DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 2/29/2024 has been fully considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 9, 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.
Regarding claim 3, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection below.
However, Dziak does not teach wherein each of the openings are at least partially defined on a first side by a first side wall of the respective first arch, wherein each of the first side walls at least partially tapers in towards the respective openings. This is one of a number of structural differences between inventor’s application and the prior art, in regards to the openings. Additional searching was done to identify references that could teach the openings more in line with the application generally, and with the structure of claim 3 specifically. No reference was found that could teach the opening better than Dziak was found. Thus, no reference or combination of references were found that could teach all the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Dziak does not teach the canopy of claim 3, as set forth above. Thus, at least by merit of its dependency, claim 4 is allowable but objected to.
Regarding claim 9, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 8, as set forth in the anticipation rejection below.
However Dziak does not teach wherein the opening comprises a circle. This is one of a number of structural differences between inventor’s application and the prior art, in regards to the openings. Additional searching was done to identify references that could teach the openings more in line with the application generally, and with the structure of claim 9 specifically. No reference was found that could teach the opening better than Dziak was found. Thus, no reference or combination of references were found that could teach all the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 18, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 14, as set forth in the anticipation rejection below.
However, Dziak does not teach wherein each of the openings are at least partially defined on a first side by a first side wall of the respective first arch, wherein each of the first side walls at least partially taper in towards the respective opening. This is one of a number of structural differences between inventor’s application and the prior art, in regards to the openings. Additional searching was done to identify references that could teach the openings more in line with the application generally, and with the structure of claim 18 specifically. No reference was found that could teach the opening better than Dziak was found. Thus, no reference or combination of references were found that could teach all the limitations of claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, 11-12, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Dziak (US20220111882A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dziak teaches a canopy configured to be attached to a child transport product, the canopy comprising: a first and a second canopy rotation structures (taught by figure 7A), each comprising a first arch and a second arch, each of the first arches are rotatable relative to the respective second arch (406, and 410 “forward upper tube plate,” and “rear upper tube plate” taught in figure 4), wherein the first and the second canopy rotation structures each have an opening configured for grasping (116 “slidable release grip” taught by figures 2 and 3A), each of the openings being at least partially defined by the respective first arch (taught by figure 4); a first canopy wing extending between each of the first arches; and a second canopy wing extending between each of the second arches (taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dziak also teaches wherein each of the first and the second canopy rotation structures further comprise a central arch, wherein each of the central arches are positioned between the respective first arch and the respective second arch (416 “hub spacer plate” taught with part of it between the first and second arch in figures 4 and 5), wherein each of the central arches are configured to be attached to the child transport product (taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dziak also teaches wherein the first arch of the first canopy rotation structure faces away from the second canopy rotation structure and wherein the first arch of the second canopy rotation structure faces away from the first canopy rotation structure (taught by figures 4 and 7A).
Regarding claim 6, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dziak also teaches wherein each of the first arches and the second arches are contiguously arranged in a horizontal orientation (taught by figures 4 and 7A).
Regarding claim 7, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dziak also teaches wherein the first and second canopy wings comprise a textile portion at least partially extending between the first and second canopy wings (taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Dziak teaches a canopy configured to be attached to a child transport product, the canopy comprising: a first and a second canopy rotation structures (taught by figure 7A), each comprising a first arch and a second arch, each of the first arches are rotatable relative to the respective second arch (406, and 410 “forward upper tube plate,” and “rear upper tube plate” taught in figure 4), wherein the first canopy rotation structure has an opening configured for grasping (116 “slidable release grip” taught by figures 2 and 3A), the opening being at least partially defined by the first arch of the first canopy rotation structure (taught by figure 4); a first canopy wing extending between each of the first arches; and a second canopy wing extending between each of the second arches (taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 8, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dziak also teaches wherein the opening comprises an indentation extending at least partially through the first arch (taught by figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 12, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 8, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dziak also teaches wherein the first arch of the first canopy rotation structure faces away from the second canopy rotation structure (taught by figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, Dziak teaches a child transport product comprising: a child transport frame defining a first side and a second side (taught by figure 1), the frame coupled to wheels (taught by figure 1);
a first and a second canopy rotation structures (taught by figure 7A), each comprising a first arch and a second arch, each of the first arches are rotatable relative to the respective second arches (406, and 410 “forward upper tube plate,” and “rear upper tube plate” taught in figure 4), wherein the first and the second canopy rotation structure each have an opening configured for grasping (116 “slidable release grip” taught by figures 2 and 3A), each of the openings being at least partially defined by the respective first arch (taught by figure 4), wherein the first canopy rotation structure attaches to the first side and the second canopy rotation structure attaches to the second side (taught by figures 1 and 4);
a first canopy wing extending between each of the first arches; and a second canopy wing extending between each of the second arches (taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 14, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dziak also teaches wherein the child transport frame comprises a first frame portion movable relative to a second frame portion (taught by figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 14, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dziak also teaches wherein each of the first and the second canopy rotation structures further comprise a central arch, wherein each of the central arches are positioned between the respective first and second arches (416 “hub spacer plate” taught with part of it between the first and second arch in figures 4 and 5), wherein the central arch of the first canopy rotation structure attaches to the first side, and wherein the central arch of the second canopy rotation structure attaches to the second side (taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 14, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dziak also teaches wherein the first arch of the first canopy rotation structure faces away from the second canopy rotation structure and wherein the first arch of the second canopy rotation structure faces away from the first canopy rotation structure (taught by figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 20, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 14, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dziak also teaches wherein each of the first and second canopy rotation structures are removably coupled to the child transport frame (taught by figure 7A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 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) 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dziak (US20220111882A1) in view of Ezquerra (US 3290050 A).
Regarding claim 10, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 8, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dziak does not teach wherein the opening comprises a through hole extending through the both the first arch and the second arch of the first canopy rotation structure.
Ezquerra teaches wherein the opening comprises a through hole extending through the both the first arch and the second arch of the first canopy rotation structure (8 “apertures” taught by figure 2 and paragraph 22 “Of course, the apertures 8 formed through the side walls may also 'be used as gripping means for transporting the stand”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the opening of Dziak to be a through hole as taught by Ezquerra, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because when an opening configured for grasping is a through hole it allows a user to wrap their hand all the way around the top surface of the aperture, thus enabling better grip.
Regarding claim 15, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 14, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dziak does not teach wherein each of the openings comprise a through hole extending through the respective first and second arches.
Ezquerra teaches wherein each of the openings comprise a through hole extending through the respective first and second arches (8 “apertures” taught by figure 2 and paragraph 22 “Of course, the apertures 8 formed through the side walls may also 'be used as gripping means for transporting the stand”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the opening of Dziak to be a through hole as taught by Ezquerra, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because when an opening configured for grasping is a through hole it allows a user to wrap their hand all the way around the top surface of the aperture, thus enabling better grip.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dziak (US20220111882A1).
Regarding claim 13, Dziak teaches the canopy of claim 8, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dziak does not explicitly teach wherein the inner diameter of the opening is at least 50 millimeters. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the inner diameter of the opening at least 50 milimeters, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (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 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights