DETAILED ACTION
Unity of Invention (Restriction) Requirement Withdrawn
The requirement for unity of invention mailed on June 23, 2026 is withdrawn. The examiner has considered applicant’s arguments traversing the June 23, 2026 requirement and finds such arguments to be partially persuasive. Upon reconsideration, the examiner finds that:
The embodiment of Figs. 3A-3B shares a special technical feature with the embodiment of Figs. 5A-6B (but not with the embodiment of Figs. 8A-8B) since both the embodiments of Figs. 3A-3B and 5A-6B have a device for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position and its folded position, the front wheel set locking device including an indexing peg manually movable between a locking position in which it is housed in a receptacle of the chassis and an unlocking position in which it is retracted out of the receptacle, with the indexing peg spring-biased to the locking position.
The embodiment of Figs. 8A-8B shares a special technical feature with the embodiment of Figs. 5A-6B (but not with the embodiment of Figs. 7A-7B) since both the embodiments of Figs. 5A-6B and 8A-8B have a rear wheel set locking and unlocking mechanism that includes a spring-biased front finger operated on by a cam and a spring-biased rear finger releasable engaging a stop member.
The embodiment of Figs. 8A-8B is patentably distinct from the embodiment of Figs. 5A-6B because the embodiment of Figs. 5A-6B has a device for locking the front wheel set in both its deployed position and its folded position whereas the embodiment of Figs. 8A-8B has both (i) a mechanism for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position, and (ii) a device (separate from the front wheel set locking mechanism and combined with the rear wheel set locking mechanism) for locking the front wheel set in its folded position.
Independent claim 1 is not generic to each of the disclosed/claimed inventions because it requires a device for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position and its folded position.
Status of Submissions
The preliminary amendments filed on November 11, 2024 and September 23, 2026 have been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 1-19 of this application are subject to examination.
Inventions Disclosed and Claimed
This application discloses and claims at least the following patentably distinct inventions:
A stroller system with (i) a device for locking the front wheel set in both its deployed position and its folded position (shown in Figs. 3A-3B, 5A and 6A),1 and (ii) a first embodiment of a mechanism for locking the rear wheel set in its deployed position and for unlocking the rear wheel set so that it can be folded (shown in Figs. 5A-6B).2
A stroller system with (i) a device for locking the front wheel set in both its deployed position and its folded position (shown in Figs. 3A-3B), and (ii) a second embodiment of a mechanism for locking the rear wheel set in its deployed position and for unlocking the rear wheel set so that it can be folded (shown in Figs. 7A-7B).3
A stroller system with (i) a mechanism for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position and for unlocking the front wheel set so that the front wheel set can be folded—but being incapable of locking the front wheel set in its folded position (shown in Figs. 4A-4B),4 and (ii) a third embodiment of a mechanism for locking the rear wheel set in its deployed position and for unlocking the rear wheel set so that it can be folded, with the rear wheel set locking and unlocking mechanism being combined with a device for locking the front wheel set in its folded position (shown in Figs. 8A-8B).5
Independent claim 1 is directed to only Invention I and Invention II identified above because claim 1 requires (i) a device for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position and its folded position (shown in Figs. 3A-3B, 5A and 6A), and (ii) a mechanism for locking the rear wheel set in its deployed position and for unlocking the rear wheel set so that it can pivot towards its folded position (two embodiments shown in Figs. 5A-6B and 7A-7B). Claim 1 is not directed to Invention III since Invention III is not disclosed as including a device for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position and its folded position. Instead, Invention III is disclosed as having (i) a mechanism for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position, and (ii) a device (separate from the front wheel set locking mechanism and combined with the rear wheel set locking mechanism) for locking the front wheel set in its folded position. Since the sole independent claim is directed to only Invention I and Invention II, this application does not contain a claim that is generic to all of Inventions I, II and III.
Dependent claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites features of the second embodiment of the mechanism for locking and unlocking the rear wheel set (shown in Figs. 7A-7B). Thus, claim 2 is directly only to Invention II.
Dependent claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites features of the first embodiment of the mechanism for locking and unlocking the rear wheel set (shown in Figs. 5A-6B). Thus, claim 3 is directed only to Invention I.
Dependent claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 1 and recite features of the device for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position and its folded position (shown in Figs. 3A-3B, 5A and 6A). Thus, claims 4 and 5 are directed only to Invention I and Invention II.
Dependent claim 6 recites features of the mechanism for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position and for unlocking the front wheel set so that the front wheel set can be folded—but such mechanism being incapable of locking the front wheel set in its folded position (shown in Figs. 4A-4B). Thus, dependent claim 6 is directed only to Invention III. However, claim 6 improperly depends from claim 1, which is directed only to Invention I and Invention II. As explained above, claim 1 is not generic to Invention III since Invention III is not disclosed as including a device for locking the front wheel set in (both) its deployed position and its folded position.
Dependent claims 7-12 recite features of the stroller system that are unrelated to the devices/mechanisms used for locking and unlocking the wheel sets. Since claims 7-12 depend from claim 1, they are directed only to Invention I and Invention II.
Dependent claims 13-19 recite features of the third embodiment of a mechanism for locking the rear wheel set in its deployed position and for unlocking the rear wheel set so that it can be folded, with the rear wheel set locking and unlocking mechanism being combined with a device for locking the front wheel set in its folded position (shown in Figs. 8A-8B). Thus, dependent claims 13-19 are directed only to Invention III. However, (i) claim 13 improperly depends from claim 3, which is directed only to Invention I, (ii) claims 14-18 improperly depend from claim 1, which is directed only to Invention I and Invention II, and (iii) claim 19 depends from claim 6, which improperly depends from claim 1, which is directed only to Invention I and Invention II. As explained above, claim 1 is not generic to Invention III.
Claim Construction in Examination
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Examiner’s Claim Construction
The following claim limitations are construed by the examiner to aid in examination:
Claim Limitation:
seat base structure (claim 1)
Examiner’s Construction:
seat base
Examiner’s Explanation:
The specification uses both the term “seat base structure” and the term “seat base”. The specification does not explain the construction of the “seat base structure”. Rather, the specification merely states that the chassis 4 comprises a “seat base structure 8”, which is shown in Figs. 1-2 and 9. There is nothing in the disclosure to differentiate “seat base structure” from “seat base”. Thus, they are considered to be synonymous.
