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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-17, and 19-21 as filed 6/11/2024 are pending herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/11/2024 and 6/09/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following claim limitations: “platform” (Claim 1/9/21), and “at least one wheel” (Claim 1/9/21 – figures and disclosure only provide for two wheels, and unclear how one wheel would look/function), and “a slot” (Claim 16), “a first member of the first stroller board mount and a pin receiving space defined on a second member of the first stroller board mount” (Claim 19 – not shown), must all be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: REMOVABLY MOUNTED STROLLER BOARD
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities for which appropriate correction is required: The claims recite: “defines 1)….2)” (Claim 1, line 7-9, and similarly in Claim 9), which should all be rewritten to remove the numbers not enclosed in parentheses. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities for which appropriate correction is required: The claims recite: “wherein, when” (Claim 2, line 1, and similarly in Claims 3, 5, and 15), which should all be rewritten as “wherein.” Appropriate correction is required
Claim 7/16 is objected to because of the following informalities for which appropriate correction is required: Claim 7/16 recites: “insertion/removal axis”, which is unclear and should be rewritten. 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 1-17, 19 and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the limitations: “having a structure that defines 1) an interior that is configured to slidably receive a terminal end of a first stroller mount of the stroller to couple the first stroller board mount to the first stroller mount or 2) a protrusion having a terminal end that is configured to be slidably received in an interior of the first stroller mount of the stroller to couple the first stroller board mount to the first stroller mount” (Claim 1, line 7-9, and similarly in Claim 9) is unclear as optional claiming style and therefore renders the claims indefinite. See Claim 21 for guidance of non-optional style claiming structure. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
Claims 1-17, 19 and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the limitations “having a structure” (Claim 1/9/11) and “including a structure” (Claim 2/3/13) is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
Claims 1-17, 19-21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the limitations in Claim 1/9/21: “at least one wheel” is unclear (see above drawing objection) and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
Claims 11-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the limitations “defines 1) an interior configured to slidably receive a terminal end of the first stroller mount or 2) a protrusion having a terminal end configured to be slidably received in an interior of the first stroller mount” is unclear optional claiming style and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cousin (US 7,581,737 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Cousin discloses: A stroller board (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 1) removably mountable to a stroller (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 5), the stroller board comprising:
a child support platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 2) including at least one wheel (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 3) which, when the stroller board is in a use position, rests on the ground (See, e.g., Fig.1-7);
a first arm (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 4) extending between a first end coupled to the child support platform and a second end (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 10); and
a first stroller board mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 11+12) coupled to the second end of the first arm (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 10), the first stroller board mount having a structure that defines 1) an interior that is configured to slidably receive a terminal end of a first stroller mount of the stroller (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 13) to couple the first stroller board mount to the first stroller mount or 2) a protrusion having a terminal end that is configured to be slidably received in an interior of the first stroller mount of the stroller to couple the first stroller board mount to the first stroller mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Cousin discloses: wherein, when the first stroller board mount includes a protrusion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 53) having a terminal end configured to be slidably received in an interior of the first stroller mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 69), the protrusion is a bayonet-style mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7) and, when the first stroller board mount includes a structure configured to slidably receive a terminal end of the first stroller mount, the structure configured to slidably receive a terminal end of the first stroller mount includes a recess configured to receive a bayonet-style mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 69).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Cousin discloses: wherein, when the first stroller board mount includes a structure configured to slidably engage the first stroller mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 53), the first stroller mount defines a locking cavity extending transverse to a direction of travel of the first stroller mount as it is inserted into the first stroller board mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 69), the locking cavity being configured to receive therein a projection of the first stroller board mount to releasably lock the first stroller board mount to the first stroller mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 51+53+66).