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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of wording in Line 1. Replacing “The adjustment mechanism” with “An adjustment mechanism” is suggested. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Further, applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: wording, throughout. The text “downward in the vertical direction” does not appear to accurately describe the claimed movement of the backrest portion. Replacing “downward in the vertical direction” (at least ten occurrences) with wording that more accurately describes the movement of the backrest (e.g., “downward into a deployed position”, “to a tilted position”, “downward”, “backward”, “to a rotated position”) is suggested.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: wording, throughout. A frame of reference for the term “up-down” is not provided in the Specification. Replacing “up-down direction” (at least 24 occurrences) with “up-down direction, wherein a top of the holder is defined by the unlock member and a bottom of the holder is defined by the adjustment mechanism body” is suggested.
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.
Claim 3 is 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. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Claim 3 recites the limitation “downward in the vertical direction” in Claim 3 to apparently describe the movement of the backrest presented in Fig. 1 parts “A” and “B”. This limitation appears to actually mean, for example, “downward to a deployed position”, “backward to a tilted position”, “downward”, “backward”, “backward to a rotated position” while the accepted meaning is “perpendicular to the plane of the horizon or to a primary axis” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vertical; accessed on January 28, 2026). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of this examination, “downward in the vertical direction” will be construed as “backward to a tilted position”.
Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 recites the limitation “up-down direction”; the frame of reference for this limitation is unclear. For the purposes of this examination, “up-down direction” will be construed as “up-down direction, wherein a top of the holder is defined by the unlock member and a bottom of the holder is defined by the adjustment mechanism body”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Popp (WO 2021111174 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Popp teaches child care equipment with a seat, the child care equipment [Popp Page 1, Lines 15-24: “In the context of a stroller with an adjustable backrest, the backrest adjustment is unlocked by pulling on part of the linkage, and then the backrest is adjusted by turning the toothed or knurled wheel. Because these two actions have to take place at the same time, an operator always needs two hands which is impractical, among other things, because the operator cannot devote himself to the child in question during this time.”] comprising: a body including a seat surface portion [Popp Page 13, Lines 25-30: “in the area between the backrest 3 and the relevant seat surface or the like, their distance from a construction can vary change only in an area spaced apart from this joint, and therefore the backrest 3 experiences an inclination adjustment about the relevant connecting axis.”], a backrest portion standing upward from a rear end of the seat surface portion and having a changeable tilt angle with respect to the seat surface portion, and an adjustment mechanism configured to change the tilt angle of the backrest portion [Popp Fig. 1, Reference Character 3; Popp Page 1, Lines 4-14: “a device for adjusting the height or the distance or the inclination of an object with respect to a structure with which it is slidably or pivotably coupled, for example as an adjustment device for the inclination of a backrest of a stroller with respect to its chassis”], wherein the adjustment mechanism includes a holder attached to a back surface of the backrest portion [Popp Fig. 1, Reference Character 4], a reel housed in the holder and supported by the holder so as to be rotatable in both forward and reverse directions [Popp Fig. 2, Reference Character 17], a cord connecting the body and the backrest portion and configured to change the tilt angle of the backrest portion as the reel winds up and lets out the cord [Popp Fig. 3, Reference Character 5], and a lock member housed in the holder and configured not to allow rotation of the reel [Popp Page 10, Line 30-Page 11, Line 10: It is possible to lock the actuator, in particular manually, in that the engagement element is withdrawn from the row of teeth of the winding body or away from the row of teeth. After releasing it, its built-in preload spring automatically pushes it back into the locked state.].
Regarding Claim 2, Popp teaches the child care equipment with a seat according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment mechanism further includes a biasing member configured to bias the reel in a wind-up direction in which the reel winds up the cord [Popp Page 10, Line 30-Page 11, Line 10: “It is possible to lock the actuator on this actuator solve, in particular manually, in that the engagement element is withdrawn from the row of teeth of the winding body or away from the row of teeth. After releasing it, its built-in preload spring automatically pushes it back into the locked state.”].
Regarding Claim 3, Popp teaches the child care equipment with a seat according to claim 2, wherein a biasing force of the biasing member is selected to be smaller than a biasing force of the backrest portion trying to move downward in a vertical direction [Popp Page 17, Lines 25-32: the winding body 17 for all conceivable angles of rotation is always biased in one direction of rotation and therefore strives to always wind the dream 5 completely onto the winding body 17 in a predetermined direction of rotation until the eyelets 11 or the fastening means 9 at the ends would abut the edges of the openings 11. In other words, the spiral spring 21 always tries to pull the eyelets 11 or the fastening means 9 at the end to the housing 4.”].
Regarding Claim 8, Popp teaches The child care equipment with a seat according to claim 1, wherein the biasing member is a spiral spring, and one end of the spiral spring is fixed to the reel, and the other end of the spiral spring is fixed to the holder [Popp Paragraph 21: The spring is preferably designed as a spiral spring. Such an embodiment has the advantage that the two ends of the spring then lie in the common spring plane and accordingly a housing or chassis is free from bending or twisting forces. The spring or spiral spring can - in particular for reasons of space - be arranged within the winding body. Due to their geometrical similarity, a spiral spring can be accommodated in a disk-shaped winding body, while a coil spring, for example, can also be accommodated in a drum-shaped winding body.].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popp (WO 2021111174 A1) in view of Stark et al. (DE 19835504 C2) (hereinafter “Stark”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 4, Popp teaches child care equipment comprising an adjustment mechanism but does not teach a one-way clutch. Stark teaches the child care equipment with a seat according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment mechanism further includes a one-way clutch mechanism configured to allow rotation of the reel in the wind-up direction in which the reel winds up the cord and not to allow rotation of the reel in a unwind direction in which the reel lets out the cord [Stark Figs. 4, 5, and 7, Reference Characters 39 and 41; Stark Column 8, Line 58-Column 9, Line 7: “The switching blocks 39 are shown here in the snap-in position, whereby they each abut an axial driving surface of the sliding blocks 40 and take them along with a drive in the direction of the arrow 47. The sliding blocks 40 are designed like ratchets with a ramp 41 falling in the direction of rotation 47.”]. It should be noted that while Stark’s invention is directed to a cutter head, it is regarded as analogous art in the present examination given that both Stark’s invention and the claimed invention comprising an adjustment mechanism comprised of a holder, a reel, a cord, a lock member, and an unlock member having the same general structure; both Stark’s invention and the claimed invention release cord through two oppositely arranged through-holes on a holder. It should be further noted that known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, F.). In the present case, design incentives and other market forces are evidenced by consistent chronological timewise implementation of improved cord control means [Kitayama et al. (US 5490685 A), Hsia (US 6471222 B1), Matsumoto (JP 2003095113 A), Yang et al. (US 20030052474 A1), Proulx (US 7275324 B2), Kim (KR 200483360 Y1), Li (CN 206606250 U), and He (CN 208585309 U)]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the adjustment mechanism to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a one-way clutch in view of Stark. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Popp and Stark because this would have achieved the desirable result of facilitating winding of the cord, as recognized by Stark [Stark Column 8, Line 49-column 9, Line 12: “The ramps 41 of the sliding blocks 40 enable easy winding of a replacement thread on the bobbin, the ramp tracks 41 engaging behind each of the adjacent switching block 39 during a corresponding rotational movement of the bobbin.”].
Regarding Claim 5, Popp teaches child care equipment comprising an adjustment mechanism but does not teach a pawl. Stark teaches the child care equipment with a seat according to claim 1, wherein the lock member includes an engaging pawl that is displaceable between a first position where the lock member is engaged with a portion that rotates with the reel so as not to allow the rotation of the reel and a second position where the lock member is disengaged from the portion that rotates with the reel so as to allow the rotation of the reel [Stark Fig. 5, Reference Characters 29 and 52]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the adjustment mechanism to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an engaging pawl in view of Stark. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Popp and Stark because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling relative movement of the bobbin and housing, as recognized by Stark [Stark Column 9, Lines 57-61: “the ramps 41 of the driver pawls 52 enable the relative movement of the bobbin 4 to the housing 3.”]. It should be noted that engaging pawls are essential elements of lock members of the type in the claimed invention and the use of engaging pawls is well known in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 6, Popp teaches child care equipment comprising an adjustment mechanism but does not teach an unlock member. Stark teaches the child care equipment with a seat according to claim 5, wherein the adjustment mechanism further includes an unlock member configured to bring the lock member to the second position to allow the reel to rotate freely [Stark Fig. 2, Reference Character 33]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the adjustment mechanism to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a unlock member in view of Stark. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Popp and Stark because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling rotation of the reel, as recognized by Stark [Stark Column 5, Lines 9-14: “overrides the drive connection of the coil body 4.”]. It should be noted that unlock members are essential elements of lock members of the type in the claimed invention and the use of unlock members in one-way clutch applications is well known in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 7, Popp teaches the child care equipment with a seat according to claim 6, wherein the unlock member is located so as to protrude from a lateral side surface of the holder [Popp Figs. 1-3, Reference Character 28; Popp Page 18, Lines 15-18: “an actuating element 28 which protrudes from the housing 4 of the device 1 and is therefore freely accessible. It enables the selection between an adjustment mode in which the spiral spring 21 is active, but the rotation of the winding body 17 is not inhibited”].