Claim Limitation:
device for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position and in its folded position (claim 1)
Examiner’s Construction:
locking assembly releasably coupling the pivotal front wheel set to the chassis and including two spring-biased indexing pegs housed in respective receptacles when in respective first and second locking positions and manually movable to respective unlocking positions, and art-recognized equivalents to such a locking assembly
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “device” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claim does not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The corresponding structure identified in the specification is a locking assembly that releasably couples the pivotal front wheel set 14 to the chassis 4 and that includes (i) a main indexing peg 32 that is spring-biased toward two locking positions and that is manually movable via a handle 36 to an unlocking position, and (ii) an auxiliary indexing peg 40 that is spring-biased toward two locking positions and that is manually movable via a handle 46 and a cable 48 to an unlocking position, with the main indexing peg 32 being housed in respective (separate) receptacles 34, 34’ when its two locking positions, and with the auxiliary indexing peg 40 being housed in respective (separate) receptacles 42, 42’ when its two locking positions.
The skilled artisan would appreciate that equivalents to the disclosed device for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position and in its folded position include the front wheel locking assembly taught by Hsu.
Claim Limitation:
removable fixing device on a bicycle luggage rack (claim 1)
Examiner’s Construction:
a female plate on the chassis that cooperates with a male plate on a bicycle luggage rack, and art-recognized equivalents to such a removable fixing device
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “device” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claim does not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The corresponding structure identified in the specification is the device described in FR Application No. 2200378 (published as FR 3 131 898 A1), which includes a female plate 6a fixed under a lower face of the chassis 4, and a male plate 6b fixed on a bicycle luggage rack, with the female plate 6a cooperating with the male plate 6b for removably attaching the chassis 4 to the bicycle luggage rack.
The skilled artisan would appreciate that equivalents to the disclosed removable fixing device include the removable mounting assembly taught by Hsu.
Claim Limitation:
mechanism for locking and unlocking the rear wheel set…being able to cooperate with a stop member secured to the rear wheel set between a locking position in which it maintains the rear wheel set in its deployed position and an unlocking position in which it allows the rear wheel set to pivot towards its folded position (claim 1)
Examiner’s Construction:
locking and unlocking assembly including either: (i) a cam that rotates as the front wheel set pivots, and a follower member comprising a spring-biased front finger operated on by the cam and a spring-biased rear finger releasably engaging a stop secured to the rear wheel set; or (ii) a stop that rotates as the front wheel set pivots, and a spring-biased latch having a front lug releasably engaged by the stop and a rear lug releasably engaging a spring-biased stop secured to the rear wheel set; and art-recognized equivalents to such a locking and unlocking mechanism
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claim does not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The specification describes alternative embodiments in which the corresponding structure is one of the following:
A cam 54 secured in rotation to the pivotal front wheel set 14, and a follower member 52 including (i) a spring-biased front finger 58 operated on by the cam 54, and (ii) a spring-biased rear finger 62 releasably engaging a stop member 56 secured to the rear wheel set 20.
A stop element 70 secured in rotation to the pivotal front wheel set 14, and a spring biased latch 66 having a front lug 68 releasably engaged by the stop element 70 and a rear lug 72 releasably engaging a spring-biased stop member 74 secured to the rear wheel set 20.
The skilled artisan would appreciate that equivalents to the disclosed locking and unlocking mechanism include the rear wheel set locking and unlocking assembly taught by Hsu.
Claim Limitation:
stop member (claim 1)
Examiner’s Construction:
stop in the form of either a plate or a spring-biased retractable strike, and art-recognized equivalents to such a stop member
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “member” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claim does not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The specification describes alternative embodiments in which the corresponding structure is one of the following:
A plate 56 secured to the rear wheel set 20.
A spring-biased retractable strike 74 secured to the rear wheel set 20.
The skilled artisan would appreciate that equivalents to the disclosed stop member include the splined hole taught by Hsu.
Claim Limitation:
stop element (claim 2)
Examiner’s Construction:
the corresponding structure is not specified
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “element” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claim does not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The specification does not explain the construction of the “stop element”. Rather, the specification merely describes stop element 70 secured to the front wheel set 14 and pivotal with the front wheel set 14. The stop element 70 is shown in Figs. 7A-7B as being mounted on an arm/projection (not discussed in the specification) so as to pivot with the front wheel set 14. The specific structure of the stop element 70 cannot be ascertained from Figs. 7A-7B.
Claim Limitation:
follower member…which comprises a front finger mounted on a spring to be maintained in abutment against the cam and a rear finger mounted on a spring… (claim 3)
Examiner’s Construction:
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification
Examiner’s Explanation:
If recited by itself, the term “follower member” would be considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f). However, claim 3 defines the structure of the follower member. Since the claim recites sufficient structure for performing the claimed function, 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked.
Claim Limitation:
stop elements able to come into abutment against stop elements of the front wheel set to allow the latter to drive the rear wheel set when the stroller system moves from its deployed configuration to its folded configuration (claim 7)
Examiner’s Construction:
stop elements of unknown construction, and art-recognized equivalents to such stop elements
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “elements” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claim does not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked by both occurrences of “stop elements”.
The specification does not explain the construction of the “stop elements”. Rather, the specification merely states that the rear wheel set comprises stop elements 63 able to come into abutment against stop elements 65 of the front wheel set to allow the latter to drive the rear wheel set when the stroller system moves from its deployed configuration to its folded configuration. Reference numbers 63, 65 appear in Fig. 1 of the drawings, and their lead lines appear to be directed to either (i) rim portions of the wheels 24, 18, respectively, or (ii) disk-like members on the rim portions of the wheels 24, 18, respectively. Based on the illustration in Fig. 1 alone, and due to the absence of any supporting description, it is impossible to ascertain the corresponding structure from the disclosure. It is also impossible to ascertain the manner in which the corresponding structure functions to drive the rear wheel set when the stroller system moves from its deployed configuration to its folded configuration.
