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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary amendment of disclosure filed on 3/26/2024 has been entered. Accordingly, the amended disclosure is being considered by the examiner.
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, 5-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2017/0144687, hereinafter Li).
In regards to Claim 1, Li discloses in Figures 3 and 9-11, a baby carriage (1) having an unfolded state (Fig. 3) and a folded state (Fig. 11), and comprising: a handle (11); a front leg (12); and a rear leg (13), wherein the handle, the front leg and the rear leg are pivotable to the unfolded state (Fig. 3) or the folded state (Fig. 11) with respect to each other (see Figs. 3 and 11), wherein the handle (11) comprises a handle upper joint (111) and a handle lower joint (112), and the handle upper joint (111) and the handle lower joint (112) are pivotable to the unfolded state (Fig. 3) or the folded state (Fig. 11) with respect to each other (see Figs. 3 and 11), and wherein the baby carriage (1) further comprises a limiting part (175), and in the folded state (Fig. 11) the limiting part (175) prevents the handle upper joint (111) from pivoting towards the unfolded state (Par. [0051]).
In regards to Claim 2, Li discloses in Figures 3 and 9-11, further comprising a first canopy bracket (illustrated in Fig. 3), and the first canopy bracket and the handle upper joint pivot together along a same pivot axis (see Fig. 3).
In regards to Claim 3, Li discloses in Figures 3 and 9-11, the handle upper joint (111) comprises a first pivoting part (171), the handle lower joint (112) comprises a second pivoting part (172), the limiting part (175) is provided on the first pivoting part (171), and in the folded state (Fig. 11), the limiting part (175) blocks an edge of the second pivoting part (via 173, 174, Par. [0049-0051]) to prevent the first pivoting part from pivoting towards the unfolded state with respect to the second pivoting part (Par. [0051]).
In regards to Claim 5, Li discloses in Figures 3 and 9-11, wherein the limiting part (175) is formed as a projection (with 173, see Fig. 9), and the second pivoting part has an unfolding groove (instance of 1722), a folding groove (another instance of 1722) and a limiting hole (for 173 therein), wherein in the unfolded state (Fig. 3), the projection is located in the unfolding groove (said groove is considered the unfolding groove, there being no further details of said groove), and during pivoting from the unfolded state to the folded state (Figs. 3 and 11), the projection enters into the limiting hole through the folding groove (such being considered the case allowing the operability of 175 with 173 and 1722, see Fig. 9).
In regards to Claim 6, Li discloses in Figures 3 and 9-11, wherein the unfolding groove and the folding groove are formed at an edge of the second pivoting part (both inner edge of 172, see Fig. 9), and the projection is formed at an edge of the first pivoting part (175 with 173 is at inner edge of 171, see Fig. 9).
In regards to Claim 7, Li discloses in Figures 3 and 9-11, wherein the handle upper joint (111) comprises a first pivoting part (171), the handle lower joint (112) comprises a second pivoting part (172), the second pivoting part (172) is provided with a limiting part (1722), and in the folded state (Fig. 11), the limiting part blocks the first pivoting part (171) from pivoting towards the unfolded state with respect to the second pivoting part (Par. 0051]).
In regards to Claim 9, Li discloses in Figures 3 and 9-11, wherein the limiting part is formed as a projection (in between grooves of 1722), and the first pivoting part has an unfolding groove (between instances of 1732), a folding groove (between other instances of 1732) and a limiting hole (space between instances of 132), wherein in the unfolded state (Fig. 3), the projection is located in the unfolding groove (such being considered the case allowing the operability, see Fig. 9, Par. [0047])), and during pivoting from the unfolded state to the folded state (Figs. 3 and 11), the projection enters into the limiting hole through the folding groove (such being considered the case allowing the operability, see Fig. 9, Par. [0047])).
In regards to Claim 10, Li discloses in Figures 3 and 9-11, wherein the unfolding groove and the folding groove (instances between 1732) are formed at an edge of the first pivoting part (at inner edge of 171), and the projection is formed at an edge of the second pivoting part (in between grooves of 1722 formed at inner edge of 172).
In regards to Claim 11, Li discloses in Figures 3 and 9-11, each of the first pivoting part (171) and the second pivoting part (172) respectively has two plate parts (parts of 171 and 172 on either side of 111 and 112 respectively, see Fig. 9), and there is a gap between the two plate parts of each of the first pivoting part and the second pivoting part (for 111 and 112 respectively, see Fig. 9), and the two plate parts of the first pivoting part and the two plate parts of the second pivoting part (parts of 171 and 172 on either side of 111 and 112 respectively, see Fig. 9) are staggered and at least partially overlapped with each other (see Figs 3 and 9).
In regards to Claim 12, Li discloses in Figures 3 and 9-11, each of the first pivoting part (171) and the second pivoting part (172) respectively has two plate parts (parts of 171 and 172 on either side of 111 and 112 respectively, see Fig. 9), and there is a gap between the two plate parts of each of the first pivoting part and the second pivoting part (for 111 and 112 respectively, see Fig. 9), and the two plate parts of the first pivoting part and the two plate parts of the second pivoting part (parts of 171 and 172 on either side of 111 and 112 respectively, see Fig. 9) are staggered and at least partially overlapped with each other (see Figs 3 and 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, including that which is utilized in the rejection above and listed on the attached PTO-892, most notably Li, Sack et al. (US 2017/0174244), Pujol (US 2017/0021851), and Heinemann (WO 2009/132985 A1), while either alone or in combination teaching a baby carriage, having a handle, front leg and rear leg, all pivotable to an unfolded or folded state with respect to each other, a handle upper joint and handle lower joint pivotable to the unfolded state or the folded state with respect to each other, and a limiting part which prevents the handle upper joint from pivoting towards the unfolded state, fails to disclose or render obvious in particular the limiting part formed as an elastic finger, and when the second pivoting part applies a force on the elastic finger over a threshold value, the elastic finger is elastically deformed to allow the second pivoting part to pivot as called for in the claimed combination of dependent Claims 4 and 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER K GARLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3599. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/ALEXANDER K GARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896