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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Britton fails to disclose “wherein the at least two configurations differ from one another by: a height of the child receiving device, a centre of gravity or a component thereof, or a configuration of a horizontal extension” on pages 6-10. Britton discloses at least two configurations as seen in figures 3-5, with fig.3 showing a four-wheeled stroller mode; fig.4 showing a three-wheeled stroller mode; and fig.5 showing a towing trailer mode. The vehicle body 10 (fig.1) is adjustable via the pair of connectors 18 for accepting and retaining removable vehicle attachments, which adjusts the structure of the body 10 by attaching and detaching different components. The center of gravity and the components change between the configurations in figs.3-5. Fig.3 has the components of a casters 27 and side bumper 32; fig.4 has the components of arms 28, front bumper 30, and front wheel 216b; fig.5 has components of arm 29, front bumper 30, and caster wheels 27 attached upward. All of these configurations have at least a different component. With these components all attaching to the connectors 18 and none of the configurations in figure 3-5 being identical, the centers of gravity of each configuration would be inherently be different based on the different components attached in different ways. The horizontal extension and wheelbase of figs.3-5 are all different. Fig.3 shows a four-wheeled wheel base with a shorter wheelbase than fig.4, fig.4 shows a three-wheeled wheel base that is longer than wheelbase in fig.3, and finally fig.4 shows a two-wheeled wheel base in a towing mode. Also, based on the different attachments as seen below they have different horizontal extensions in the front. Also, fig.4 without having a front wheel contact the ground the height of the child transport system would be different as it would tilt more to have the arm (29) touch the ground, also wheels 27 and 216b in figs.3-4 are configured differently and could change the height of the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
548
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
341
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
408
648
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues claim 9 on page 11 that Staszak fails to disclose “that the head impact section has at least one recess and the recess is covered by a means of a cover”. Claim 9 depends from claim 1, but there is no “head impact section” or “recess” claimed in either claim and examiner is unclear what applicant is trying to argue as none of the limitations they point to are in any of the claims, making their arguments moot.
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 –
(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) 1-8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Britton (US 20080067787 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Britton discloses a child transport device system (child transport vehicle, figs.1-5), pram or child trailer or jogger system, for us in different modes (modes as seen in figures 3-5) for pushing or pulling transport of at least on child, comprising: a child receiving device (vehicle body 10 with cargo area 11, fig.1) for receiving the at least on child, which is adjustable in at least two configurations (configurations as seen in figures 3-5); and at least one connection device (casters 27, arms/forks 28, pull arm 29, figs.3-5), which is connectable to the child receiving device in at least one of the configurations of the child receiving device and is not connectable or is connectable only in an impeded manner to the child receiving device in at least one further configuration of the child receiving device (casters 27, arms/forks 28, and pull arm 29 are connectable to the body 10 via connectors 18 in some configurations and are not connectable in other configurations as seen in figs.1-5); wherein the at least two configurations differ from one another by: a height of the child receiving device (fig.4 without having a front wheel contact the ground the height of the child transport system would be different as it would tilt more to have the arm (29) touch the ground, also wheels 27 and 216b in figs.3-4 are configured differently and could change the height of the system, see response to arguments above), a centre of gravity or a component thereof (Fig.3 has the components of a casters 27 and side bumper 32; fig.4 has the components of arms 28, front bumper 30, and front wheel 216b; fig.5 has components of arm 29, front bumper 30, and caster wheels 27 attached upward, see response to arguments above), or a configuration of a horizontal extension (Fig.3 shows a four-wheeled wheel base with a shorter wheelbase than fig.4, fig.4 shows a three-wheeled wheel base that is longer than wheelbase in fig.3, and finally fig.4 shows a two-wheeled wheel base in a towing mode, all having different horizontal extensions in the front as seen in figures 3-5, see response to arguments above).
Regarding claim 2, Britton discloses in the at least one configuration in which the at least one connection device is not connectable or is connectable only in an impeded manner to the child receiving device, at least one further connection device is connectable to the child receiving device (casters 27, arms/forks 28, and pull arm 29 are connectable to the body 10 via connectors 18 in some configurations and are not connectable in other configurations as seen in figs.1-5).
Regarding claim 3, Britton discloses a transfer from the at least one configuration to the at least one further configuration is not possible when the at least one connection device is connected (forks/arms 28 and pull arm 29 are not connectable at the same time, figs.2a and 4-5, paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 4, Britton discloses wherein at least one connection structure (connectors 18, figs.1-5) of the child receiving device, to which the at least one connection device is connectable, is arranged in a front or lower region of the child receiving device (connectors 18 are on a lower front region of the body 10, fig.1).
Regarding claim 5, Britton discloses the child receiving device comprises at least one ground contact device (wheels 16/116, figs.1-5), at least one wheel, at least on rear wheel (wheels 16/116, figs.1-5), or a skid, or the at least one connection device comprises at least one ground contact device (casters 27, front wheel 216b, figs.3-4), including at least one wheel, at least one front wheel (casters 27, front wheel 216b, figs.3-4), or at least on skid, or a front wheel fork (support arm or fork 28, figs.4).
Regarding claim 6, Britton discloses wherein at least on connection device comprises a pull transmission device, including a pull bar (pull arm 29, fig.5), or is formed by such a device.
Regarding claim 7, Britton discloses wherein at least two of the configurations (figs.3-5) are distinguished by: the height of the child receiving device being a difference in a height of a pusher or a component thereof or a height of at least one wheel axle (figs.3-5 have different heights of the front wheel axle), or the horizontal extension differing with regard to a length or width ((Fig.3 shows a four-wheeled wheel base with a shorter wheelbase than fig.4, fig.4 shows a three-wheeled wheel base that is longer than wheelbase in fig.3, and finally fig.4 shows a two-wheeled wheel base in a towing mode, all having different horizontal extensions in the front as seen in figures 3-5, see response to arguments above), in particular a wheelbase ((Fig.3 shows a four-wheeled wheel base with a shorter wheelbase than fig.4, fig.4 shows a three-wheeled wheel base that is longer than wheelbase in fig.3, and finally fig.4 shows a two-wheeled wheel base in a towing mode, all having different horizontal extensions in the front as seen in figures 3-5, see response to arguments above) and a pusher configuration of a pusher or pusher component, wherein two pusher configurations preferably by an angle of the pusher relative to a main body of the child receiving device or an angle of two components of the pusher relative to each other or by a pusher length or pusher height (figs.3 shows a four-wheeled stroller mode, fig.4 shows a three-wheeled stroller mode having different wheel-bases and heights of front wheel axles as seen in figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, Britton discloses at least one connection structure (connectors 18, figs.1-5) of the child receiving device is configured for connecting completely or partially to a first connection device to the at least one connection device to a second connection device of the at least one connection device (casters 27, arms/forks 28, and pull arm 29 are connectable to the body 10 via connectors 18 in some configurations and are not connectable in other configurations as seen in figs.1-5).
Regarding claim 10, Britton discloses the child receiving device comprises: at least one seating or reclining device or at least one cabin for receiving at least one child or at least one frame or chassis which is adjustable for setting different configurations (body 10 has cargo area 11 and frame 12 adjustable for different configurations, figs.1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Britton discloses the system is configurable for at least two different applications, which differ in that the system is configured either for pulling by a bicycle or harness (configuration in fig.5 is configured to be pulled by bicycle via hitch ball 380), or for pushing by a walking person (configurations in figs.3-4 are configured to be pushed).
Regarding claim 12 as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C 112(b) issue discussed above, Britton discloses wherein at least two of the connection devices (casters 27, arms/forks 28, pull arm 29, figs.3-5) are different in that at least one connection devices has at least one ground contact device (casters 27 and front wheels 216b, figs.3-4) at least one wheel, front wheel (casters 27 and front wheels 216b, figs.3-4) or at least on skid or has at least one fastening device for fastening such a ground contact device and at least one connection device does not (pull arm 29, fig.5), or by a number or shaping or positioning of connection counter-structure for connection to at least one connection structure of the child receiving device or by a material or a length of a height or a width or a weight.
Regarding claim 13, Britton discloses the respective connections device comprises at least one connection counter-structure (connector arm 48 of the connection devices has pin 50 and button actuator 52 that slides into slot 46 and locks in aperture 48 of the connectors 18, fig.2a, paragraph [0028]) for connection to at least one connection structure of the child receiving device (fig.2a).
Regarding claim 14, Britton discloses wherein a connection of at least one connection device to the child receiving device is lockable (connector arm 48 of the connection devices has pin 50 that locks in aperture 48 of the connectors 18, fig.2a, paragraph [0028]), such that the connection can only be released by actuating a locking device (pin 50, aperture 48, buttom actuator 52, fig.2a) via actuating device, comprising a button (button actuator 52, fig.2a), knob, pusher, or lever.
Regarding claim 15, Britton discloses a method of configuring a child transport device using the child transport device system according to claim 1, wherein a single one or a sub-group of the connection devices (casters 27, arms/forks 28, pull arm 29, figs.3-5) is selected and connected to the child receiving device.
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) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britton (US 20080067787 A1) in view of Staszak (US 20060108766 A1).
Regarding claim 9 and 16, Britton discloses arms/forks (28, fig.2A and 4) that prevent/block pull arm (29, fig.2A and 5) from connecting to the connection structure (18, fig.2a and 4-5, paragraph [0028]), and pull arm (29, figs.2A and 5) prevent/block arms/forks (28, figs.2A and 4) from connecting to the connection structure (18, figs.2A and 4-5). Britton fails to disclose more than two connection devices where they all block/prevent the other one from being connected.
Staszak discloses tubular receivers (135a and 135b, figs.4-5) slidable receiving first wheel support (200a, fig.11), trailer tongue (400a), and a pair of caster assemblies (500 and 501, fig.14), with each one blocking the connection of the others from attaching to the connection structure (receivers 135a and 135b).
Britton and Staszak are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of child transport devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Britton with more than two connecting devices of Staszak with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have obvious that having different connecting devices makes the cart more versatile for different uses, and the connection device that is attached would prevent/block the other connecting devices from attaching to the same spot.
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 IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613