Claim Limitation:
follower member…which comprises a front finger mounted on a spring to be maintained in abutment against the cam, the front finger comprising a first recess having a shape complementary to that of the cam rear finger… (claims 14 and 19)
Examiner’s Construction:
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification
Examiner’s Explanation:
If recited by itself, the term “follower member” would be considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f). However, claims 14 and 19 recite sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked.
Improper Incorporation by Reference
As explained above, the specification relies upon an incorporation by reference to FR Application No. 2200378 for a disclosure of the claimed removable fixing device on a bicycle luggage rack (claim 1). See also the reference to FR Application No. 2200378 in ¶ 0097. The incorporation of material in the specification by reference to an unpublished foreign application (citing the foreign application number but not a publication number) is improper. Neither “essential material” nor “nonessential material” may be incorporated by reference to an unpublished foreign application. See 37 CFR 1.57(d) and (e). “Essential material” may be incorporated only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference.
Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
The incorporation by reference will not be effective until correction is made to comply with 37 CFR 1.57(d) or (e). If the incorporated material is relied upon to meet any outstanding objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office, the correction must be made within any time period set by the Office for responding to the objection, rejection, or other requirement for the incorporation to be effective. Compliance will not be held in abeyance with respect to responding to the objection, rejection, or other requirement for the incorporation to be effective. In no case may the correction be made later than the close of prosecution as defined in 37 CFR 1.114(b), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier.
Objection to Amendment – New Matter
The instant application is the national stage of International Application No. PCT/FR2023/050687. Thus, the “original disclosure” is the disclosure of International Application No. PCT/FR2023/050687 as filed on May 12, 2023.
The amendment filed on November 11, 2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the original disclosure. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The specification has been amended to include a new first paragraph, which (i) sets forth applicant’s priority claim to International Application No. PCT/FR2023/050687 and FR Application No. 2204503, and (ii) concludes with the statement “The above identified applications are incorporated by this reference”. This constitutes new matter because the original disclosure did not incorporate by reference each of International Application No. PCT/FR2023/050687 (including the entire contents thereof) and FR Application No. 2204503 (including the entire contents thereof).
In the amendment filed on September 23, 2026, the addition of new claims 13-19 introduces new matter for the reasons given in GROUND 1 below.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
GROUND 1: Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As explained above, the “original disclosure” is the disclosure of International Application No. PCT/FR2023/050687 as filed on May 12, 2023.
As explained above:
New claims 13-19 are directed specifically (i.e., recite features exclusive) to Invention III.
Claim 13 improperly depends from claim 3, which is directed only to Invention I.
Claims 14-18 improperly depend from claim 1, which is directed only to Invention I and Invention II.
Claim 19 depends from claim 6, which improperly depends from claim 1, which is directed only to Invention I and Invention II.
With respect to claim 13, there is no support in the original disclosure for the newly claimed combination of Invention III and Invention I.
With respect to claims 14-19, there is no support in the original disclosure for the newly claimed combination of Invention III and either Invention I or II.
With respect to claims 14, 17 and 19 in particular, there is no support in the original disclosure for the newly claimed features exclusive to Invention III being features of “the front wheel set locking device” (claim 14 and 19, l. 1; claim 17, ll. 1-2), which “front wheel set locking device” is a “device for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position and in its folded position” (claim 1, ll. 11-12).
GROUND 2: Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which cause the claimed invention to achieve the desired results.
As explained above, the specification relies upon an improper incorporation by reference to FR Application No. 2200378 for a disclosure of the claimed “removable fixing device on a bicycle luggage rack” (claim 1, l. 13). Since “essential material” is improperly incorporated by reference, the specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement for the claimed “removable fixing device on a bicycle luggage rack”. While Fig. 9 shows the male plate 6b of the removable fixing device 6, the female plate 6a is not illustrated in the drawings (in spite of the fact that reference number 6a appears improperly in the drawings). Neither the specification nor the drawings explain the manner in which the male plate cooperates with the female plate to removably fix the stroller system on the bicycle luggage rack. Further, the bicycle luggage rack is not shown in the drawings, and its structure is not explained in the specification.
Claim 1 recites “a pusher…whose length is adjustable between a high position in which it forms a handle for the stroller and a low position in which it forms a rear mechanical retainer for the backrest of the bicycle seat” (ll. 14-16). While high and low positions are shown, a pusher that is length-adjustable is not shown. The specification merely states that the length of the pusher is adjustable and cites a telescopic pusher as one possible example. However, a mere telescopic structure is not able to retain itself in both a high position and a low position. Rather, some structure must be provided between the telescoping members to retain them in the high and low positions. However, the specification fails to provide any explanation of the structure of the pusher that applicant relies upon to allow it to move between high and low positions while being retained in either position. Thus, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claim 1 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Absent an adequate description of essential features, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “the stop member secured to the rear wheel set comprises a retractable strike able to move between a first position in which it comes into abutment against the rear lug of the latch to prevent the rear wheel set from pivoting and a second position in which it can freely pass over the rear lug” (ll. 10-13). Figs. 7A and 7B both show the retractable strike 74 in the same position relative to the structure of the rear wheel set 20 that supports the retractable strike 74. There is no showing of a retractable strike that is able to move between a first position in which it comes into abutment against the rear lug of the latch (the position of Fig. 7A) and a second position in which it can freely pass over the rear lug. No such second position is shown. Further, based on the illustration in Fig. 7A, it does not appear to be possible for the strike 74 to move from the first position shown in Fig. 7A to a second position in which it can freely pass over the rear lug (since Fig. 7A shows the right end of the strike 74 engaging the structure of the rear wheel set 20 that supports it). The specification fails to adequately explain how such movement to a second position is possible. Thus, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claim 2 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Absent an adequate description of essential features, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “the rear wheel set comprises stop elements able to come into abutment against stop elements of the front wheel set to allow the latter to drive the rear wheel set when the stroller system moves from its deployed configuration to its folded configuration (claim 7). The specification does not explain the construction of the “stop elements”. Rather, the specification merely states that the rear wheel set comprises stop elements 63 able to come into abutment against stop elements 65 of the front wheel set to allow the latter to drive the rear wheel set when the stroller system moves from its deployed configuration to its folded configuration. Reference numbers 63, 65 appear in Fig. 1 of the drawings, but