DETAILED ACTION
This is on the merits of Application No. 18/682249, filed on 02/08/2024. Claims 1-24 are pending. 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 (IDS), submitted on 02/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The “engagement means” of claim 4 is interpreted as an engagement projection, pin, stud, or any equivalent thereof.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitation “and/or.” Because each claim can only be drawn to one invention, alternative options must be listed as “at least one of X and Y.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 states “wheels… a drive which is drive-connected to at least one of the wheels, and a braking device for at least one wheel… a braked state with at least one braked wheel… wherein the wheel braked by the braking device”. It is unclear how all these “wheel” terms relate to each other in the claim, making it grammatically confusing and unclear. It appears the “at least one wheel” should tie back to the already established “wheels” or the already established “at least one wheel”. Further, “the wheel braked by the braking device” only ties back to one wheel when it is “at least one braked wheel”. The claims should use consistent language when referencing previously established elements.
The same applies to claim 16.
Claim 3 states “wherein the braking device has several braking positions at different wheel angle positions, each of which enables the rotation, which is limited in both wheel circumferential directions, of the braked wheel.” It is unclear how the braking device can have multiple braking positions at different wheel angle positions. This would mean each wheel angle position has multiple braking positions. A review of the specification shows that there are several braking positions positioned around the circumference, so there would be several braking positions with each braking position at different wheel angle positions. Further, “the rotation” lacks antecedent basis. Is this trying to refer to the limited extent of rotation of claim 1?
Claim 4 states “in particular”. It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 states “in particular”. It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 states “the pin receptacle extends in a longitudinal direction along a partial circumference of a wheel”. This is a double inclusion as “wheels” have already been established in claim 1. Is this a new wheel? If this is the same wheel the braking device is for, the claim should reference back to it accordingly.
Claim 8 states “in particular”. It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 states “in particular”. It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 states “in particular”. It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 states “in particular”. It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 states “in particular”. It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The remainder of the claims are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-13, 15-18, 20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2020076227 to Andersson (cited in applicant’s IDS).
Andersson discloses:
(Claim 1) A pram (100) with a frame (Fig. 1) which has a pusher (130) and wheels (111, 112) for driving the pram, a drive (152) which is drive-connected to at least one of the wheels, and a braking device (230) for at least one wheel, which is transferable into a driving state with free wheel rotation (231 disengaged) and into a braked state with at least one braked wheel (231 engaged), wherein the drive is actuable for an automatic rocking function of the pram, and wherein the wheel braked by the braking device can be rotated to a limited extent in both wheel circumferential directions in the braked state (Abstract, when engaged can move between 5 and 20 cm) for automatic rocking of the pram (Pg. 6 ln 11-28).
(Claim 2) wherein the braking device comprises a parking brake (Pg. 18 ln 10-12, can be used as a parking brake).
(Claim 3) wherein the braking device has several braking positions at different wheel angle positions, each of which enables the rotation, which is limited in both wheel circumferential directions, of the braked wheel (see Fig. 3 different wheel positions allow for 231 to engage different engagement holes 232).
(Claim 4) wherein the braking device has an engagement means (231) and/or an engagement recess (232), in particular an engagement opening, which interact/interacts with a corresponding engagement opening or a corresponding engagement means of the respective wheel for braking.
(Claim 5) wherein an inner circumference of the engagement recess, in particular engagement opening, is larger than an outer circumference of the engagement means in order to form a play in the wheel circumferential direction (see Fig. 3 232 is larger than 231).
(Claim 6) wherein the engagement means comprises a pin (231) and the engagement recess, in particular engagement opening, comprises a corresponding pin receptacle (232), wherein the pin receptacle has a length which is greater than the pin diameter (see Fig. 3).
(Claim 7) wherein the pin receptacle extends in a longitudinal direction along a partial circumference of a wheel (see Fig. 3 232).
(Claim 8) wherein the drive has at least one motor (152), in particular an electric motor, at least one energy source (156), in particular a battery or accumulator, at least one sensor (9) and/or a control unit (150).
(Claim 9) wherein the motor is arranged on a rear axle of the frame or is a hub motor (see Fig. 1).
(Claim 10) wherein the drive or a part of the drive, in particular comprising the motor and/or the accumulator, is a removable module (Pg. 9 ln 29-Pg. 10 ln 13, can be a standalone product retrofit onto other prams).
(Claim 11) wherein the control unit is designed for analysing detected data and controlling the motor (Page 10 ln 29- Page 11 ln 2).
(Claim 12) wherein the control unit is configured in such a way that a braked state of the pram is detected, upon actuation of the rocking function rocking distance of the pram is automatically moved back and forth by the drive, and a beginning and an end of the rocking distance are each limited by a blockade of at least one wheel (see pg 9 ln 1-ln 26, rocking function moves brake into engaged state and performs rocking automatically using motor. Beginning and end are limited by 232).
(Claim 13) wherein the control unit is configured in such a way that a power of the drive is increased after the start beginning of the rocking distance and reduced before the end of the rocking distance (see Pg. 19 ln 11-31, driving directions and driving speeds are selected for various rocking drive patterns. The amplitude is controlled to be smaller than the freedom of rotary movement amplitude defined by the brake. In order for this to occur, the speed must be reduced before the end of the rocking distance or else the amplitude defined by the brake would be met).
(Claim 15) wherein the control unit is configured in such a way that a power of the drive is changed reciprocally each time the rocking distance is travelled (See Pg. 19 ln 11-16, drives forward a certain distance then drives the opposite direction a certain distance, and so on, indefinitely).
(Claim 16) A frame (Fig. 1) for a pram, which has a pusher and wheels for driving the frame, a drive which is drive-connected to at least one of the wheels, and a braking device for at least one wheel, which is transferable into a driving state with free wheel rotation and into a braked state with at least one braked wheel, wherein the drive is actuable for an automatic rocking function of the frame, wherein the wheel braked by the braking device is rotatable to a limited extent in both wheel circumferential directions in the braked state for automatic rocking of the frame (see claim 1 above).
(Claim 17) A method for automatically rocking a pram with a rocking function (Pg. 19 ln 11-31), in particular a pram according to claim 1, in which a braked state of the pram is detected (see pg 9 ln 1-ln 26, rocking function moves brake into engaged state and performs rocking automatically using motor. Beginning and end are limited by 232), a rocking distance of the pram is automatically moved back and forth by a drive (152) upon actuation of the rocking function (Pg. 19 ln 11-31, motor moves back and forth), and a beginning and an end of the rocking distance are each limited by a blockage of at least one wheel (Pg. 9 ln 1-26, Beginning and end are limited by 232).
(Claim 18) wherein a power of the drive is increased after the beginning of the rocking distance section and is reduced before the end of the rocking distance (see Pg. 19 ln 11-31, driving directions and driving speeds are selected for various rocking drive patterns. The amplitude is controlled to be smaller than the freedom of rotary movement amplitude defined by the brake. In order for this to occur, the speed must be reduced before the end of the rocking distance or else the amplitude defined by the brake would be met).
(Claim 20) wherein a power of the drive is reduced to zero after a holding time after the end of the rocking distance has been reached (Pg. 21 ln 9-13, propels a rocking distance and then stops, thus the power is reduced to zero).
(Claim 22) wherein a power of the drive is changed reciprocally each time the rocking distance is travelled (See Pg. 19 ln 11-16, drives forward a certain distance then drives the opposite direction a certain distance, and so on, indefinitely).
(Claim 23) wherein a length of the rocking distance is adjusted or set to different sizes (Pg. 19 ln 11-31, can set different rocking distances).
(Claim 24) wherein a length of the rocking distance is automatically adjusted to shorter or longer rocking distances during a rocking period (Pg. 19 ln 11-31, a series of programs can be implemented where various driving distances can be established).
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.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson.
Andersson discloses:
The limitations of claims 12 and 17.
The amplitude is controlled to be smaller than the freedom of rotary movement amplitude defined by the brake. (Pg. 19 ln 11-31, In order for this to occur, the speed must be reduced before the end of the rocking distance or else the amplitude defined by the brake would be met).
Andersson does not explicitly disclose:
(Claim 14) wherein the control unit is configured in such a way that a power of the drive is reduced after 20%-80%, in particular 30%-60%, for example 50%, of the rocking distance.
(Claim 19) wherein the power of the drive is reduced after 20%-80%, in particular 30%-60%, for example approximately 50% of the rocking distance.
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, the control of Andersson to reducer the power of the drive after 20%-80% of the rocking distance since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. Andersson will have to reduce the power at some point in order to avoid reaching the amplitude defined by the brake. Andersson also teaches different drive patterns that can be established using different combinations of driving distances, accelerations, and driving speeds. One of ordinary skill would be able to find the optimal time to reduce the power of the drive during routine testing and general experimental conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY HANNON whose telephone number is (571)270-1943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/TIMOTHY HANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655