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Cousin discloses: wherein the projection is a latch movable relative to the structure to releasably lock the first stroller board mount to the first stroller mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, Cousin discloses: wherein, when the first stroller mount is coupled to the first stroller board mount, the latch is movable relative to the first stroller mount between a lock position in which the latch extends into a locking cavity in the first stroller mount and a release position in which the latch is withdrawn from the locking cavity (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, Cousin discloses: wherein the structure defines a stop configured to define a maximum insertion distance of the first stroller mount into the first stroller board mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 54).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, Cousin discloses: wherein the structure includes lateral sides which constrain motion of the first stroller mount relative to the first stroller board mount permitting only insertion into the first stroller board mount and removal of the first stroller mount from the first stroller board mount along an insertion/removal axis (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 53).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, Cousin discloses: wherein the first stroller board mount is rotatable relative to the first arm so that the stroller board is rotatable relative to a stroller to which the stroller board is mounted between the use position and a stowed position (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, Col.5,Ln.26-35: “Although it is stated that the rim 30 of the ferrule 71 [sic – 17] is oriented in such a manner that the sleeve is indexed in position relative to the ferrule, it is possible to provide notches over a fraction only of the rim so as to leave the platform with a certain degree of freedom in pivoting relative to the pushchair when in use, thus serving to accommodate irregularities of the ground without stressing the connection between the pushchair and the platform, and while still allowing the platform to be indexed in a storage position against the pushchair”).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, Cousin discloses: A system for coupling a stroller board (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 2) to a stroller (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 5), comprising: a stroller (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 5) including a first stroller mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 13); and a stroller board (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 2) releasably coupleable to the stroller (See, e.g., Fig.1-7), the stroller board including: a child support platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 2) including at least one wheel (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 3) which, when the stroller board is in a use position, rests on the ground (See, e.g., Fig.1-7);
a first arm (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 4) extending between a first end coupled to the child support platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-7) and a second end (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 10); and
a first stroller board mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, ) coupled to the second end of the first arm (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 11+12), the first stroller board mount having a structure that defines 1) an interior configured to slidably receive a terminal end of the first stroller mount or 2) a protrusion having a terminal end configured to be slidably received in an interior of the first stroller mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Cousin discloses: wherein the stroller includes a first child seat mounted on a frame of the stroller above the first stroller mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 5).
[Claim 17] Regarding Claim 17, Cousin discloses: wherein the first stroller board mount is rotatable relative to the first arm (See, e.g., Fig.1-7) and wherein the first stroller board mount includes a locking mechanism configured to lock the first arm in a desired rotational position relative to the first stroller board mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 30+17; Col.5,Ln.26-35: “Although it is stated that the rim 30 of the ferrule 71 [sic – 17] is oriented in such a manner that the sleeve is indexed in position relative to the ferrule, it is possible to provide notches over a fraction only of the rim so as to leave the platform with a certain degree of freedom in pivoting relative to the pushchair when in use, thus serving to accommodate irregularities of the ground without stressing the connection between the pushchair and the platform, and while still allowing the platform to be indexed in a storage position against the pushchair”).
[Claim 19] Regarding Claim 19, Cousin discloses: wherein the locking mechanism includes a pin on a first member of the first stroller board mount and a pin receiving space defined on a second member of the first stroller board mount, the first and second members of the first stroller board mount being rotatable relative to one another (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 17+30+etc.).
[Claim 20] Regarding Claim 20, Cousin discloses: wherein the pin receiving space includes a locking detent adjacent thereto including a cantilevered member that deflects under a contact force from the pin permitting the pin to move into the pin receiving space (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 17+30+etc.).