their lead lines are not directed to structure constituting “stop elements” that “come into abutment” such that the front stop elements “drive the rear wheel set when the stroller system moves from its deployed configuration to its folded configuration”. The specification fails to adequately explain how such stop elements would be structured or how they would function to achieve driving of the rear wheel set to its folded configuration. Thus, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claim 7 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Absent an adequate description of essential features, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites “a front handle located at the front of the chassis…making it possible to manually lift the stroller during its loading or unloading”. The specification merely states that the stroller system has such a front handle. The specification does not explain the construction of the front handle, or exactly where the handle is located at the front of the chassis, or how the handle is attached to or made a part of the front of the chassis, etc. The specification fails to adequately explain how such a front handle would be structured or how it would function to achieve manual lifting of the stroller. Thus, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claim 11 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Absent an adequate description of essential features, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites “the front wheel set comprises at least one retractable footrest system”. The specification merely states that the front arms 16 of the front wheel set advantageously comprise at least one retractable footrest system. The specification does not explain the construction of the retractable footrest system, or the manner in which the footrest system is retractable, or how the retractable footrest system is attached to or made a part of the front arms of the front wheel set, etc. The specification fails to adequately explain how such a retractable footrest system would be structured or how it would function. Thus, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claim 12 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Absent an adequate description of essential features, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites “the front wheel set cannot be unlocked from its folded position without an external action on the front finger of the follower member forcing translation of the front finger against the force of the spring”. Claim 18 goes on to recite “an unlocking lever which is rotatable about an axis of rotation and which comprises a manual action handle at one end and an interaction rod at an opposite end, the manual action handle and the interaction rod being located on either side of the axis of rotation, the interaction rod being complementary to the second recess, wherein action on the manual action handle induces a translation of the follower member against the force of the spring so as to release the cam rear finger from the first recess”. The specification provides a general description that mirrors the language of claims 17 and 18. The specification does not explain the specific construction of the unlocking lever, manual action handle and interaction rod. The specification does not explain the manner in which the unlocking lever, manual action handle and interaction rod are interconnected, or the manner in which they are attached to or made a part of the stroller. Thus, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claim 17 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Absent an adequate description of essential features, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
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.
GROUND 3: Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As explained more fully in GROUND 1, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12 and 17 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Absent such supporting disclosure, the scope of claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12 and 17 cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is unclear what subject matter is encompassed by the claim, and what is excluded therefrom.
In claim 1, the alternative expression “and/or” (l. 3) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this expression should be interpreted as inclusive or exclusive. The examiner suggests changing this term to “or”.
Claim 1 recites “a first deployed configuration” (l. 2) and goes on to recite “a deployed configuration” (ll. 4-5). The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the deployed configuration introduced at lines 4-5 is the same as, or distinct from, the deployed configuration introduced at line 2.
Claim 1 recites “a second folded configuration” (ll. 2-3) and goes on to recite “a folded configuration” (l. 5). The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the folded configuration introduced at line 5 is the same as, or distinct from, the folded configuration introduced at lines 2-3.
In claim 1, the recitation “the chassis comprising:” (l. 5) is indefinite/inaccurate because the subject matter that follows is not limited to components or features of the chassis. For example, line 14 recites “a pusher mounted on the chassis”, which defines the pusher as distinct from the chassis.
In claim 1, the terms “a front transverse axis of the chassis” (ll. 7-8), “a rear transverse axis of the chassis” (l. 9), and “the rear axis and the front axis of the chassis” (l. 18) are indefinite/inaccurate because the claimed axes are not “of the chassis”. An axis is an imaginary construct and, thus, does not belong to the chassis or constitute a chassis component.
As explained above, the limitation “a removable fixing device on a bicycle luggage rack” (claim 1, l. 13) invokes 35 USC 112(f). As also explained above, the specification relies upon an improper incorporation by reference to FR Application No. 2200378 for a disclosure of the claimed “removable fixing device on a bicycle luggage rack”. Since “essential material” is improperly incorporated by reference, the specification fails to satisfy the requirement to identify the structure that corresponds to the claim term invoking 35 USC 112(f). The specification does state that the removable fixing device has a female plate that cooperates with a male plate, but the specification fails to explain the specific structure of either plate or the manner in which their structures cooperate to define a removable fixing. Since the corresponding structure is not properly identified, the claim is indefinite.
In claim 1, the recitation “a removable fixing device on a bicycle luggage rack” (l. 13) is indefinite because the phrase “on a bicycle luggage rack” merely sets forth a location. The claim fails to define what components are removably fixed by the removable fixing device. Further, the claim limitation is inaccurate because the entire fixing device is not “removable”; rather, the female plate 6a of the fixing device 6 is removable from the male plate 6b of the fixing device.
In claim 1, the term “the backrest of the bicycle seat” (l. 16) lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 1, it is unclear whether the term “the rear axis and the front axis of the chassis” (l. 18) refers to the front transverse axis introduced at line 7 and the rear transverse axis introduced at line 9, or to some other front axis and some other rear axis.
In claim 1, the recitation “the mechanism being able to cooperate with a stop member secured to the rear wheel set between a locking position…and an unlocking position” (ll. 18-20) is indefinite because the language is confusing and fails to conform to ordinary usage. The verb for “being able to cooperate” does not fit with the prepositional phrase “between a locking position…and an unlocking position”. The prepositional phrase “between a locking position…and an unlocking position” implies (and appears to require) that something changes position and/or moves between two positions, but no such change or movement is specified by the claim language.
In claim 1, the term “the latter” (l. 22) is imprecise and ambiguous. The examiner suggests that this be changed to “the front wheel set”.
As explained above, the term “stop element” (claim 2, l. 5) invokes 35 USC 112(f). As also explained above, the specification does not explain the construction of the stop element 70, and the specific structure of the stop element 70 cannot be ascertained from Figs. 7A-7B. Since the corresponding structure is not properly identified, the claim is indefinite.
In claim 2, it is unclear whether the term “the front axis” (l. 3) refers to the front transverse axis introduced in claim 1 (l. 7) or some other front axis.
In claim 2, it is unclear whether the term “its axis” (l. 7) refers to the transverse axis introduced at line 3 or some other axis.
