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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on July 21, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Pat. No. 12,060,101 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aalund et al. (6,139,046).
Regarding claim 9, Aalund discloses a basket applicable to a stroller (see Figs. 14-15), the basket comprising a bottom (242), a front stopper (232) and a rear stopper (238) and two side stoppers (230), the front stopper, the rear stopper and the side stoppers being connected to a front side, a rear side, and left and right sides of the bottom respectively (see Col. 10, lines 24-67),wherein the rear stopper (238) has a resilient structure (244; e.g., the rear stopper is biased toward to fold inward to a retracted position which reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of being resilient structure) configured to be elastically deformed by an object in such a way that an opening for the object to enter is formed at a rear side of the basket (see Figs. 14 and 15 showing the rear stopper 238 in a hatchback orientation being extended out and downwardly to allow access into the bottom basket), and wherein the rear stopper is configured to resiliently return to an initial stopping position after the object is placed in the basket (e.g., biased inwardly toward the retracted position – see Col. 10, lines 59-67.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velichko (9,302,694) in view of Liu et al. (CN 202608853, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 8, Velichko discloses a basket applicable to a stroller, the basket comprising a bottom (14), a front stopper (34), a rear stopper (20) and two side stoppers (22, 24), the front stopper, the rear stopper and the side stoppers being connected to a front side, a rear side, and left and right sides of the bottom respectively (see e.g., Fig. 1 and Col. 2, lines 12-19), wherein the front stopper (34) is removably connected to the bottom via a zipper (38; see Col. 2, lines 27-32), and when the stopper is removed from the bottom, an opening for objects to enter the basket from is formed at that side of the basket.
Velichko discloses that the removable stopper (34) is mounted to the front wall and not the rear wall and while showing that the sides of the removable wall are separable and proximate to the side walls/stoppers, it does not specifically provide for the detachable rear wall be removably connected to each of the two side stoppers.
Liu teaches another basket applicable to a stroller and includes a rear stopper (33; see Fig. 4) that is removably connected to the two side stoppers to allow easier access into the basket (see ¶0011-0014 describing that the rear expandible wall is detachable from the side walls via zippers).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the stroller basket of Velichko to place the zippered sides of the removable wall along the side walls/stoppers as taught by Liu and to place another removable panel, such as the one in the front wall, into the rear wall to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., relocating a detachment point to increase the detachable opening’s size; and duplicating access opening types to aid in possible ways to retrieve objects from a cargo area) to known devices (e.g., access walls/panels of a stroller cargo area) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a cargo area having increased accessibility options for a user).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velichko in view of Liu as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ryan et al. (US 2008/0258437).
Regarding claim 4¸ Velichko does not disclose that a carriage bag is provided at a surface of the bottom.
Ryan teaches another stroller basket (42) wherein a carriage bag (60/60’) is provided at a surface (42b) of the bottom (see e.g., Figs., 4-5 showing the bag sitting at the top surface of the basket’s bottom).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the basket of the Velichko combination to include the well-known expedient of carrying a bag in the cargo area as taught by Ryan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so allows for multiple items to be carried simultaneously and allowing for all of these items to be retrieved from the stroller.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5-7 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 does not appear to disclose or otherwise fairly suggest that the claimed basket (and its other recited elements and limitations) includes: 1) an upwardly bending shielding member extending from a rear end of the bottom and connected to a lower edge of the removable rear stopper; or 2) at least one side insert on a side(s) of the bottom, wherein the removable rear stopper has a pocket with a downward facing pocket that is placed downward over the side insert.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendment to claim required additional searching/review of the prior art which revealed the teaching of the Liu reference that provides for a rear access panel that is detachable to the side panels via zippers allowing substantially the whole rear wall/panel to separate from the basket.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §112(a) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §112(a) rejection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights