks protrude from the rails to guide the engaging component to engage), and wherein each of the plurality of engaging components is a rod-shaped structure (it is viewed as such at least in part). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide connection assemblies as taught by Heisey in Von Wimmersperg’s device because this could improve user safety and convenience. Note that even if the combination did not clearly provide the claimed engaging component direction, as rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the members arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve function or security for various users. Regarding claims 44-46, Von Wimmersperg, modified as described, discloses an arrangement as explained above but may not disclose details of the connecting assemblies. Heisey further discloses the first connecting assembly comprises at least one engaging slot structure (the structure at 31 forms a slot; see Figures 6 and 7 for instance), an entirety of the at least one engaging slot structure being formed by an inward recession from a lateral portion of the mounting bracket (see figures including those annotated below showing the entire slot structure inwardly recessed from a lateral portion of 20), the at least one engaging slot structure includes a first (lower) portion, a second (upper) portion connected to the first portion, and an engaging portion (hook portion of 31) the engaging portion is on the second portion (i.e. the hook is on the upper portion) and configured to engage with a portion of a cooperating component of the first carrier frame (i.e. the hook of 31 engages with at least a portion of 38 for instance), a width of the first portion is greater than a width of the second portion (see annotated figures below), and the width of the first portion of the at least one engaging slot structure gradually decreases toward the second portion to guide the portion of the cooperating component of the first carrier frame to move toward the second portion and to allow the portion of the cooperating component of the first carrier frame to enter into and directly engage with the engaging portion (the portions are sized in this manner and capable of functioning as claimed; see figures), wherein a maximum width of the first portion of the at least one engaging slot structure is at least two times of the width of the second portion of the at least one engaging slot structure (see for instance annotated Figure 7 of Heisey), and wherein the engaging portion includes a slot recessed laterally from an outermost sidewall of the carrycot body (the hook portion forms such a slot recessed from the outermost sidewall). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide connection assemblies as taught by Heisey in Von Wimmersperg’s device because this could improve user safety and convenience. Regarding claim 48, Von Wimmersperg, modified as described, discloses an arrangement as explained above but may not disclose ribs. Heisey discloses a related device and would appear to disclose a plurality of ribs at an edge of a mounting bracket, the plurality of ribs protruding from an inner surface of the mounting bracket toward the carrycot body (see at least rib structure at the headrest as seen in Figure 3 and/or the backrest as seen in Figure 7) but description of such structure may not be explicit. Changes in arrangement and duplication of components, as well as changes in size and shape require only routine skill in the art, and moreover ribs as claimed are old and well-known in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide ribs as claimed based on normal variation and/or as taught by Heisey in Von Wimmersperg’s device because this could improve safety and comfort for various users. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. That is, the new 35 USC 102 rejections in view of Heisey rely on a different analysis of the device while Pormente is not relied on for as a base reference for wall thickness. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30. 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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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. /PHILIP F GABLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 11, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 19, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 23, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 27, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 31, 2024
Interview Requested
Jan 10, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 10, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 23, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 07, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 20, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 28, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 28, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 13, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600270
CARRYCOT TO BE DETACHABLY MOUNTED ON A BASE BEING DISMOUNTABLY ATTACHED IN A VEHICLE OR ON A STROLLER FRAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600272
CHILD RESTRAINT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589678
CHILD SAFETY SEAT AND RELATED TETHER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12559001
SHOULDER STRAP WIDTH ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM AND CHILD SAFETY SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559003
CHILD SAFETY SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+23.7%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1228 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month