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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 30 has been amended improperly; namely the applicant appears to be substituting the term --sections-- for “section,” but the term is struck-through rather than underlined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 31 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 31 recites a particular layering structure where the outer layer is bent around the inner layer such that a portion of the outer layer is between the inner layer and the handrail as is shown in Fig. 6 of the instant application. However, there is no description in the specification disclosing an assembly that has both the above-structural relationship while also having the amended claim structure from claim 28 where the bent end section extends over and covers an end of the handrail body as depicted in Fig. 5.
Claim 55 claims the structural relationship of a coupling structure being received within each end of the handrail body where the end sections/outer layer leaves opening into the handrail body to permit this insertion. This structural relationship is not described or shown in the specification as originally filed. The specification only appears to show that the end connectors are mounted to the end of the handrail body, but there is no description of the insertion of coupler into the handrail, much less that that the outer layer’s end allowing for insertion access into the interior of the handrail.
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 28-30, 33-36, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN 208036388, see previously provided machine translation) in view of Kobayashi (4,819,939).
Regarding claims 28, 34-36, and 56, Wei discloses a handrail assembly (see ¶0006 describing the assembly is a baby stroller handle, which reads upon a handrail assembly when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “handrail”), comprising:
a hollow elongated handrail body (20, see Fig. 1) covered with a first protective layer (12) having a flexible structure (e.g., a PU foam), the first protective layer being covered (see ¶0023) with a second protective layer (14, e.g., leather layer) so that the second protective layer shields the first protective layer to prevent the first protective layer from being exposed (see ¶0006 describing the layers as a protective cover, implicit to the second layer covering the inner first layer is that the outer layer prevents exposure of the inner layer).
Wei does not disclose that the end section of the second layer is bent to wrap around and cover sections of the tubular body and the end of the first layer.
Kobayashi teaches another hand grip (see Abstract) having an inner layer (14) covered by an outer layer (15, see e.g., Fig. 2). As shown best in Fig. 2, both the end of the inner tubular shaft (11) and the end of the inner layer (14) is covered by a bent section (16) of the outer layer (15). The end (16) bypasses the end of the inner foam layer and extends to the interior of the opening of the shaft/body (11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handrail assembly of Wei to use an end wrapping such as that taught by Kobayashi 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 (a folded over outer layer encasing the ends of the less durable inner layer) for another (a non-overlapped outer layer) to obtain predictable results (a grip that more securely retains and protects the less durable inner layer).
Regarding claims 29-30, Wei discloses that the second layer covers the first layer along both sides of the handrail assembly (see Fig. 1). As discussed above, the combination of the teachings of Kobayashi provides for the protective layers to extend out and bend around the ends of the inner tubular body. Further, as shown in Fig. 2 of Kobayashi, in the above combination at least a tip portion of the bent portion (16) extends to an end of the tubular body (11) and at least partially attached to the end of the body (see Fig. 2 showing the attachment of the bent portion 16 to the end of the shaft 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify both ends of the handrail assembly of Wei to use an end wrapping such as that taught by Kobayashi to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success since a mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to ensure all exposed ends are uniformly covered. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 33, the handrail body (20) of Wei is hollow (see Fig. 1) and is shown as a single piece which reads upon having an “integrated structure” when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “integrated.”
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Kobayashi as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Goji et al. (US 2016/0339311).
Regarding claim 31 (as best understood), while the Wei/Kobayashi combination provides for a handrail having an outer protective second layer wrapping around the end of the tube and over the inner layer, it does not provide for enveloping the end of the inner layer with the end of the outer layer, such that the outer layer is embedded between the handrail and the inner layer.
Goji teaches another hand grip (see Abstract) having an inner layer (3) covered by an outer layer (5, see e.g., Figs. 3-4). As shown best in Fig. 4, the end of the inner layer (3) is covered by a bent section (2) of the outer layer (5). The end (2) bypasses the end of the inner foam layer and extends to the interior shaft/body (31) which is inserted within the grip (1). The overwrapped configuration shown in at least Fig. 4 reads upon being “embedded into a contact surface between the first protective layer” and the underlying body as the rigid inner body (31) would press/embed the overlapping section (15) of the outer layer (5) into the foam inner layer (3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handrail assembly of the Wei combination to use an end wrapping such as that taught by Goji 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 (a folded over outer layer encasing the ends of the less durable inner layer) for another (a non-overlapped outer layer) to obtain predictable results (a grip that more securely retains and protects the less durable inner layer).
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Kobayashi as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Heo (KR 900001471, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 55 (as best understood), while the Wei/Kobayashi combination provides for a handrail having an outer protective second layer wrapping around the end of the tube and over the inner layer, it does not provide for inserting a connector into the end of the tubular body past the outer layer(s).
Heo teaches another child carrier handrail having a tubular handrail body (7) having an protective layer (10, see Fig. 2). A child carrier (1) coupling structure (6) is coupled to the handrail (7) by inserting a portion of the coupling structure (601) into the tubular handrail (7; see Fig. 2) past the handrail enveloping protective layer (10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handrail assembly of the Wei combination to use an internally affixed coupler as that taught by Heo 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 a telescoping connection for a tubular frame member) to known devices (e.g., stroller handrail’s having a tubular framework) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------a rigid connection that retains the outer protective layering across the full expanse of the handrail).
Claims 50-54 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kho et al. (US 2011/0062752) in view of Wei and Kobayashi.
Regarding claims 50-54 and 57, Kho discloses a baby carriage (10/30; see Fig. 5) including support frame structure (see Fig. 5 showing the carriage’s frame), comprising:
a front support assembly (e.g., the front wheel frame in Fig. 5);
a rear support assembly (e.g., the rear wheel frame);
a push rod assembly (see push handle in Fig. 5);
a connecting assembly (e.g., the collective joints and child carrier 12 within the center V-shaped portion of the frame in Fig. 5) assembling and connecting the front support assembly, the rear support assembly and the push rod assembly; and
a handrail assembly (29; see e.g., Fig. 1), wherein a connecting portion (292) of the handrail assembly is plugged into and detachably connected to a receiving element (215) of the connecting assembly (see Fig. 3 and ¶0038).
Kho does not disclose that the handrail includes layers of protective material or how that material is wrapped around the handrail.
As discussed above, Wei teaches a support frame structure (e.g., a baby carriage, see e.g., Abstract, which inherently has a supporting frame), comprising: a hollow elongated handrail assembly including a handrail body (20, e.g., an elongated frame element intended to be gripped by a user) covered with a first protective layer (12) having a flexible structure (e.g., PU foam), the first protective layer covered (see ¶0023) with a second protective layer (14), the second protective layer shielding the first protective layer to prevent the first protective layer from being exposed to outside.
Kobayashi teaches another hand grip (see Abstract) having an inner layer (14) covered by an outer layer (15, see e.g., Fig. 2). As shown best in Fig. 2, both the end of the inner tubular shaft (11) and the end of the inner layer (14) is covered by a bent section (16) of the outer layer (15). The end (16) bypasses the end of the inner foam layer and extends to the interior of the opening of the shaft/body (11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support frame structure of Kho to include layered protection over its gripped elements as taught by Wei and to wrap the ends of the outer protective layer around the tubular gripped element as taught by Kobayashi 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 a layered cover to improve grip and covering exposed ends to provide full protection) to known devices (e.g., hand-grippable frame elements of a baby carriage) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a carriage that having grip surfaces that have improved user comfort and full protective coverage).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 28 and 50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Namely, the applicant’s amendment to the independent claims providing for the outer layer overlapping the end of the handrail body necessitated additional searching of the prior art which produced the Kobayashi reference which taught the newly claimed handrail-overlapping feature.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 3613