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, 2, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15-26, 28 are pending herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/10/2024 and 12/03/2025 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 “frame” (Claim 1 – no label number) must 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 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, 2, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15-26, 28 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation: “a second cross rod portion" (line 5-6) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite, since the “first cross rod portion” is missing from the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15-26, 28 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation: “connected between" (line 9) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4, and 8-9 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. Regarding claim 4/8/9, the claims recites the limitation: "sleeved outside", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12, and 15-19 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. Regarding claim 12/16, the claim recites the limitation: "sleeved outside", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required
Claim 12, and 15-19 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. Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation: "and in particular", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 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. Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation: "and in particular", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 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. Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation: "arranged at a certain angle", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20-22 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. Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the limitation: "in a process of switching…when the frame is switched", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction 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, 2, 4, 12, 13, 25, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kunshan Weikai (CN203864757U – Applicant provided prior art).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Kunshan discloses: A frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), comprising:
two base support rods (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 6);
two handle support rods (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 3+4);
a first support assembly (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 7); and
a second support assembly (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 8), being U-shaped and comprising a second cross rod portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 8) disposed along a left-right direction of the frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), the first support assembly being connected to the second cross rod portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5);
wherein the first support assembly and the second support assembly are connected between the two base support rods and the two handle support rods (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Kunshan discloses: wherein the first support assembly is rotatably connected to the second cross rod portion of the second support assembly (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), the first support assembly is pivotably connected to the two base support rods (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), and the second support assembly is pivotably connected to the two handle support rods (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Kunshan discloses: wherein the first support assembly is U-shaped (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 8), the first support assembly comprises a first cross rod portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 8), the first cross rod portion is connected to the second cross rod portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5) and both are arranged in a left-right direction of the frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-5); wherein the frame comprises a connection member (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 9) sleeved outside the first cross rod portion and the second cross rod portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), the first cross rod portion is fixedly connected to the connection member (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), and the second cross rod portion is rotatable relative to the connection member (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, Ruggiero discloses: wherein the first support assembly comprises two first support members (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 7), and the two first support members are connected to two ends of the second cross rod portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), respectively; wherein the first support assembly, and in particular the first support member, comprises a first support rod and a sleeve member (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 7+9), wherein the sleeve member is fixedly connected to the first support rod (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), and the sleeve member is sleeved outside the second cross rod portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5); and wherein the second support assembly further comprises two second support members fixed to two ends of the second cross rod portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 8).
[Claim 13] Regarding Claim 13, Ruggiero discloses: wherein the first support assembly comprises two first support members (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 7), and the two first support members are connected to two ends of the second cross rod portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), respectively; wherein the first support assembly, and in particular the first support member, comprises a first support rod and a sleeve member (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 7-9), wherein the sleeve member is fixedly connected to the first support rod (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), and the second cross rod portion is rotatable relative to the sleeve member (See, e.g., Fig.1-5); and wherein the second support assembly further comprises two second support members fixed to two ends of the second cross rod portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 8).
[Claim 25] Regarding Claim 25, Ruggiero discloses: wherein the first support assembly is connected to the two base support rods (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), and two ends of the second support assembly are connected to the two handle support rods, respectively (See, e.g., Fig.1-5); or wherein the first support assembly is connected to the two handle support rods (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), and two ends of the second support assembly are connected to the two base support rods respectively (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 28] Regarding Claim 28, Ruggiero discloses: wherein the handle support rod comprises a first handle portion and a second handle portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 3+4) which are pivotably connected to each other (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), wherein an end of the first handle portion away from the second handle portion is fixed to the base support rod (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), and two ends of the second support assembly are pivotably connected to the second handle portions of the two handles support rods, respectively (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
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 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.
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 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunshan in view of Ruggiero et al. (US 11,173,940 B2).
[Claim 26] Regarding Claim 26, Kunshan fails to explicitly teach: further comprising a seat plate, two backrest support rods and two connecting rods, wherein the two connecting rods are connected to the two backrest support rods, respectively, and two sides of the seat plate are fixed on the two connecting rods or the two backrest support rods, respectively.
However, Ruggiero teaches a similar stroller (See, e.g., Ruggiero: Fig.1-17, 100) further comprising a seat plate (See, e.g., Ruggiero: Fig.1-17, 200), two backrest support rods and two connecting rods (See, e.g., Ruggiero: Fig.1-17, 200), wherein the two connecting rods are connected to the two backrest support rods, respectively (See, e.g., Ruggiero: Fig.1-17), and two sides of the seat plate are fixed on the two connecting rods or the two backrest support rods, respectively (See, e.g., Ruggiero: Fig.1-17).
Ruggiero teaches that it is well known in the art of stroller design to provide the stroller seat with a seat plate and backrest support rods. 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 Kunshan modified with the seat plate and backrest support rods such as taught by Ruggiero, for the purpose of conveniently providing a proper seat and back support for the child during use, and beneficially allowing a user 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 8-9, 15-19, and 20-24, 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 connecting member comprises a first sleeve portion and a plurality of second sleeve portions, wherein the plurality of second sleeve portions are provided at intervals and are connected to the first sleeve portion, the first sleeve portion is sleeved outside the first cross rod portion, and the plurality of second sleeve portions are sleeved outside the second cross rod portion; wherein the frame further comprises a guide member located between two adjacent second sleeve portions, the guide member is fixedly connected to the second cross rod portion, the guide member has a first limit surface and a second limit surface, the connection member has a first abutting surface and a second abutting surface, and the first abutting surface and the second abutting surface are both located on the first sleeve portion, and wherein, when the frame is in a fully unfolded state, the first limit surface abuts against the first abutting surface, and when the frame is in a fully folded state, the second limit surface abuts against the second abutting surface, as claimed in Claim 8 and similarly claimed in Claim 9.
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