In claim 2, the term “the direction of pivoting of the front and rear wheel sets when their configuration changes” lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, this recitation is indefinite because the front and rear wheel sets pivot in one direction during folding and pivot in the opposite direction during unfolding/deployment. Thus, it is unclear what direction of pivoting is being referred to. And it is unclear whether “when their configuration changes” refers to the change from deployed to folded, or from folded to deployed.
In claim 3, the term “follower member” (l. 3) is indefinite/inaccurate since the corresponding structure is not a single “member”.
In claim 3, the term “the latter” (l. 7) is imprecise and ambiguous. The examiner suggests that this be changed to “the rear wheel set”.
In claim 6, “makes it possible to block” (l. 3) is hypothetical. It does not set forth a positive recitation of a claim limitation. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
In claim 6, the term “the latter” (l. 4) is imprecise and ambiguous. The examiner suggests that this be changed to “the front wheel set”.
In claim 6, the recitation “the locking bolt preventing the front wheel set from pivoting by the action of a spring in the absence of action on the lever” (ll. 6-7) is indefinite because:
It implies inaccurately that the spring acts on the locking bolt. According to the disclosure, the spring acts on the translatable sheet metal 86.
It requires the disclosed translatable sheet metal 86 in order for the locking bolt to be able to prevent the front wheel set from pivoting. Since the translatable sheet metal is not claimed, the claim is incomplete for lacking an essential feature.
In claim 7, the term “the latter” (l. 3) is imprecise and ambiguous. The examiner suggests that this be changed to “the front wheel set”.
In claim 8, the singular term “the end” (l. 2) is inconsistent with the plural term “two arms” (l. 2). Thus, it is unclear whether “at the end of which” (l. 2) refers to one of the arms, or to both of the arms.
In claim 8, the terms “the end” (l. 2) and “their other end” (l. 3) lack proper antecedent basis.
In claim 8, the recitation “connected to each other…by the front transverse axis” (l. 3) is indefinite because an “axis” is not structure. An axis is an imaginary construct and, thus, is not capable of connecting components to each other.
In claim 10, the recitation “further comprising removable bicycle seat accessories” is indefinite because it constitutes a mere listing of components. No structural relationship is specified between the recited accessories and the other components recited in claim 1. Thus, the scope of the claim exceeds the scope of the disclosure, and it is impossible to ascertain the scope of the claim with a reasonable degree of certainty.
In claim 11, the terms “the level of the backrest of the seat base structure” (l. 3) and “its loading and unloading” (l. 4) lack proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what “its loading and unloading” refers to since claim 1 does not define any loading and unloading.
In claim 11, “making it possible to manually lift” (ll. 3-4) is hypothetical. It does not set forth a positive recitation of a claim limitation. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
As explained above, new claims 13-19 are directed specifically (i.e., recite features exclusive) to Invention III.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it depends from claim 3, which is directed only to Invention I.
Claim 13 is indefinite because the limitation “wherein engagement of the cam rear finger in the first recess blocks rotation of the cam so as to lock the front wheel set in its folded position” (ll. 4-5) contradicts the previous limitation “at least one device for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position and in its folded position” (claim 1, ll. 11-12). That is, claim 1 requires a device for locking the front wheel set in both its deployed and folded positions (Invention I), but claim 13 requires a different “device” (different components) that function to lock the front wheel set in its folded position (Invention III).
Claims 14-18 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1, which is directed only to Invention I and Invention II.
Claims 14 and 19 are indefinite because the limitation “wherein engagement of the cam rear finger in the first recess blocks rotation of the cam and consequently rotation of the front wheel set, so as to lock the front wheel set in its folded position” (ll. 6-8) contradicts the previous limitation “at least one device for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position and in its folded position” (claim 1, ll. 11-12). That is, claim 1 requires a device for locking the front wheel set in both its deployed and folded positions (Invention I), but claims 14 and 19 require a different “device” (different components) that function to lock the front wheel set in its folded position (Invention III).
Claims 14, 17 and 19 are indefinite and inaccurate because they characterize the newly claimed features exclusive to Invention III as being features of “the front wheel set locking device” (claim 14 and 19, l. 1; claim 17, ll. 1-2) of Invention I or II, which “front wheel set locking device” is a “device for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position and in its folded position” (claim 1, ll. 11-12).
Claim 19 is indefinite because it depends from claim 6, which depends from claim 1, which is directed only to Invention I and Invention II.
In claims 14 and 19, the term “follower member” (l. 3) is indefinite/inaccurate since the corresponding structure is not a single “member”.
In claim 15, the term “the front axis of the chassis” (l. 2) is indefinite for the reasons given above.
In claim 18, the recitation “wherein action on the manual action handle induces a translation of the follower member against the force of the spring so as to release the cam rear finger from the first recess” (ll. 7-8) is indefinite because it is broader in scope than claim 17 (from which claim 18 depends). Note that claim 17 recites “without an external action on the front finger of the follower member forcing translation of the front finger against the force of the spring” (ll. 3-4). The examiner suggests amending claim 18 by changing “translation of the follower member” (l. 7) to “translation of the front finger of the follower member”.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Hsu”
US Patent No. 6,612,645 B1
“Normand”
FR Publication No. 2 659 616 A1 (with translation)
“Otobe et al.”
US Patent No. 5,823,247
“Schmitt”
DE Publication No. 37 03 742 A1 (with translation)
“Tucker et al.”
US Patent No. 4,762,331
“Wilhelm”
US Patent No. 5,230,523
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.
GROUND 4: Claims 1, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hsu in view of Wilhelm.
With respect to claim 1, Hsu discloses a stroller system convertible into a bicycle seat able to be configured in a first deployed configuration (see Fig. 7) allowing its use as a stroller and in a second folded configuration (see Fig. 4) allowing its storage or its use as a bicycle seat (see Fig. 6). See col. 1, ll. 6-21; col. 8, l. 16 to col. 9, l. 11. The stroller system comprises a rigid foldable chassis (including base unit 70 and seat unit 40) able to be fixed to a bicycle luggage rack A—via a removable fixing device (mounting seat 80)—both in the first deployed configuration (see Fig. 5) and the second folded configuration (see Fig. 4), the chassis including a seat base structure (seat body 41) with a backrest (back body 21). See col. 2, ll. 23-33; col. 3, ll. 29-32; col. 4, ll. 35-39; col. 5, ll. 19-52; col. 8, ll. 16-41.
