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 § 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 108820029 A).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a baby carriage brake mechanism (brake mechanism, figs.1-10) comprising: a frame (frame of the baby-car, figs.1-10), a brake drive assembly (rotating piece 223, connecting pipe 31, and brake pedal 32, and wire 33, figs.4-10), two linkage assemblies (push rods 222, figs.4-10) and two brake locks (brake block 112, figs.4-10), wherein: the brake drive assembly is on the frame (figs.4-10), the two linkage assemblies are on corresponding left and right sides of the frame (222, figs.4-10), both ends of the brake drive assembly are respectively in abutting connection with the two linkage assemblies (223 abuts 222, figs.4-10), the two brake locks are fixedly connected to the two linkage assemblies (112 is fixed to rods 222, figs.4-10), respectively, and in response to driving the brake drive assembly to rotate (pedal 32 and 223 rotates), the brake drive assembly is configured to push the two linkage assemblies to slide up and down (figs.4-10), so as to drive the two brake locks to move.
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses wherein: the brake drive assembly comprises a brake pedal (brake pedal 33, figs.4-10) and a drive member (223, figs.4-10), the brake pedal is fixedly connected to the drive member, the drive member is pivotally coupled to the frame (223 rotates, figs.4-10), both ends of the drive member are respectively in abutting connection with the two linkage assemblies (figs.4-10), and in response to driving the brake pedal to rotate together with the drive member, the drive member is configured to push the two linkage assemblies to slide up and down (223 pushes the push rods 222 up and down, figs.4-10).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses wherein: the drive member comprises a driving body (wires 33 in pipe 31, figs.4-10) and two driving parts (rotating piece 223, figs.4-10), the two driving parts are respectively protruding at both ends of the driving body, the two driving parts are respectively in abutting connection with the two linkage assemblies (223 abuts 222, figs.4-10), and in response to driving the drive member to rotate (pedal 32 and pieces 223 rotate, figs.4-10), the two driving parts are configured to push the two linkage assemblies to slide up and down (figs.4-10).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the baby carriage brake mechanism of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein: the drive member has a dodging slot (slot between rotating 223 piece to dodge the shaft 13, figs.4-10) along its rotation direction, which is used for dodging a protrusion in the frame.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 108820029 A) in view of Plested (US 20180043917 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses the baby carriage brake mechanism of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein: the brake pedal has at least two positioning slots, the frame has a bump, and in response to driving the brake pedal to rotate, the bump is configured to be engaged with one of the at least two positioning slots.
However, Plested disclose at least two positioning slots (grooves 96 and 98, figs.1-3), the frame has a bump (slots 130 with bumps 90 and 92, figs.1-3), and in response to driving the brake pedal to rotate, the bump is configured to be engaged with one of the at least two positioning slots (bumps 90 and 92 engage with grooves 96 and 98 when 42 is twisted, figs.1-3).
Li and Plested are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of baby carriages. 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 Li with the slots and bumps on rotating device and frame of Plested with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of guiding the rotating member via the slots and bumps.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 108820029 A) in view of Plested (US 20180043918 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses the baby carriage brake mechanism of claim 1 and a baby carriage (baby car, figs.1-10), but fails to disclose the baby carriage comprising: a seat part; and wherein the seat part is on the frame.
However, Plested disclose the baby carriage (10, fig.1) comprising: a seat part (40, fig.1); and wherein the seat part is on the frame (12, fig.1).
Li and Plested are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of baby carriages. 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 Li with the carriage and baby seat of Plested with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results having a child seat attached to the frame for a child to be transported safely and comfortably.
Regarding claim 15, Li in combination with Plested, Li discloses wherein: the frame comprises a frame body (body of the baby car, figs.1-10) and rotating parts (universal wheels 10 with rotating shaft 13, figs.1-10), and the rotating parts are pivotally connected to the frame body on corresponding left and right sides (figs.1-10).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 108820029 A) in view of Plested (US 20180043918 A1), and in further view of Yabuuchi (US 20180229751 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Li in combination with Plested discloses the baby carriage brake mechanism of claim 15, but fail to disclose further comprising a push and drift operating part and a rotation orientation assembly, wherein: the push and drift operating part is on the frame body, one end of the rotation orientation assembly is coupled to the push and drift operating part, and another end of the rotation orientation assembly is engaged between the frame body and a corresponding rotating part of the rotating parts, and in response to operating the push and drift operating part, the rotation orientation assembly is disengaged with the corresponding rotating part.
However, Yabuuchi teaches a push and drift operating part (lever 7, figs.1-2B), the push and drift operating part is disposed on the frame body (Lever 7 is disposed on the handle portion 6 of the frame body, fig.1), one end of the rotation orientation assemblies is coupled to the push and drift operating part (lever 7 couples to wires 85 through operation member 70 and operation area 60, wires 85 would couple to the rotation orientation assembly of Li, fig.10), and by operation of the push and drift operating part, the rotation orientation assembly is disengaged with the rotating part (operating lever 7 would engage and disengage the rotation orientation assembly by pulling on the wires 85, and Li teaches when the rotation assembly is operated it can engage and disengaged the rotating part to prevent swiveling of the wheel 12, page 5, paragraph 9 of the translated copy).
Li and Yabuuchi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of stroller braking mechanisms. 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 Li with the teachings of Yabuuchi and have a push and drift operating part control the rotation orientation assembly engagement with the rotating parts. Having a push and drift operating part on the handle of a stroller is known in the art to provide a quick and easy way to control different brake or folding mechanisms on a stroller without the user having to remove their hands from the handle, thereby providing the user with more control of the stroller while operating.
Regarding claim 17, Li in combination with Plested and Yabuuchi teaches wherein: the rotation orientation assembly comprises a second traction member (Yabuuchi, wires 85 are the traction member, figs.1-2B and 10) and an orienting member (Li, brake block 112, figs.6-7), one end of the second traction member is connected to and capable of being pulled by the push and drift operating part (Yabuuchi, wires 85 are capable of being pulled by the lever 7 by the rotation of rotating member 61, paragraph [0044]), and the other end of the second traction member is coupled to the orienting member (Yabuuchi, wires 85 extend down to the wheels as seen in figure 10, the wires 85 would connect to the push rod 221 of Li which is connected to the brake block 112, figs.6-7 of Li), and the orienting member is engaged between the frame body and the rotating part (Li, brake block 112 is engage between the frame body and the rotating part to prevent rotation of the wheels 12).
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 6-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 9-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11643128 in view of Makin (US 20220242472 A1) or Li (CN 111391910 A) or Zhang (CN 110171460 A) or Li (CN 108820029 A). Makin, Li, Zhang, and Li all disclose the brake drive assembly rotating.
Claims 6-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 12-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12024218 in view of Makin (US 20220242472 A1) or Li (CN 111391910 A) or Zhang (CN 110171460 A) or Li (CN 108820029 A). Makin, Li, Zhang, and Li all disclose the brake drive assembly rotating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
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