Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/584,641

CHILD STROLLER APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 22, 2024
Examiner
GURARI, EREZ
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Wonderland Switzerland AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
729 granted / 932 resolved
+26.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
948
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.1%
+6.1% vs TC avg
§102
35.4%
-4.6% vs TC avg
§112
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 932 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 21, 31-32, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowd et al. (US 2015/0197268) in view of Yeh (US 2008/0079240). In re claims 21 and 32, Dowd teaches a rear leg frame having a first side segment (20); a front leg frame having a second side segment (26); a handle frame having a third side segment (228) and a grip portion (31), the second side segment being connected pivotally with the first side segment for rotation about a first pivot axis and the third side segment being connected pivotally with the first side segment for rotation about a second pivot axis spaced from the first pivot axis (figs. 3-4); and a linking member (32) rotationally coupled to the second side segment for rotation about a third pivot axis spaced from the first pivot axis, the linking member being rotationally coupled to the third side segment for rotation about a fourth pivot axis spaced from the second pivot axis so that the handle frame and the front leg frame rotate in unison relative to the rear leg frame (figs. 9, 11). Dowd differs in that it does not teach the grip portion being pivotally connected to the third side segment so that the grip portion is rotatable relative to the third side segment between an unfolded position and a folded position. Attention, however, is directed to Yeh which teaches a grip portion being pivotally connected to the third side segment so that the grip portion is rotatable relative to the third side segment between an unfolded position and a folded position (figs. 1, 7). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Dowd with the articulating grip of Yeh in order to allow for folding into a more compact configuration. In re claim 31, Yeh further teaches a spring biasing the grip (56) toward the folded portion (par. 35 – “different angles”). In re claim 36, Dowd further teaches the linking member operates so that the front leg and the handle frame are rotatable in unison relative to the rear leg frame during folding and unfolding of the child stroller apparatus (figs. 9, 11). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 22-30, 33-35 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. Claims 37-46 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the limitations directed to “a locking part carried with the third coupling part, the locking part being engaged with the first coupling part for locking the rear and front leg frames and the handle frame in an unfolded state; a latching mechanism operable to lock and unlock the grip portion with respect to the third side segment; and a linking part coupling the locking part to the grip portion so that a folding rotation of the grip portion relative to the third side segment causes the locking part to move and disengage from the first coupling part for unlocking the rear and front leg frames and the handle frame, thereby allowing folding of the child stroller apparatus” is neither anticipated by nor obvious over the prior art. For example, attention is directed to Dowd, as discussed above. However, Dowd fails to teach the above referenced limitations. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EREZ GURARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-6:30PM. 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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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. /EREZ GURARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600395
MULTI CHILD STROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594857
SYSTEM SOLUTION FOR TWO-PHASE ELECTRIC MACHINE USED FOR VEHICLE PROPULSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594829
ELECTRIC WORK VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590439
WORKING VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589727
ENERGY CONTROL METHOD AND SYSTEM OF LIFT TRUCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+10.1%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 932 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month