Hsu’s stroller system further comprises:
A pusher (extensible handle set 30) mounted on (seat unit 40 of) the chassis and whose length is adjustable between a high position (shown in solid lines in Fig. 7) in which it forms a handle for the stroller and a low position (shown in Fig. 4 and in dashed lines in Fig. 7) in which it forms a rear mechanical retainer (see Figs. 4-5) for the backrest (back body 21) of the bicycle seat. See Figs. 2, 4-5 and 7; col. 2, l. 23 to col. 3, l. 28; col. 5, l. 53 to col. 6, l. 19; col. 9, ll. 1-11.
A set of front wheels 563 pivotally mounted to (base unit 70 of) the chassis about a front transverse axis (defined by/through locking bolt 52) and pivotal between a deployed position (see Fig. 7) and a folded position (see Fig. 4). See Figs. 3-3A, 4-5 and 7; col. 2, ll. 23-29; col. 3, l. 63 to col. 4, l. 12; col. 6, ll. 42-60.
A set of rear wheels 622 pivotally mounted to (base unit 70 of) the chassis about a rear transverse axis (defined by/through rivet 61) and pivotal between a deployed position (see Fig. 7) and a folded position (see Fig. 4). See Figs. 3, 3B-3C, 4-5 and 7; col. 2, ll. 23-29; col. 4, ll. 13-34; col. 7, ll. 32-50.
Two devices for locking the front wheel set (two locking assemblies that each include rotary head 51, locking bolt 52, engaging block 53 and springs 54, 55) the front wheel set in its deployed position and in its folded position. See Figs. 3-3A, 4-5 and 7; col. 3, l. 63 to col. 4, l. 12; col. 6, ll. 42-60; col. 8, ll. 57-67.
Two mechanisms for locking and unlocking the rear wheel set (two locking assemblies that each include spring 66, splined wheel 67, splined shaft 674 and splined joint 7471) positioned between the front transverse axis (defined by/through locking bolt 52) and the rear transverse axis (defined by/through rivet 61), the mechanism cooperating with a stop member (splined hole 621 in rear wheel bracket 62) secured to the rear wheel set and having a locking position in which it maintains the rear wheel set in its deployed position (see Fig. 7) and an unlocking position in which it allows the rear wheel set to pivot towards its folded position (see Fig. 4). See Figs. 3, 3B-3C, 4-5 and 7; col. 4, ll. 13-34; col. 7, ll. 32-50; col. 8, ll. 42-56
With respect to claim 1, Hsu fails to teach that the front wheels are steerable.
Wilhelm teaches a stroller system convertible from a first deployed configuration (see Fig. 11) allowing its use as a stroller to a second folded configuration (see Figs. 4 and 6) allowing its storage or its use as a seat (see Figs. 1-3 and 12). See col. 1, ll. 6-10; col. 6, ll. 16-20. Wilhelm’s stroller system includes steerable (swivel-type) front wheels 162. See Figs. 8-9 and 11; col. 6, ll. 20-26.
From the teachings of Wilhelm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hsu by making the front wheels steerable in order to make the stroller more maneuverable and convenient to use.
With respect to claim 1, Hsu does not explicitly state that the rear wheel set is maintained in its folded position by the front wheel set when the front wheel set is locked in its folded position. However, Fig. 4 shows that the rear wheels 622 are trapped above the front wheels 563 in the folded positions of the front and rear wheel sets. Thus, the front wheel set maintains the rear wheel set in its folded position when the front wheel set is locked in its folded position. In other words, even if the mechanisms for locking and unlocking the rear wheel set are unlocked, the rear wheel set is maintained in its folded position by the locked front wheel set.
If Hsu is considered to fail to fully teach that the rear wheel set is maintained in its folded position by the front wheel set when the front wheel set is locked in its folded position, Wilhelm teaches (i) a front wheel set including a pivotal support 120 that pivots about a front transverse axis and has arms 124 carrying front wheels 162, (ii) a rear wheel set including a pivotal support 122 that pivots about a rear transverse axis and has arms 130 carrying rear wheels 164, (iii) locking devices/mechanisms 148 for locking both the front and rear wheel sets in a first deployed configuration, and (iv) a locking mechanism 136 for locking the front wheel set in a second folded configuration, with the front wheel set maintaining the rear wheel set in a folded position when the front wheel set is locked in its folded position. See Figs. 4-9; col. 5, l. 13 to col. 6, l. 15. From this teaching of Wilhelm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hsu by using the front wheel set to maintain the rear wheel set in its folded position when the front wheel set is locked in its folded position because such a modification is consistent with the disclosure of Hsu (explained above) and because this serves to better maintain the rear wheel set in its folded position.
With respect to claim 8, Hsu’s front wheel set comprises two arms 56 at the end of which at least one wheel 563 is mounted and which are connected to each other only at their other end by (or along) the front transverse axis so as to facilitate loading onto the bicycle rack A when the stroller system is in its deployed configuration. Further, Wilhelm’s front wheel set comprises two arms 124 at the end of which at least one wheel 162 is mounted and which are connected to each other only at their other end by (or along) the front transverse axis.
With respect to claim 10, Hsu teaches removable bicycle seat accessories in the form of footboards 44 and support plates 45. See Figs. 3-3A, 4 and 7; col. 3, ll. 29-32 and 52-62; col. 6, ll. 36-41
With respect to claim 11, Hsu’s extensible handle set 30, in its low position (shown in Fig. 4 and in dashed lines in Fig. 7), constitutes a rear handle located at the level of the backrest (back body 21) of the seat base structure (seat body 41). Further, the seat body 41 has a inverted U-shaped flange projecting forward, which constitutes a front handle located at the front of the chassis. Hsu’s front and rear handles make it possible to manually lift the stroller during its loading or unloading.
GROUND 5: Claims 1, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wilhelm in view of Otobe et al. and Hsu.
See the discussion of the teachings of Wilhelm in GROUND 4.