[Claim 21] Regarding Claim 21, Cousin discloses: A stroller board (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 1) removably mountable to a stroller (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 5), comprising:
a child support platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 2) including at least one wheel (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 3) which, when the stroller board is in a use position, rests on the ground to maintain the child support platform in a desired position (See, e.g., Fig.1-7);
a first arm (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 4’) extending between a first end coupled to the child support platform and a second end (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 10’);
a first stroller board mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 20+53) coupled to the second end of the first arm (See, e.g., Fig.1-7), the first stroller board mount being configured to slidably couple to a first stroller mount of a stroller (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 60) to which the stroller board is to be coupled (See, e.g., Fig.1-7); and
a first projection (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 53) extending from the first stroller board mount and positioned thereon so that, when the first stroller board mount reaches a mounting position on the first stroller mount, the first projection extends into a locking cavity of the first stroller mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 69) to releasably lock the first stroller board mount to the first stroller mount (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cousin in view of Grodkiewicz et al. (US 11,820,419 B2).
[Claim 11] Regarding Claim 11, Cousin fails to explicitly teach: further comprising: a second child seat removably mountable on the stroller, the second child seat including a first seat mount having a structure that defines 1) an interior configured to slidably receive a terminal end of the first stroller mount or 2) a protrusion having a terminal end configured to be slidably received in an interior of the first stroller mount.
However, Grodkiewicz teaches a similar stroller (See, e.g., Grodkiewicz: Fig.1-14, 10) with a first child seat (See, e.g., Grodkiewicz: Fig.1-14, 18+20) mounted above a stroller platform (See, e.g., Grodkiewicz: Fig.1-14, 40) further comprising: a second child seat (See, e.g., Grodkiewicz: Fig.1-14, 10) removably mountable on the stroller (See, e.g., Grodkiewicz: Fig.1-14, 10), the second child seat including a first seat mount (See, e.g., Grodkiewicz: Fig.1-14) having a structure that defines 1) an interior configured to slidably receive a terminal end of the first stroller mount or 2) a protrusion having a terminal end configured to be slidably received in an interior of the first stroller mount (See, e.g., Grodkiewicz: Fig.1-14).
Grodkiewicz teaches that it is well known in the art of stroller design to provide a second child seat mounted on the stroller. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Cousin modified to include the second child seat mounted on the stroller such as taught by Grodkiewicz, for the purpose of conveniently providing the stroller with a second seat to accommodate an additional child during transport. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Cousin in view of Grodkiewicz teaches: wherein the first stroller mount is positioned at a rear of the stroller (See, e.g., Cousin: Fig.1-7).
[Claim 13] Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Cousin in view of Grodkiewicz teaches: wherein the first stroller board mount includes a structure configured to slidably engage the first stroller mount (See, e.g., Cousin: Fig.1-7, 53) and wherein the first stroller mount defines a locking cavity (See, e.g., Cousin: Fig.1-7, 69) extending transverse to a direction of travel of the first stroller mount as it is inserted into the first stroller board mount (See, e.g., Cousin: Fig.1-7, 53), the locking cavity being configured to receive therein a projection of the first stroller board mount to releasably lock the first stroller board mount to the first stroller mount (See, e.g., Cousin: Fig.1-7, 51+53+66).
[Claim 14] Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Cousin in view of Grodkiewicz teaches: wherein the projection is a latch movable relative to the structure to releasably lock the first stroller board mount to the first stroller mount (See, e.g., Cousin: Fig.1-7).
[Claim 15] Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Cousin in view of Grodkiewicz teaches: wherein, when the first stroller mount coupled to the first stroller board mount, the latch is movable relative to the first stroller mount between a lock position in which the latch extends into a locking cavity in the first stroller mount and a release position in which the latch is withdrawn from the locking cavity (See, e.g., Cousin: Fig.1-7).
[Claim 16] Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Cousin in view of Grodkiewicz teaches: wherein the first stroller mount includes a slot open to the locking cavity (See, e.g., Cousin: Fig.1-7, 51+66+etc.), the slot slidably receiving the latch as the first stroller mount is inserted into the first stroller board mount (See, e.g., Cousin: Fig.1-7), the slot extending parallel to an insertion/removal axis along which the first stroller mount is coupled to and removed from the first stroller board mount (See, e.g., Cousin: Fig.1-7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
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 can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights