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 .
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 7, 8, and 11-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the sliding frame section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the middle section" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the lower frame section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the sliding frame section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the sliding frame section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the upper frame section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Canas et al. (US 2019/0291768).
In Re claim 1, Canas et al. discloses a suspension system (see figs. 4-10) for a stroller (100, fig. 1), comprising: a shroud (200) having a lower section (215), an upper section (210), and a middle section (225) slidably coupled between the lower section and upper section (see sliding slots 245 and par. 0041); a first spring (230L) located at least partially in the lower section (see fig. 9); a second spring (230U) located at least partially in the upper section (see fig. 9); and a washer (270) located between the first and second spring and within the middle section (see fig. 9).
In Re claims 2 and 12, see upper spring retention element (230).
In Re claim 4, see washer (270) and middle section (225).
In Re claims 6 and 18, see Abstract.
In Re claim 7, see middle section sliding channels (245, 260) and upper and lower section prongs (240, 255).
In Re claim 8, the channels (245, 260) are oriented in a direction parallel to the suspension travel.
In Re claims 10 and 17, the washer (270) includes an upward-facing protrusion and a downward-facing protrusion.
In Re claim 11, Canas et al. discloses a stroller (100, fig. 1) comprising: a frame having at least an upper portion (105) and a lower portion (140); a suspension system (see figs. 4-10) coupled between the upper portion and lower portion of the frame and including: a lower section (215); an upper section (210); and a sliding portion (middle section 225) slidably coupled between the lower section and upper section (see sliding slots 245 and par. 0041); a first spring (230L) located at least partially in the lower section (see fig. 9); a second spring (230U) located at least partially in the upper section (see fig. 9); and a washer (270) located between the first and second spring and within the middle section (see fig. 9).
In Re claim 13, see mating flanges (165; fig. 2) for attaching the upper section to the frame.
In Re claim 19, Canas et al. discloses a suspension system (see figs. 4-10) for a stroller (100, fig. 1), comprising: a lower section (215), an upper section (210), and a middle section (225) configured to provide a range of travel between the lower section and upper section (see sliding slots 245 and par. 0041); and a biasing mechanism (see first spring 230L and second spring 230U) biasing the suspension when the stroller is at rest.
In Re claim 20, see first spring (230L); second spring (230U); and Abstract.
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 (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 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.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canas et al. (US 2019/0291768) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Minato et al. (US 2011/0298198).
In Re claim 3, Canas et al. further disclose a cap section (210), but fail to disclose a locking mechanism for the stroller.
Minato et al. is related to the art of strollers, and teaches providing a stroller (100) with a folding mechanism and capability, including a locking mechanism (see unlabeled locking tab in figs. 1C-1E, 7a, and 9a-9c, and unlabeled locking protrusion in figs. 7a and 9a-9c) in order to hold the stroller in a folded position. It is common that strollers are designed to be collapsible or foldable so as to fit easily within the trunk of a vehicle, or for transport on public transit or aircraft, etc.. Thus, 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 stroller of Canas et al. to include a foldable capability and locking mechanism, as taught by Minato et al., to enable the stroller to easily fit within the trunk of a vehicle, or for transport on public transit or aircraft, etc, allowing for easier transportation.
In Re claim 14, Canas et al. fail to disclose that the stroller includes a stowable position.
Minato et al. is related to the art of strollers, and teaches providing a stroller (100) with a folding mechanism and capability. Minato et al. teach that it is common that strollers are designed to be collapsible or foldable so as to fit easily within the trunk of a vehicle, or for transport on public transit or aircraft, etc.. Thus, 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 stroller of Canas et al. to include a foldable capability, as taught by Minato et al., to enable the stroller to easily fit within the trunk of a vehicle, or for transport on public transit or aircraft, etc, allowing for easier transportation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9 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.
Claims 15 and 16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights