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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group A, Species I is acknowledged. Applicant has indicated claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10-13, 15, 16, 18, 27-31, 33-36 read on the elected invention. Claims 2, 20-22, 24-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 9/3/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings have been submitted as grayscale, rather than black and white. The drawings are not of sufficient quality because, due to the grayscale nature of the drawings, claimed elements are not adequately visible. The quality of the drawings may cause a lack of understanding of the claimed subject matter.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7, 16, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gibson (US 10,449,987).
Regarding claim 1, Gibson teaches: a stroller system to transport one or more children, the stroller system comprising:
a stroller frame including a handle (including elements 112, 114, 180), at least one front leg (120), and rear legs (172, 174);
wheels (shown at least in Fig. 1) attached to the at least one front leg and the rear legs to support the stroller frame;
a first pair of seat-adjustment assemblies comprising a first pair of seat mounts (130), the first pair of seat-adjustment assemblies connected to the stroller frame and arranged to translate the first pair of seat mounts along a first direction (along element 117); and
a second pair of seat-adjustment assemblies comprising a second pair of seat mounts (140), the second pair of seat-adjustment assemblies connected to the stroller frame and arranged to translate the second pair of seat mounts along a second direction that is different than the first direction (compare the location of the second pair of seat mounts in Figs. 2 and 3); and
a first child-carrying apparatus (131) mountable in the first pair of seat mounts in forward-facing and rear-facing orientations (see column 6, lines 57-63).
Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 1-4, and 9.
Regarding claim 3, Gibson further teaches: the handle comprises tubing that includes tracks (117) integrated inside the extruded tubing along which the first pair of seat mounts translate. The tracks are shown located on a lateral inside of the stroller frame. See Fig. 9. Extruding is a process for manufacturing a tube. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 6, Gibson further teaches: wherein the handle comprises an adjustable handle portion (180) and a fixed portion (114), and wherein the stroller system further comprises: an adjustment knuckle (A) connecting the adjustable handle portion of the handle to the fixed portion of the handle, wherein the adjustable handle portion includes a grasping portion (at the upper portion of element 180), and wherein the adjustment knuckle comprises a mechanical height-adjustment actuator (182, 184) to change a height of the grasping portion with respect to a surface on which the wheels rest when the stroller frame is unfolded and a mechanical fold actuator (B) to actuate folding of the stroller frame and to operate independently of the height-adjustment actuator. Relevant elements are best shown in the annotated version of Fig. 5, below.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Gibson further teaches: the height-adjustment actuator includes a button that is pushed into the adjustment knuckle; and the fold actuator includes a trigger that is pulled along an exterior of the adjustment knuckle. See the annotated version of Fig. 5, above.
Regarding claim 16, Gibson further teaches: wherein the second pair of seat-adjustment assemblies comprise: a pair of tracks (129) mounted on the at least one front leg on which the second pair of seat mounts translate, wherein each seat mount of the second pair of seat mounts is located directly over a respective track of the pair of tracks. See Fig. 15.
Regarding claim 27, Gibson teaches: a stroller system to transport one or more children, the stroller comprising:
a foldable frame including a handle (including elements 112, 114, 180), at least one front leg (120), and two rear legs (172, 174);
wheels (shown at least in Fig. 1) attached to the at least one front leg and the two rear legs to support the foldable frame; and
an adjustment knuckle (A) connecting an adjustable handle portion (180) of the handle to a fixed portion (118) of the handle, wherein the adjustable handle portion includes a grasping portion (at the upper portion of element 180), and wherein the adjustment knuckle includes a height-adjustment actuator (182, 184) to change a height of the grasping portion with respect to a surface on which the wheels rest when the foldable frame is unfolded and includes a fold actuator (B) to actuate folding of the foldable frame and to operate independently of the first actuator.
Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 1-4, and 9, and the annotated version of Fig. 5, above (see the discussion of claim 6).
Regarding claim 28, Gibson teaches: a first pair of translatable seat mounts (130) connected to the foldable frame and arranged to translate along a first direction with respect to the handle; and a second pair of translatable seat mounts (140) connected to the foldable frame and arranged to translate along a second direction that is different than the first direction. See Figs. 1-4, and 9.
Regarding claim 29, Gibson teaches: wherein the first pair of translatable seat mounts, the second pair of translatable seat mounts, and the adjustment knuckle lie along two linear portions of the stroller frame that rise from the at least one front leg to the grasping portion. The portions are linear at least in that they are straight and extend in a same direction. See Fig. 1.
Should it be found that Gibson does not explicitly teach the linear portions as claimed, claim 29 is alternatively rejectable under 35 USC § 103. The linear placement of claimed frame elements is a design choice, yielding the same predictable results, since such a modification would be a change of location of parts. The rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 30, Gibson teaches: the height-adjustment actuator includes a button pushable into the adjustment knuckle; and the fold actuator includes a trigger pullable along an exterior of the adjustment knuckle. See the annotated version of Fig. 5, with the discussion of claim 6, above.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson, as applied above, alone.
Regarding claim 4, Gibson further teaches: the wheels comprise two front swivel wheels and two rear wheels; wherein the first pair of seat-adjustment assemblies and the second pair of seat-adjustment assemblies are mounted along two essentially linear portions of the stroller frame that rise from the at least one front leg to a grasping portion that is part of the handle. The portions are “essentially linear” at least in that they extend in a same direction.
Gibson is silent regarding measurements between the wheel. As such, Gibson fails to teach: a distance between a first line running through respective front axles of the two front swivel wheels when they are swiveled for forward motion and a second line running through respective rear axles of the two rear wheels is between 22½ inches and 24½ inches.
The provision of the claimed dimensions is a modification which would have involved a mere change in size of a component, which is a design choice yielding the same predictable results. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Such sizing is sufficient to provide a stable wheelbase, sized to accommodate child seats.
Claim(s) 8 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson, as applied above, in view of Gower (US 9,050,987).
Regarding claim 8, Gibson fails to teach: wherein actuation of the fold actuator allows the stroller frame to fold into a free-standing configuration where the at least one front leg and handle are within a 15-degree angle of each other. Gower teaches the capability of folding into a free-standing configuration where the at least one front leg and handle are within a 15-degree angle of each other. See the progression of folding from Fig. 9 to Fig. 11, where the front leg and handle fold to a nearly parallel configuration, within a 15-degree angle of each other. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide Gibson such that actuation of the fold actuator allows the stroller frame to fold into a free-standing configuration where the at least one front leg and handle are within a 15-degree angle of each other, as suggested by Gower; the motivation being: minimizing the angle between the front leg and handle reduces the volume for space-efficient storage.
Regarding claim 34, Gibson fails to teach: wherein actuation of the fold actuator allows the stroller frame to fold into a configuration where the at least one front leg and the handle are within a 15-degree angle of each other. Gower teaches the capability of folding into a configuration where the at least one front leg and the handle are within a 15-degree angle of each other. See the progression of folding from Fig. 9 to Fig. 11, where the front leg and handle fold to a nearly parallel configuration, within a 15-degree angle of each other. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide Gibson such that actuation of the fold actuator allows the stroller frame to fold into a configuration where the at least one front leg and handle are within a 15-degree angle of each other, as suggested by Gower; the motivation being: minimizing the angle between the front leg and handle reduces the volume for space-efficient storage.
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson, as applied above, in view of Troutman (US 8,186,368).
Regarding claim 10, Gibson further teaches: a child seat (131) to attach to the first pair of seat mounts, the child seat having a seat frame with a first end and a second end. See Figs. 2, 5.
Gibson fails to teach: a canopy attached to the seat frame and configured to translate to two or more positions along the seat frame. Troutman teaches a stroller having a canopy (300) attached to the seat frame and configured to translate to two or more positions along the seat frame. See Figs. 14a-16. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide Gibson with a translatable canopy, as suggested by Troutman; the motivation being: to adjustably provide shade to the stroller occupant.
Regarding claim 11, the combination further teaches: wherein the child seat comprises a track located along the seat frame, the track having one or more detents; and the canopy includes a translatable mount to engage with the track, the translatable mount including a resilient protrusion to be received by the one or more detents. See Figs. 14a-16 from Troutman.
Regarding claim 31, Gibson fails to teach: the trigger connects to a fold trigger actuator that rotates in the adjustment knuckle and pulls on a cable to fold the foldable frame when the trigger is pulled. Troutman teaches: the trigger (154) connects to a fold trigger actuator that rotates in the adjustment knuckle and pulls on a cable to fold the foldable frame when the trigger is pulled. See Fig. 2, and column 4, lines 49-60. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide Gibson with the trigger and cable mechanism as claimed; the motivation being: for facilitating safe folding of the stroller from a standing position.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson, as applied above, in view of Newhard (US6,550,801).
Regarding claim 33, Gibson fails to describe the components of the height-adjustment actuator as claimed. Newhard teaches: wherein the height-adjustment actuator includes: a slide gear (118) having teeth formed around a perimeter of the slide gear, wherein the slide gear is movable within the adjustment knuckle in a direction parallel to a pivot axis about which the adjustable handle portion pivots with respect to the fixed portion of the handle; and formed teeth (116D) on an interior of the adjustment knuckle that engage with the teeth on the slide gear. See Fig. 2. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the height-adjustment actuator from Gibson with the teeth and slide gear mechanism as claimed, as suggested by Newhard; the motivation being for securely and conveniently setting a desired height.
Claim(s) 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson, as applied above, in view of Liu (US 8,353,432).
Regarding claim 35, Gibson fails to teach a cup-holder mount as claimed. Liu teaches: wherein the adjustment knuckle further includes a cover (32), and wherein the stroller system further comprises a cup-holder mount (including at least element 326) integrated into the cover for the adjustment knuckle. See Fig. 1. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the adjustment knuckle from Gibson with the cover and cup holder mount as claimed, as suggested by Liu; the motivation being: to facilitate carrying a beverage.
Regarding claim 36, Gibson fails to teach a cup-holder as claimed. Liu teaches: a cup-holder assembly attached to the adjustment knuckle (shown in Fig. 1), wherein the cup-holder assembly is rotatable with respect to the adjustment knuckle.
See Fig. 1 and column 2, lines 50-55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, 15, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 includes limitations relating to the seat hub. These limitations are not possessed by Gibson, and it would not be obvious to modify Gibson to arrive at the invention of claim 12. Claim 13 is allowable because it depends from claim 12.
Claim 15 includes limitations relating to the second pair of seat-adjustment assemblies. These limitations are not possessed by Gibson, and it would not be obvious to modify Gibson to arrive at the invention of claim 15.
Claim 18 includes limitations relating to the basket and associated adapters. These limitations are not possessed by Gibson, and it would not be obvious to modify Gibson to arrive at the invention of claim 18.
None of the prior art, alone or in combination, anticipates or renders obvious the subject matter of claims 12, 13, 15, and 18. To modify any of the prior art of record to arrive at the invention set forth by claims 12, 13, 15, and 18 would be unobvious and improper hindsight.
Conclusion
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 EMMA K FRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5403. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M, T, F.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4324. 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.
/EMMA K FRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613