DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/27/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 5/27/2025 amended claim 2. Claims 2-16 are currently pending herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2025 and 5/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 1-2 of the response, Applicant states: “Claim 2 recites “one or more seat attachment portions removably attached to the stroller frame.” Cheng does not teach or suggest at least this element of claim 2. In particular, the alleged seat attachment portions of Cheng (elements 410, 420 in reproduced FIG. 6 below) do not appear to be removably attached to the stroller frame, and instead move with respect to the stroller frame and each other when the stroller of Cheng is collapsed.”
Regarding these contentions, the Examiner maintains that the Cheng reference provides for the disputed claim limitations based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Specifically, as reiterated in the rejection below, element 410/420 was not cited for the “seat attachment portion” element in the rejection, and while the Cheng reference does not specifically recite that the cited components (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, unlabeled portion of seat 71) are "a seat attachment portion” they are removably attached to the stroller frame as clearly provided in the Cheng disclosure and cited figures (see below). Therefore, the cited components provide for the claimed limitations based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims (See, e.g., Cheng: Fig.4-8). It is not necessary for anticipation that the cited reference specifically label and recite each element in the reference relied upon when it is clear from the overall disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
239
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See above, one of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily interpret the disputed elements as restrictively as the Applicant argues. Moreover, Cheng provides: “FIGS. 4 to 8 show an alternative embodiment of the stroller frame of the present invention. Certain features differ from the first embodiment, including the lower support joint (4) upwardly extending with a pair of front extension arms (411) and a pair of rear extension arms (412), the front extension arms (411) and the pair of rear extension arms (412) having support bases (410) and (420), respectively, the support bases (410) and (420) being furnished at the ends for detachably securing at least one of a front seat (71) and a rear seat (72), respectively, as shown in FIG. 5” (See, e.g., Cheng: Fig.4-8, Col.3, Ln.21-30). It is clear from the Cheng disclosure that the elements recited form a “seat attachment portion’ on each seat 71/72 which is detachably secured to the stroller connector/housing elements 410/420 (See above annotated Cheng Figure 5) in the same manner as the claims recite below. Furthermore, Applicants are reminded, that “[t]he invention disclosed in [a] written description may be outstanding in its field, but the name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 47 USPQ 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Specifically, if Applicants believe that an invention has differences over the prior art, particularly regarding connections between the elements, Applicants must find a way to convey this argument in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See, e.g., In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species F (Fig.8A-H) in the reply filed on 3/11/2019 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,731,682. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-16 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent 11,731,682. In other words, claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent 11,731,682 fully encompasses the subject matter of claims 2-16 and therefore anticipate claims 2-16. Since claims 2-16 are anticipated by claims 1-16 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claims 1-16. Thus, the invention of claims 1-16 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of claims 2-16. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claims 2-16, are anticipated (fully encompassed) by claims 1-16 of the patent, claims 2-16 are not patentably distinct from claims 1-16, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1-16.
Claim Objections
The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Cheng (US 7,475,900 B2).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Cheng discloses: A convertible stroller (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8), for being converted from a single stroller to a double stroller (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8), the stroller comprising:
a stroller frame (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 3+4+5+10+etc.);
configured for being adjusted between a folded configuration and an unfolded configuration (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8), the stroller frame comprising: a handle portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 10); a front wheel support portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 31); and a back wheel support portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 32);
at least one front wheel (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 33) secured to the front wheel support portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8);
two rear wheels (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 34) secured to the back wheel support portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8);
a first seat (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 72) removably attached to the stroller frame (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8);
one or more seat attachment portions (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, unlabeled portion of seat 71) removably attached to the stroller frame (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 410); and
a second seat (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 71) removably attached to the one or more seat attachment portions (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8) and positioned in front of the first seat (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8); wherein at least one of the first seat and the second seat is configured for being removably attached to the stroller frame in both a forward-facing configuration and a backward-facing configuration (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8); and wherein the first seat and the second seat are positioned such that a center of gravity of the stroller is between the at least one front wheel and the two rear wheels (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Cheng discloses: wherein the second seat is positioned over the at least one front wheel (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Cheng discloses: wherein the first seat is positioned over the two rear wheels (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, Cheng discloses: wherein the first seat is positioned adjacent to the handle portion of the stroller frame (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, Cheng discloses: wherein the first seat is positioned nearer to the handle portion than the second seat (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, Cheng discloses: wherein the one or more seat attachment portions are removably attached to the front wheel support portion of the stroller frame (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, Cheng discloses: wherein the one or more seat attachment portions are positioned to support the second seat above the at least one front wheel (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, Cheng discloses: wherein the one or more seat attachment portions each comprise a seat connector (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 71+420) configured for connecting to the second seat (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Cheng discloses: wherein the one or more seat attachment portions comprise one or more first seat attachment portions (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 71) and the stroller further comprises one or more second seat attachment portions (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 410+420) connected to the stroller frame (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8); and wherein the first seat is removably attached to the one or more second seat attachment portions (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 11] Regarding Claim 11, Cheng discloses: wherein the one or more first seat attachment portions are removably attached to the stroller frame's front wheel support portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8), and wherein the one or more second seat attachment portions are connected to the stroller frame adjacent to the frame's handle portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, Cheng discloses: wherein the first seat is configured for being attached to the stroller frame in a forward-facing configuration and a backward-facing configuration (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 13] Regarding Claim 13, Cheng discloses: wherein the at least one front wheel comprises two front wheels (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 33) secured to the front wheel support portion of the stroller frame (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 14] Regarding Claim 14, Cheng discloses: wherein the second seat is configured for being attached to the one or more seat attachment portions in a forward-facing configuration and a backward-facing configuration (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 15] Regarding Claim 15, Cheng discloses: wherein the first seat is configured for being removably attached to the stroller frame at a first vertical position (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8), and the second seat is configured for being removably attached to the one or more seat attachment portions at a second vertical position that is below the first vertical position (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 16] Regarding Claim 16, Cheng discloses: wherein the handle portion and the front wheel support portion are parallel when the stroller frame is in the unfolded configuration (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
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.
/JAMES M DOLAK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618.
Prosecution Insights