DETAILED ACTION
In the reply filed 10/24/2025, claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/24/2025 has been entered.
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 1-14 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 1 has been amended to describe a “completely folded state of the frame”. A completely folded state is not found in the original disclosure, yielding new matter.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite: “the lower leg resting assembly is fixed relative to the seated plate upon the frame being switched from the unfolded state to the completely folded state.” It appears that the recitation may imply switching from the unfolded state to the completely folded state causes the lower leg resting assembly to become fixed.
The original disclosure does not support this limitation, and does not reveal any structure which would cause the leg resting assembly to be fixed as a result from switching from the unfolded state to the completely folded state.
This recitation is directed to functional language without setting forth any structure for performing the function. These unlimited functional claim limitations extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem and are not adequately supported by the written description or commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood vy. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The disclosure does not include sufficient information relating to the fixing the lower leg assembly upon switching to a (completely) folded state. The claimed fixing is disclosed conceptionally without any details regarding how the fixing is facilitated. For example, what keeps the lower leg resting assembly in the fixed state? Is there a locking mechanism? If so, how is the locking mechanism activated upon folding? Is movement of the lower leg resting assembly blocked by an unspecified component when the frame is folded? Because the patent specification fails to describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention, the claims are found to not satisfy the written description requirement. The Applicant fails to show possession of the claimed invention because the Applicant has not sufficiently described the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. See MPEP 2163 and 2173.05(g).
This limitation is further addressed in the discussion of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s), below.
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 1-14 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.
The claims have been amended to recite: “the lower leg resting assembly is fixed relative to the seated plate upon the frame being switched from the unfolded state to the completely folded state.” The recitation s not understood. It appears that the recitation may imply switching from the unfolded state to the completely folded state causes the lower leg resting assembly to become fixed.
What is the completely folded state? How does switching from the unfolded state to the completely folded state cause the lower leg resting assembly to fix? What does “fixed” mean? Does “fixed” imply there is some locking ability/component?
Applicant’s [0041] states:
In the folded state, the first connecting rod 210 and the second connecting rod 220 cannot pivot relative to the seated plate 110, which can facilitate the user to lift and pull the lower leg supporting member 230, to avoid that the lifting or pulling force by the user is dispersed to cause more effort due to the lower leg resting assembly 200 shaking from side to side.
The original disclosure does not reveal any structure which would cause the leg resting assembly to be fixed as a result from switching from the unfolded state to the completely folded state, and as such, the metes and bounds of the limitation are not ascertainable.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Haas (US 2024/0409145) in view of Zhong (US 9,326,618).
Regarding claim 1, De Haas teaches: a child carrier comprising:
a frame (best shown in Fig. 1) comprising a seated frame (111; see Figs. 1, 2)
a lower leg resting assembly (including at least element 112) connected to the frame;
wherein
in a completely folded state of the frame (the completely folded state is best shown in Fig. 3D and 4A), the lower leg resting assembly is configured as a carrying handle for lifting and pulling the frame. See [0053] and Figs. 3D and 4A.
De Haas fails to describe the seated frame being a plate, as claimed. Zhong teaches: a seated plate (see the seating surface of element 10, best shown in 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 seat from De Haas as a plate, as suggested by Zhong; the motivation being: to provide the stroller occupant with better support and/or for improved weight capacity.
De Haas fails to teach: in an unfolded state, the lower leg resting assembly is pivotable relative to the seated plate, and the lower leg resting assembly is fixed relative to the seated plate upon the frame being switched from the unfolded state to the completely folded state.
Zhong teaches, a child carrier wherein, in an unfolded state the lower leg resting assembly (20) is pivotable relative to the seated plate (10), and the lower leg resting assembly is fixed relative to the seated plate upon the frame being switched from the unfolded state to the completely folded state. In Zhong, angle-fixing structures (33) selectively permit pivoting of the lower leg resting assembly. See Fig. 3 and column 7, lines 43-61. Folding of a child carrier is described in column 1, lines 13-23. Those having ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the lower leg resting assembly from Zhong is capable of selectively permitting pivoting and fixing relative to the seated plate, independent of the folded/unfolded state of a frame.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide De Haas with angle-fixing structures (as suggested by Zhong) such that in an unfolded state the lower leg resting assembly is pivotable relative to the seated plate, and the lower leg resting assembly is fixed relative to the seated plate upon the frame being switched from the unfolded state to the completely folded state. The motivation being: so that the leg rest will stay fixed at a desired angle, which will provide occupant comfort. Without a mechanism for selectively holding a desired angle, the reg rest would freely swing, which is not safe for the occupant or attendant.
Regarding claim 2, the combination further teaches: the lower leg resting assembly is connected to a front side of the seated plate. See Fig. 1 from Zhong, and Figs. 1-2 from De Haas.
Regarding claim 3, the combination further teaches: wherein the lower leg resting assembly is pivotally connected to the front side of the seated plate. See Fig. 3B from De Haas, where an arrow indicates a pivoting motion.