With respect to claim 1, Wilhelm’s rear arms 130 cooperate with the rear wheel set locking mechanism 148. Wilhelm fails to teach a (separate) stop member secured to the rear wheel set and cooperating with the rear wheel set locking mechanism.
Otobe et al. teaches a stroller system convertible from a first deployed configuration (see Fig. 2) allowing its use as a stroller to a second folded configuration (see Fig. 6) allowing its storage or its use as a seat. See col. 1, ll. 8-10; col. 8, ll. 43-53. A pivotal support 44, 46 that pivots about a rear transverse axis and has arms 4a carrying rear wheels 45, a stop member 47 is secured to the pivotal support 44, and a locking mechanism (including locking arm 25) cooperates with the stop member 47 to lock the rear wheel set in a folded configuration. See Figs. 2 and 6-12; col. 7, l. 32 to col. 8, l. 42.
From the teachings of Otobe et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilhelm by providing a stop member secured to the rear wheel set and cooperating with the rear wheel set locking mechanism in order to provide for enhanced engagement between the rear wheel set and its locking mechanism while also utilizing the stop member as a stop for limiting/defining the pivotal movement of the rear wheel set.
With respect to claim 1, Wilhelm also fails to teach that the stroller system’s chassis is able to be fixed to a bicycle luggage rack—via a removable fixing device—both in the first deployed configuration and the second folded configuration. See the discussion of Hsu in GROUND 4, including Hsu’s teaching of the claimed removable fixing device. From the teachings of Hsu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilhelm by providing such a removable fixing device because this enables the stroller system to be attached to a bicycle and used as a bicycle seat.
With respect to claim 8, Wilhelm’s front wheel set comprises two arms 124 at the end of which at least one wheel 162 is mounted and which are connected to each other only at their other end by (or along) the front transverse axis.
With respect to claim 11, Wilhelm’s handles 86 are telescopically adjustable. See Figs. 1-2; col. 4, ll. 21-24. Further, Hsu’s extensible handle set 30, in its low position (shown in Fig. 4 and in dashed lines in Fig. 7), constitutes a rear handle located at the level of the backrest (back body 21) of the seat base structure (seat body 41). Further, Hsu’s seat body 41 has a inverted U-shaped flange projecting forward, which constitutes a front handle located at the front of the chassis. Hsu’s front and rear handles make it possible to manually lift the stroller during its loading or unloading. From the teachings of Hsu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilhelm to include front and rear handles that make it possible to manually lift the stroller during its loading or unloading because this provides assistance and convenience to the user in handling the stroller system in its folded configuration.
GROUND 6: Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hsu in view of Wilhelm in view of Otobe et al. and Hsu (GROUND 5) and further in view of Tucker et al.
The Wilhelm, Otobe et al. and Hsu combination lacks a footrest system that is retractable. Tucker et al. teaches a stroller system convertible from a first deployed configuration (see Fig. 11) allowing its use as a stroller to a second folded configuration (see Fig. 10) allowing its storage or its use as a seat, wherein the stroller system includes a footrest 128 mounted via a linkage 200, 202, 204, 206 for extension and retraction. See Figs. 8-11; col. 5, ll. 51-56; col. 7, ll. 22-41. From this teaching of Tucker et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Wilhelm by providing a retractable footrest system so that such footrest can be deployed during use as a stroller and retracted when used as a seat.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Normand teaches a stroller system convertible from a first deployed configuration (see Fig. 1b-3) allowing its use as a stroller to a second folded configuration (see Fig. 1a and 3) allowing its storage or its use as a bicycle seat.
Schmitt teaches a stroller system convertible from a first deployed configuration (see Fig. 5) allowing its use as a stroller to a second folded configuration (see Fig. 6) allowing its storage or its use as a seat. The stroller system can also be used as a bicycle seat (see Fig. 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9 and 13-19 are considered to recite allowable subject matter. In addition to rewriting such claims in independent form, the above rejections under 35 USC 112 must be overcome in order for these claims to be found patentable.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because:
In claim 9, at l. 2, “deployed position” should read “deployed positions”, and “folded position” should read “folded positions”.
In claim 16, at ll. 1-2, “finger which” should read “finger, which”.
In claim 16, at l. 3, “position is” should read “position, is”.
Specification Objections
The specification is also objected to because:
At p. 3, l. 20 (¶ 0013), “a removable fixing device on a bicycle luggage rack” is confusing and inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 6, l. 24 (¶ 0031), “a front wheel set” should read “a rear wheel set”. See ¶ 0078.
At p. 7, ll. 17-18 (¶ 0037), “a removable fixing device 6 on a bicycle luggage rack” is confusing and inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 7, l. 21 (¶ 0037), “Figure 7” should read “Figure 9”.
At p. 7, ll. 28-29 (¶ 0039), “a front transverse axis X-X of the chassis” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 8, ll. 4-5 (¶ 0040), “connected…by the front transverse axis X-X of the chassis” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 8, l. 12 (¶ 0043), “the wheels in rotation” should read “the rotation of the wheels”.
At p. 8, l. 16 (¶ 0044), “a rear transverse axis Y-Y of the chassis” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 8, l. 23 (¶ 0045), “the rear transverse axis Y-Y of the chassis” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 8, l. 27 (¶ 0047), “chassis 6” should read “chassis 4”.
At p. 9, l. 20 (¶ 0052), “the front transverse axis X-X of the chassis” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 9, ll. 25-26 (¶ 0053), “the front transverse axis X-X and the rear transverse axis Y-Y of the chassis” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 10, l. 5 (¶ 0055), “the receptacle” should read “the receptacles”.
At p. 10, l. 9 (¶ 0056), “the transverse axis Z-Z of the chassis” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 10, l. 13 (¶ 0057), “the transverse axis Z’-Z’ of the chassis” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 10, ll. 20-21 (¶ 0058), “the front transverse axis X-X of the chassis” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 12, l. 5 (¶ 0070), “follower member” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 13, l. 9 (¶ 0077), “pivoted forward” should read “pivoted rearward”.
At p. 13, l. 10 (¶ 0077), “set forward” should read “set rearward”.
At p. 13, l. 21 (¶ 0079), “a latch 66” is inconsistent with “The latches 66” (p. 13, l. 25).
