DETAILED ACTION
In the reply filed 6/17/2026, claims 1 and 11 are amended, and new claims 15-22 are added. Claims 1-22 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 .
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 1-22 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 “the seated plate being directly connected to the front foot supporting rod”. Direct connection between the seated plate and the front foot supporting rod is not found in the original disclosure. In contrast, the original disclosure suggests at least an intermediate component (180) connects the front foot supporting rod (130) to the seated plate (110). Because “the seated plate being directly connected to the front foot supporting rod” is not found in the original disclosure, the claim introduces new matter.
New claim 18 recites: “wherein the front foot supporting rod and the rear foot supporting rod are directly pivotally connected to the bottom end of the handle at the common axis.” Support for this limitation is not found in the original disclosure. In contrast, the original disclosure suggests the front foot supporting rod and the rear foot supporting rod are pivotally connected to the bottom end of the handle through the locking mechanism, and not directly connected. New claim 20 introduces new matter for the same reasons as claim 18.
New claim 21 recites: “wherein the seated plate comprises a plate body, a plate body support, and a connector, the plate body is on the plate body support, and the connector is coupled with the plate body support and directly connected to the front foot supporting rod.” Support for this limitation is not found in the original disclosure. In the original disclosure, the specification does not describe the seated plate including any component except the plate body and seat tube (elements 112 and 111, respectively). Neither a “plate body support” or a “connector” are found in the original disclosure.
New claim 22 recites: “wherein the seated plate is directly connected to the front foot supporting rod by way of a connector.” Support for this limitation is not found in the original disclosure. As stated above, a “connector” is not found in the original disclosure. Additionally, direct connection between the seated plate and the front foot supporting rod is not found in the original disclosure.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
New claim 22 recites: “wherein the seated plate is directly connected to the front foot supporting rod by way of a connector.” The limitation is indefinite because it appears to be self-contradicting. If the seated plate is connected to the front foot supporting rod by way of a connector, those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the connection is not direct. The presence of an intermediate component (in this case, a connector) prevents connection from being direct. Direct connection requires zero intermediate components. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed seated plate and the front foot supporting rod are indirectly connected.
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) 1-10 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 front foot supporting rod (101), a rear foot supporting rod (103) and a seated frame (111), the front foot supporting rod and the rear foot supporting rod being pivotally connected to each other at a common axis (B), and the seated frame being directly connected to the front foot supporting rod; and
a lower leg resting assembly (including at least element 112) connected to the frame;
wherein
in a folded state of the frame (the 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. 1, 2, 3A, 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 specifically teach: in an unfolded state, the lower leg resting assembly is pivotable relative to the seated plate.
Zhong teaches, a child carrier wherein, in an unfolded state the lower leg resting assembly (20) is pivotable relative to the seated plate (10). In Zhong, angle-fixing/adjusting 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/adjusting structures (as suggested by Zhong) such that in an unfolded state the lower leg resting assembly is pivotable relative to the seated plate. The motivation being: so that the leg rest will reach a desired angle, which will provide occupant comfort.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 12, 15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 107757689) in view of Zhong (US 9,326,618).
Regarding claim 1, Peng teaches: a child carrier comprising:
a frame comprising a front foot supporting rod (2), a rear foot supporting rod (3) and a seated frame (including element 9), the front foot supporting rod and the rear foot supporting rod being pivotally connected to each other at a common axis, and the seated frame being directly connected to the front foot supporting rod; and
a lower leg resting assembly (1022) connected to the frame;
wherein
in a folded state of the frame, the lower leg resting assembly is configured as a carrying handle for lifting and pulling the frame (see the folded state in Fig. 6, where the lower leg resting assembly is located accessible for a user to grasp, thus enabling capability of use as a carrying handle), and
in an unfolded state, the lower leg resting assembly is pivotable relative to the seated plate (see the pivoting connection between the seat and the lower leg resting assembly).
Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 5-8.
Peng 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.
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 Fig. 7 from Peng.
Regarding claim 11, the combination further teaches: wherein the frame further comprises a handle (1); and wherein the front foot supporting rod and the rear foot supporting rod are pivotally connected to a bottom end of the handle. See Fig. 7 from Peng.
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. 7 from Peng.
Regarding claim 15, the combination further teaches: a handle (1); and a locking mechanism (B), wherein the front foot supporting rod and the rear foot supporting rod are pivotally connected to a bottom end of the handle by way of a locking mechanism. See Fig. 8 from Peng.
Regarding claim 16, the combination further teaches: wherein the front foot supporting rod and the rear foot supporting rod are directly pivotally connected to the bottom end of the handle by way of the locking mechanism. See Figs. 7-8 from Peng.
Regarding claim 17, the combination further teaches: a handle (1); and wherein the front foot supporting rod and the rear foot supporting rod are pivotally connected to a bottom end of the handle at the common axis. See Figs. 7-8 from Peng.
Regarding claim 18, the combination further teaches: wherein the front foot supporting rod and the rear foot supporting rod are directly pivotally connected to the bottom end of the handle at the common axis. See Figs. 7-8 from Peng.
Regarding claim 19, the combination further teaches: the front foot supporting rod and the rear foot supporting rod are pivotally connected to the bottom end of the handle at the common axis. See Figs. 7-8 from Peng.
Regarding claim 20, the combination further teaches: wherein the front foot supporting rod and the rear foot supporting rod are directly pivotally connected to the bottom end of the handle at the common axis. See Figs. 7-8 from Peng.
Regarding claim 21, the combination further teaches: wherein the seated plate comprises a plate body (see elements 92, 93 from Peng, and the plate from Zhong), a plate body support (91 from Peng), and a connector (6 from Peng), the plate body is on the plate body support, and the connector is coupled with the plate body support and directly connected to the front foot supporting rod. See especially Figs. 9, 10 from Peng.
Regarding claim 22, the combination further teaches: wherein the seated plate is directly connected to the front foot supporting rod by way of a connector (6). See especially Figs. 9, 10 from Peng.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng 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 6/17/2026 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' s remarks are made with regard to prior art no longer relied upon, and new interpretations of prior art previously relied upon, yielding new grounds of rejection.
Amendments to the claims necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection. Arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's arguments were made with respect to the claims, as amended, and have been rejected/addressed as provided above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights