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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/12/2024, 12/02/2024, 8/18/2025, were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 “stroller” (Claim 1/12) “a seat part” and “hydraulic/pneumatic rod” (Claim 9/10) “seat” (Claim 11), 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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of a damping elastic element” (Claim 1), and “means of…” (Claim 10).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claims purport to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 limitations “damping elastic element” (Claim 1) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-15 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. Claim 1 includes the limitations: “A damping device of a stroller, arranged on” (emphasis added) which are unclear and therefore render the claims indefinite, as it is unclear if the limitations are required as part of the “Damping device” or not. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-15 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. Claim 1 includes the limitations: “arranged to elastically prevent…from pivoting” (emphasis added) which is unclear and therefore render the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-15 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. Claim 1 includes the limitations: “to delay a downward movement” (emphasis added) which is unclear and therefore render the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-15 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. Claim 1 includes the limitations: “slidably pivotally connected” (emphasis added) which is unclear and therefore render the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 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. Claim 2 includes the limitations: “arranged to be driven” (emphasis added) which is unclear and therefore render the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 and 9 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. Claim 2 includes limitations linked by the phrase "and/or." This renders the claims indefinite, as it is unclear if the combination of limitations is required or optional. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-7, and 14 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. Claim 3 includes the limitations: “indirectly pivotally connected” (emphasis added) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 5,718,439).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses: A damping device of a stroller (See, e.g., Fig.1-12, 2), arranged on a first pipe and a second pipe of a seat pipe of the stroller which are parallel to each other (See, e.g., Fig.1-12, 17), and carrying a seat part of the stroller (See, e.g., Fig.1-12, 3), wherein the damping device comprises a bracket structure (See, e.g., Fig.1-12, 20+22+23+24+27+28+etc.) pivotally connected to the first pipe and the second pipe (See, e.g., Fig.1-12), and the bracket structure is arranged to elastically prevent the bracket structure from pivoting relative to the first pipe and the second pipe by means of a damping elastic element (See, e.g., Fig.1-12, 21) to delay a downward movement of the seat part (See, e.g., Fig.1-12), wherein the bracket structure comprises: a damping pipe having a fixed end pivotally connected to the first pipe (See, e.g., Fig.1-12, 22+27+28); and a damping sleeve (See, e.g., Fig.1-12, 22+27+28) having a first end pivotally connected to the second pipe (See, e.g., Fig.1-12) and a second end slidably pivotally connected to the damping pipe (See, e.g., Fig.1-12).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Wang discloses: wherein: the damping pipe abuts against a lower surface of the seat part (See, e.g., Fig.1-12), and has a free end that is higher than the second pipe (See, e.g., Fig.1-12); the damping sleeve is arranged to be driven to pivot downward about the second pipe when the damping pipe is pressed downward and pivots downward about the first pipe (See, e.g., Fig.1-12); and the damping elastic element is a separate member other than the damping pipe and the damping sleeve (See, e.g., Fig.1-12, 21), and the damping elastic element is arranged to apply a damping force on the damping pipe and/or the damping sleeve when the damping pipe and the damping sleeve pivot downward (See, e.g., Fig.1-12).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, Wang discloses: wherein the damping elastic element is a tension spring (See, e.g., Fig.1-12, 21), a compression spring, a hydraulic rod or a pneumatic rod, which acts on the damping pipe and/or the damping sleeve to generate a damping force in response to downward pivoting of the damping pipe and the damping sleeve (See, e.g., Fig.1-12).
[Claim 11] Regarding Claim 11, Wang discloses: A seat of a stroller, wherein the seat comprises the damping device according to claim 1 (See, e.g., Fig.1-12, 3+6).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, Wang discloses: A stroller, wherein the stroller comprises a frame and a seat arranged on the frame, and the seat comprises the damping device according to claim 1 (See, e.g., Fig.1-12, 3+6).
[Claim 15] Regarding Claim 15, Wang discloses: wherein when the damping device is not under pressure, the bracket structure is kept at a high position under the action of the damping elastic element (See, e.g., Fig.1-12), when the damping device is under the pressure, the damping pipe pivots downward about the first pipe, thereby driving the damping sleeve to pivot downward about the second pipe (See, e.g., Fig.1-12), so that the bracket structure moves to a low position, when the pressure on the damping device weakens or disappears, the bracket structure will move back from the low position to the high position under the action of the damping elastic element (See, e.g., Fig.1-12).
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.
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.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Andrus (US 5,887,889).
[Claims 10] Regarding Claim 10, Wang teaches: wherein: the damping pipe abuts against a lower surface of the seat part (See, e.g., Wang: Fig.1-12) , and has a free end that is higher than the second pipe (See, e.g., Wang: Fig.1-12).
Wang fails to explicitly teach: wherein: the damping elastic element is a hydraulic rod or pneumatic rod forming a part of the damping sleeve, and when the damping pipe is pressed downward and pivots downward about the first pipe, the damping sleeve is driven to pivot downward about the second pipe and apply a damping force on the damping pipe by means of the hydraulic rod or the pneumatic rod forming a part of the damping sleeve.
However, Andrus teaches a similar stroller with a damping device (See, e.g., Andrus: Fig.1-6) wherein the damping elastic element is a hydraulic rod or pneumatic rod forming a part of a damping sleeve (See, e.g., Andrus: Fig.1-6, 52), and when the damping pipe is pressed downward and pivots downward about first pipe, the damping sleeve is driven to pivot downward about the second pipe and apply a damping force on the damping pipe by means of the hydraulic rod or the pneumatic rod forming a part of the damping sleeve (See, e.g., Andrus: Fig.1-6)
Andrus teaches that it is well known in the art of stroller design to provide the stroller with a hydraulic/pneumatic damping device. 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 Wang modified with a hydraulic/pneumatic damping device such as taught by Andrus, for the purpose of conveniently maintaining the stroller and seat in a reduced vibration/oscillation riding configuration when in use, beneficially allowing a user to move the system easily even over rough terrain. 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)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 13, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 when taken alone or in combination with another does not teach or fairly suggest at this time at least, among other limitations: wherein the damping pipe is provided with a connecting sleeve which is slidable along the damping pipe, and the second end of the damping sleeve is pivotally connected to the connecting sleeve, so that the second end of the damping sleeve is indirectly pivotally connected to the damping pipe, as claimed in Claim 3 and similarly claimed in Claim 8 (emphasis added to allowable limitations not suggested or taught by the prior art).
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