At p. 13, ll. 21-22 (¶ 0079), “a transverse axis Z’-Z’ of the chassis” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 14, ll. 1-7 (¶ 0082), the description of the strike 74 as being able to move between first and second positions is inconsistent with the illustration of the strike 74 in Figs. 7A-7B. See the further explanation above.
At p. 14, l. 27 (¶ 0086), “pivoted forward” should read “pivoted rearward”.
At p. 14, l. 28 (¶ 0086), “set forward” should read “set rearward”.
At p. 15, l. 14 (¶ 0089), “the front transverse axis X-X of the chassis” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 15, l. 15 (¶ 0089), “follower member” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At p. 15, l. 24 (¶ 0024), “cam head 54” should read “cam 54”.
In the abstract, at ll. 4-5, “a removable fixing device (6) on a bicycle luggage rack” is confusing and inaccurate for the reasons given above.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed below must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
A rigid foldable chassis able to be fixed to a bicycle luggage rack both in a deployed configuration and a folded configuration (claim 1, ll. 4-5).6
A removable fixing device on a bicycle luggage rack (claim 1, l. 13).7
A pusher…whose length is adjustable between a high position in which it forms a handle for the stroller and a low position in which it forms a rear mechanical retainer for the backrest of the bicycle seat (claim 1, ll. 14-16).8
The stop member secured to the rear wheel set comprises a retractable strike able to move between a first position in which it comes into abutment against the rear lug of the latch to prevent the rear wheel set from pivoting and a second position in which it can freely pass over the rear lug (claim 2, ll. 10-13).9
The rear wheel set comprises stop elements able to come into abutment against stop elements of the front wheel set to allow the latter to drive the rear wheel set when the stroller system moves from its deployed configuration to its folded configuration (claim 7).10
A front handle located at the front of the chassis…making it possible to manually lift the stroller during its loading or unloading (claim 11).
The front wheel set comprises at least one retractable footrest system (claim 12).
The front wheel set cannot be unlocked from its folded position without an external action on the front finger of the follower member forcing translation of the front finger against the force of the spring (claim 17). No such external action on the front finger of the follower member is shown.
An unlocking lever which is rotatable about an axis of rotation and which comprises a manual action handle at one end and an interaction rod at an opposite end, the manual action handle and the interaction rod being located on either side of the axis of rotation, the interaction rod being complementary to the second recess, wherein action on the manual action handle induces a translation of the follower member against the force of the spring so as to release the cam rear finger from the first recess (claim 18).
The drawings are also objected to because:
In Fig. 1, both reference number 6 and reference number 8 are directed to the same component. Either the removable fixing device 6 or the seat base structure 8 is not visible/shown in the figure. It is assumed that the removable fixing device 6 is hidden beneath the seat base structure 8. If so, reference number 6 should not appear in the figure.
In Fig. 1, the lead lines for reference numbers 63, 65 do not appear to be directed to stop elements that are capable of inter-engagement. See the further explanation above.
In Fig. 5A, the lead lines for both occurrences of reference number 56 are not properly directed to stop plates. See Fig. 5B. Further, the illustration of the stop plates in Fig. 5A (showing the rear fingers 62 above the stop plates) is inconsistent with the illustration in Fig. 5B (showing the stop plate 56 above the rear finger 62).
In Fig. 6A, reference number 36 should be changed to 46, and reference number 46 should be changed to 36. See Fig. 3B.
In Figs. 7A-7B, the illustration of the strike 74 is inaccurate because it is not shown as being movable between first and second positions. See ¶¶ 0082, 0086.
The use of reference numbers 52, 54, 56, 58 and 60 to label structurally different embodiments of the follower member, cam, stop member, front finger and spring in Figs. 8A-8B does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). The same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this application should be directed:
By Patent Center11: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 See ¶¶ 0050-0060 of the specification, which describe Figs. 3A-3B as showing a device for locking the front wheel set in both its deployed position and its folded position.
2 See ¶¶ 0067-0077 of the specification, which describe Figs. 5A-6B as showing a mechanism for locking and unlocking the rear wheel set.
3 See ¶¶ 0078-0086 of the specification, which describe Figs. 7A-7B as showing a second embodiment of the rear wheel set locking and unlocking mechanism.
4 See ¶¶ 0062-0066 of the specification, which describe Figs. 4A-4B as showing a mechanism for locking and unlocking the front wheel set (but not for locking the front wheel set in its folded position).
5 See ¶¶ 0088-0096 of the specification, which describe Figs. 8A-8B as showing an evolution (i.e., modification) of the first embodiment of the rear wheel set locking and unlocking mechanism (shown in Figs. 5A-6B) in combination with another device for locking the front wheel set in its folded position (but not for locking the front wheel set in its deployed position).
6 The specification describes the removable fixing device 6 for use in fixing the chassis 4 to a bicycle luggage rack. While Fig. 9 shows the male plate 6b of the removable fixing device 6, the female plate 6a is not illustrated in the drawings (in spite of the fact that reference number 6a appears improperly in the drawings). Further, the bicycle luggage rack is not shown in the drawings.
7 Fig. 9 shows the male plate 6b of the removable fixing device 6, but the female plate 6a is not illustrated in the drawings (in spite of the fact that reference number 6a appears improperly in the drawings).
8 While high and low positions are shown, a pusher that is length-adjustable is not shown.
9 Figs. 7A and 7B both show the retractable strike 74 in the same position relative to the structure of the rear wheel set 20 that supports the retractable strike 74. There is no showing of a retractable strike that is able to move between a first position in which it comes into abutment against the rear lug of the latch (the position of Fig. 7A) and a second position in which it can freely pass over the rear lug. No such second position is shown.
10 The specification does not explain the construction of the “stop elements”. Rather, the specification merely states that the rear wheel set comprises stop elements 63 able to come into abutment against stop elements 65 of the front wheel set to allow the latter to drive the rear wheel set when the stroller system moves from its deployed configuration to its folded configuration. Reference numbers 63, 65 appear in Fig. 1 of the drawings, but their lead lines are not directed to structure constituting “stop elements” that “come into abutment” such that the front stop elements “drive the rear wheel set when the stroller system moves from its deployed configuration to its folded configuration”.
11 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).