Regarding claim 4, the combination further teaches: wherein the lower leg resting assembly comprises a first connecting rod (A), a second connecting rod (B), and a lower leg supporting member (C or D); wherein an end of the first connecting rod and an end of the second connecting rod are respectively pivotally connected to two ends of the seated plate at the front side; and wherein two ends of the lower leg supporting member are respectively connected to another end of the first connecting rod and another end of the second connecting rod. The connecting rods (A, B) correspond to right and left sides of element 112. See the magnified-annotated portion from Fig. 1 from De Haas, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
660
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the combination further teaches: wherein the lower leg supporting member (C) is made of a material different from that of the first connecting rod or the second connecting rod. The lower leg supporting member (C) is made from fabric; see Fig. 1 from De Haas.
Regarding claim 6, the combination further teaches: wherein the lower leg supporting member comprises a soft material. The lower leg supporting member (C) is made from fabric; see Fig. 1 from De Haas.
Regarding claim 7, the combination further teaches: wherein the lower leg supporting member is a webbing. See Fig. 1 from De Haas. Furthermore, those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the lower leg supporting member comprises a webbing as an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results, as such a modification would require a mere change in materials. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, it is common knowledge to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose a material that has sufficient strength for the intended use of the material. Webbing would be desirable for its strength and flexibility.
Regarding claim 8, the combination further teaches: wherein the lower leg resting assembly further comprises a reinforcing member (D); and wherein the reinforcing member is arranged on a middle of the webbing. See the magnified-annotated portion from Fig. 1 from De Haas, above.
Regarding claim 9, the combination further teaches: wherein the lower leg supporting member (D) is a rigid supporting rod. See the magnified-annotated portion from Fig. 1 from De Haas, above.
Regarding claim 10, the combination further teaches: wherein a buffering sleeve (C) is sleeved on the outside of the lower leg supporting member. See the magnified-annotated portion from Fig. 1 from De Haas, above.
Regarding claim 11, the combination further teaches: wherein the frame further comprises a handle (including elements 103, 105, 151), a front foot supporting rod (102), and a rear foot supporting rod (104); and wherein the front foot supporting rod and the rear foot supporting rod are pivotally connected to a bottom end of the handle. See Figs. 1 and 3C from De Haas.
Regarding claim 12, the combination further teaches: wherein the handle, the front foot supporting rod, and the rear foot supporting rod are arranged on left and right sides of the seated plate; and wherein two front foot supporting rods are respectively connected to the left and right sides of the seated plate. See Fig. 2 from De Haas.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Haas and Zhong, as applied above, in further view of Zhu (US 9,139,215).
Regarding claim 13, the combination fails to disclose: the frame further comprises an engaging base; and wherein the engaging base is configured to be engaged with and fix a removable carrier. Zhu teaches: the frame further comprises an engaging base (see the structure on elements 21 which hold the carrier 3 in place); and wherein the engaging base is configured to be engaged with and fix a removable carrier (3). Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 1 and 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 combination with the engaging base and carrier, as suggested by Zhu. The motivation being: to increase versatility of the stroller by facilitating selective use by infants.
Regarding claim 14, the combination further teaches: wherein the engaging base is arranged on two handles. See Figs. 1 and 2 from Zhu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant suggests that the combination, De Haas (US 2024/0409145) in view of Zhong (US 9,326,618), fails to teach all limitations of claim 1.
Applicant states: “The applied references neither teach nor suggest "in a completely folded state of the frame, the lower leg resting assembly is configured as a carrying handle for lifting and pulling the frame, ... and the lower leg resting assembly is fixed relative to the seated plate upon the frame being switched from the unfolded state to the completely folded state," as recited in claim 1.”
Claim 1 has been amended to recite: “the lower leg resting assembly is fixed relative to the seated plate upon the frame being switched from the unfolded state to the completely folded state.” Amendments to the claims necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection. See especially the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, above.
As expressed above, Applicant’s own disclosure does not reveal any structure which would cause the leg resting assembly to be fixed as a result from switching from the unfolded state to the completely folded state.
Applicant states: “Furthermore, even if the Office considers the final stage of the folded state illustrated in FIG. 3E to correspond to the recited "completely folded state," the combination the applied references still fails, because at this final stage, the footrest frame 112 of is folded towards the other folded frame elements for a compact configuration, and not positioned to serve as a carrying handle. The combination of De Haas and Zhong does not teach or suggest that "in a completely folded state of the frame, the lower leg resting assembly is configured as a carrying handle for lifting and pulling the frame."”
The completely folded state refers to a state of the frame (not the lower leg resting assembly and the frame). The lower leg resting assembly is described by the Applicant’s disclosure as an element connected to the frame (see claim 1). Because the lower leg resting assembly and the frame are individually claimed and described as connected, those having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claims such that the lower leg resting assembly is not a component of the frame. Because the lower leg resting assembly is not a component of the frame, an extended angle of the lower leg resting assembly does not matter when determining whether the frame is in a completely folded state. Both Figs. 3D and 3E from DeHaas show the frame in the same completely folded state. It is further noted that the original disclosure does not reveal what the completely folded state is.
Conclusion
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 on (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