Regarding Claim 9, Popp teaches child care equipment comprising an adjustment mechanism but does not teach a reel and lock member located between the holder and the unlock member. Stark teaches The child care equipment with a seat according to claim 6, wherein the reel and the lock member are located between the holder and the unlock member, a rotation axis of the reel is perpendicular to the back surface of the backrest portion, the lock member is mounted so as to be displaceable between the first position and the second position in a radial direction of the reel, and the unlock member is mounted so as to be displaceable in a parallel relationship to the back surface of the backrest portion [Stark Figs. 2, 5, and 7, Reference Characters 4 (reel), 29 (lock member), and 3 (holder)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the adjustment mechanism to arrange, with a reasonable expectation of success, the reel and lock member between the holder and unlock member in view of Stark. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Popp and Stark because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling unwinding of the reel, as recognized by Stark [Stark Column 7, Lines 4-13: “For unwinding further rotation of the coil bobbin 4 drive shaft 2/housing 3 and the coil bobbin”]. It should be noted that the arrangement of a reel and a lock member between a holder and an unlock member in one-way clutch applications is well known in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 11, Popp teaches child care equipment comprising an adjustment mechanism but does not teach a lock member displaceable with a thickness of the reel. Stark teaches the child care equipment with a seat according to claim 9, wherein the lock member is mounted so as to be displaceable within a thickness of the reel [Stark Figs. 5 and 6, Reference Characters 4 and 5]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the adjustment mechanism to mount, with a reasonable expectation of success, a lock member so as to be displaceable with the reel in view of Stark. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Popp and Stark because this would have achieved the desirable result of optimizing the length of the cord, as recognized by Stark [Stark Column 4, Lines 54-62: “The cutting thread 10 can, if necessary, be unwound from the bobbin 4 in order to provide a cutting-effective end 14 of optimum length at all times”]. It should be noted that the arrangement of a mounting the locking member within the reel in one-way clutch applications is well known in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 12, Popp teaches the child care equipment with a seat according to claim 9, wherein the holder has a flat shape elongated in an up-down direction and extending along the back surface of the backrest portion, and has a through hole for passing the cord therethrough, the through hole is located at a lower position in the holder elongated in the up-down direction, and the unlock member has a shape elongated in the up-down direction and extending along the back surface of the backrest portion, and includes an operation portion located at an upper position in the unlock member [Popp Figs. 1-3].
Regarding Claim 10, Popp teaches child care equipment comprising an adjustment mechanism but does not teach a reel and lock member located between an inner plate portion and an outer plate portion. Stark teaches the child care equipment with a seat according to claim 6, wherein the holder includes an inner plate portion extending along the back surface of the backrest portion, the unlock member includes an outer plate portion extending in a parallel relationship to the inner plate portion, and the reel and the lock member are located between the inner plate portion and the outer plate portion [Stark Fig. 6, inner plate portion: outermost surface of holder, Reference Character 3; outer plate portion: innermost surface of holder, Reference Character 3 i.e., the surface that contacts Reference Character 13; reel: Reference Character 4; lock member: Reference Character 41]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the adjustment mechanism to locate, with a reasonable expectation of success, an inner plate and an outer plate in view of Stark. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Popp and Stark because this would have achieved the desirable result of optimizing cord length, as recognized by Stark [Stark Column 4, Lines 54-62: “The cutting thread 10 can, if necessary, be unwound from the bobbin 4 in order to provide a cutting-effective end 14 of optimum length at all times”]. It should be noted that the arrangement of a mounting the locking member within the reel in one-way clutch applications is well known in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613