DETAILED ACTION
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 statements filed on 2/15/2024, and 6/27/2025 have been fully considered.
Priority
The foreign priority claims to AU2021105445 and AU2021215278 filed on 8/13/2021 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to for minor informalities.
Regarding claim 4, this claim includes the limitation “is formed form durable and hard material.” It is clear that this is a typographical error and for the sake of compact prosecution, “form,” is treated as “from,” in the rejections below. Claim 4 also includes the limitation, “plastics material. is molded.” The period is inappropriate because claims must be written as a single sentence, however this is also clearly a typographical error. Thus for the sake of compact prosecution the claim is treated as saying “plastics material, is molded.” Corrections are 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 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, this claim includes a limitation “a pair of handles opposed.” However, this claim also depends on claim 5 which includes the limitation “at least one handle extending from at least one of the shells” It is not clear if the pair of handles and the at least one handle are related. Correction is required. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 6 is treated below as though one of the pair of handles is the at least one handle, and the other handle of the pair is a different handle.
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 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.
(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) 1-9, 12-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20180146757 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage including a pair of shells for collapsing together (18a and 18b “the top and bottom halves” taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches able to be converted into a suitcase for straightforward and safe transport, the suitcase optionally being a wheeled suitcase (taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches wherein the shells are pivotally fastened together, the uncollapsed shells including an upper shell and a lower shell (18a and 18b “the top and bottom halves” taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches wherein each shell is formed from durable and hard material which resists breakage, preferably plastics material, is molded, preferably injection molded (taught by paragraph 32 “It is contemplated that the top and bottom halves 18a, 18b may comprise rugged material such as thermoplastic”); and/or
each shell has an arcuate major face (taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches wherein the infant carriage includes at least one handle extending from at least one of the shells (16 “telescoping handle” taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 5, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches including a pair of handles opposed extending from respective shells (16 “telescoping handle” and 42 “engagement device” taught by figure 1), each handle being retractable and/or height- adjustable (taught by figures 2a, 2b, and 3).
Regarding claim 7, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches further including a rear wheel mount (33 “rotating member” taught in figure 1) to which one or more rear wheels are fastened (14 “one or more wheels” taught by figure 1 and paragraph 37 “one or more wheels 14, may rotate inward, such as from rotating member 33”).
Regarding claim 8, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches the wheel mount: is pivotally mounted to the shells extends obliquely from a hinge connecting the shells (taught by figures 2A and 2B); and/or receives the collapsed shells (taught by figures 2A, 2B, and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches wherein the rear wheels are releasable and can be stored in the collapsed shells (figure 2A, 2B, and figure 4), and/or
the carriage includes one or more releasable front wheels pivotally mounted to a lower one of the shells.
Regarding claim 12, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches further including a retractable canopy shelter for retracting into an upper one of the shells, the retractable canopy shelter including nesting or concertinaed segments (36 “a shade” taught by figures 1 and 2B).
Regarding claim 13, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches further including:
a pair of side shelters each including one or more pivoting frames supporting flaccid sheet material (40 “protective sides” taught by figures 1, 2A, and 2B), and/or
a restraint for restraining the pivoting of the shells beyond a maximum limit (28 “hinge” taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches wherein the carriage further includes a reclining backrest for extending from an upper one of the shells (32 “back cushion” taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 14, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches wherein the backrest is retractable and extends rearwardly when the shells are uncollapsed (taught by figure 1), the backrest including a pivotable panel (32 “back cushion” taught by figure 1), and a pair of flanks extending from the panel (40 “protective sides” taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches wherein the carriage includes a seat which is pivotally mounted to the shells (12 “seat assembly” taught by figures 1, 2A, and 2B) and/or
a footrest (38 “footrest” taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 18, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches wherein the seat and footrest may include flaccid sheet material (taught by paragraphs 33 “The seat assembly 12 may take a variety of forms comprising a variety of materials, such as those made from natural and synthetic fibers” and 38 “One skilled in the art will recognize that materials comprising the seat assembly 12 may vary and even be chosen for their particular flexibility and even compressibility.”)
Regarding claim 20, Singh teaches a method for collapsing an infant carriage, the method including collapsing a pair of shells together (18a and 18b “the top and bottom halves” taught by figures 1-3).
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 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.
Claim(s) 10-11, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20180146757 A1) in view of Rajvansh (US 11510466 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh also teaches a retractable storage compartment for extending from a lower one of the shells (20b “hollow cavities” taught by figure 1 and by paragraph 35 “In some embodiments, hollow cavities 20a, 20b defined by the top and bottom halves 18a, 18b of the shell 10, may be operative to receive paraphernalia such as any toys, food, clothing, diapers, wipes, bottles, blankets and other goods”)
However, Singh does not teach the storage compartment able to be readily accessed when the shells are collapsed.
Rajvansh teaches a retractable storage compartment for extending from a lower one of the shells, the storage compartment able to be readily accessed when the shells are collapsed (672 “compartment” taught by figures 5, and 6).
Therefore, 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 the retractable storage compartment of Singh to be readily accessed when the shells are collapsed as taught by Rajvansh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because being able to access the storage area without transforming the carriage makes it easier to use it for storage and as a suitcase.
Regarding claim 11, Singh in view of Rajvansh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 10, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Singh also teaches wherein the storage compartment includes a pivotable panel (32 “back cushion” taught by figure 1), and a pair of flanks extending from the panel (40 “protective sides” taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Singh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Singh does not teach a fastener for fastening the collapsed shells together so that the interior is protected from dirt and/or weather.
Rajvansh teaches a fastener for fastening the collapsed shells together so that the interior is protected from dirt and/or weather (152 “opening mechanism” taught by figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the fastener taught by Rajvansh onto the shells of Singh, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because fastening the pair of shells when the carriage is collapsed allows the collapsed carriage to be used for storage without risking items stored therein spilling out.
Regarding claim 17, Singh in view of Rajvansh teaches a collapsible infant carriage as claimed in claim 16, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Rajvansh also teaches wherein the fastener includes a zip extending along a perimeter of the shells and/or a clip for clipping free ends of the shells together (taught by column 5 lines 54-56 “an opening mechanism 152 such as a zipper, one or more latches, one or more buttons, one or more hooks, or the like”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613