DETAILED ACTION
Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to a stroller storage compartment with deployable adapters pivotally connected to and stored within a housing, classified in B62B9/26.
II. Claims 11-20, drawn to a stroller adapter assembly with an elongated body movable between multiple positions relative to a mounting fixture, classified in B62B7/142.
III. Claims 21-25, drawn to a stroller releasable adapter assembly with adapters that lock/ unlock to mounting fixtures, classified in B62B7/142.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. See MPEP 806.05(d). In the instant case, Invention II has separate utility because it can be used with a stroller that lacks the stroller storage compartment with deployable adapters required by claim 1.
Inventions I and III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. See MPEP 806.05(d). In the instant case, Invention III has separate utility because it can be used with a stroller that lacks the stroller storage compartment with deployable adapters required by claim 1.
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required for at least the following reasons: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Elected Invention
During a telephone conversation with Kevin McCormick on June 4, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Invention I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 1-10 of this application are subject to examination. Claims 11-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 current claim limitations are construed under the BRI standard. No explicit claim construction is deemed to be necessary.
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 3, 6 and 8-10 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.
Claim 3 recites “the compartment housing is made of a flexible and soft material.” However, the drawings fail to illustrate an embodiment in which the compartment housing is made of flexible and soft material. Further, the specification fails to describe the specific manner in which such an embodiment would be structured, the specific manner in which it would be attached to the base frame, or the specific manner in which such an embodiment would function. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites “the pair of adapters are releasably attached to the compartment housing.” However, the drawings fail to illustrate an embodiment in which the adapters are releasably attached to the compartment housing. Further, the specification fails to describe the specific manner in which such an embodiment would be structured (including the structure that would serve to releasably attach the adapters to the compartment housing), or the specific manner in which such an embodiment would function. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites “the detachable apparatus includes at least one of a child stroller seat, a child safety seat, a pram, a bassinet, or a storage component.” However, the drawings fail to illustrate separate embodiments in which the detachable apparatus includes a child stroller seat and a child safety seat. Further, the drawings fail to show embodiments in which the detachable apparatus includes a pram, a bassinet, or a storage component. Further, the specification fails to describe the specific manner in which such embodiments would be structured, or how such embodiments would be unique/distinct (e.g., how an embodiment having a bassinet would differ from an embodiment with a child safety seat, or how an embodiment with a storage component would differ from an embodiment with a pram). The specification also fails to disclose how embodiments with a child safety seat, a pram, a bassinet, and a storage component would function in their unique/distinct manner. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “the pair of adapters are configured to be in the deployed position to receive the detachable apparatus in a forward facing position”. Due to the use of “configured to be”, the claim requires that the adapters are structured in some specific way in order to achieve the claimed functional limitation. However, the specification fails to explain how the adapters are structured in a specific/special way so as to be in the deployed position to receive the detachable apparatus in a forward facing position. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites “the pair of adapters are configured to be in the deployed position to receive the detachable apparatus in a rearward facing position”. Due to the use of “configured to be”, the claim requires that the adapters are structured in some specific way in order to achieve the claimed functional limitation. However, the specification fails to explain how the adapters are structured in a specific/special way so as to be in the deployed position to receive the detachable apparatus in a rearward facing position. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
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.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 is incomplete and/or unduly broad because:
It merely lists “a cover” as a component of the invention without defining any structural or functional relationship between the cover and the other claimed components.
It recites “a cover” and requires “a pair of adapters configured to pivotally connect with the compartment housing and be movable between a storage position inside the compartment housing and a deployed position to engage with a detachable apparatus.” According to the specification, the cover is hinged to the storage compartment and movable to an open position so that the adapters can be moved between a storage position inside the compartment housing and a deployed position to engage with a detachable apparatus. Thus, the claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements.
The examiner suggests amending line 3 of claim 1 to recite “a cover hinged to the compartment housing and movable to an open position”.
The preamble of claim 1 recites “A purpose-built storage compartment of a stroller”. Since the preamble reads “of a stroller” (rather than “for a stroller”), the preamble indicates that a stroller is required by the claim. However, the body of the claim only requires “a compartment housing configured to be fitted into a selected position of a stroller” (l. 2), which requires only a structural capability for the compartment housing and does not positively recite/require the stroller. As a result, claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is limited to application on a stroller, or whether the stroller recitations are merely intended use.
Claim 1 recites both “a stroller” in line 1 and “a stroller” in line 2. Since the preamble indicates that a stroller is required by the claim, the re-introduction of “a stroller” at line 2 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the stroller of line 2 relates to the stroller of line 1, or why two strollers are introduced.
As explained in GROUND 1, the specification fails to explain how the invention of claims 3, 6 and 8-10 is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Absent such a complete description of essential features, the scope of claims 3, 6 and 8-10 cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty. With respect to claims 9 and 10, due to the use of “configured to be”, the claim requires that the adapters are structured in some specific way in order to achieve the claimed functional limitation. However, the specification fails to explain how the adapters are structured in a specific/special way so as to be in the deployed position to receive the detachable apparatus in forward and rearward facing positions. Thus, it is impossible to ascertain what is encompassed by claims 9 and 10, and what is excluded therefrom, with any degree of certainty.
The preamble of claim 7 recites “The purpose-built storage compartment”, which indicates that the claim is directed to a storage compartment (not a stroller). However, the body of claim 7 recites “the compartment housing is fitted into a front side of the stroller adjacent to two front wheels of the stroller.” Thus, the body of the claim positively recites the stroller. However, as explained above, it is unclear whether claim 1 positively recites the stroller. If the stroller is not a claim requirement (only an intended use), as suggested by claim 1 and the preamble of claim 7, then claim 7 is indefinite because it recites a limitation that must be viewed as optional or ignored.
In claim 7, the term “the stroller” (l. 2) is indefinite because claim 1 recites both “a stroller” in line 1 and “a stroller” in line 2. It is unclear whether “the stroller” in claim 7 refers to a specific one of the strollers mentioned in claim 1, or to both of them.
The preamble of claim 8 recites “The purpose-built storage compartment”, which indicates that the claim is directed to a storage compartment (not a stroller supporting a detachable apparatus). However, the body of claim 8 recites “the detachable apparatus includes at least one of a child stroller seat, a child safety seat, a pram, a bassinet, or a storage component.” Thus, claim 8 positively recites the detachable apparatus and sets forth limitations with respect thereto. However, claim 1 recites “a pair of adapters configured…to engage with a detachable apparatus”, which requires only a structural capability for the adapters and does not positively recite/require the detachable apparatus. If the detachable apparatus is not a claim requirement (only an intended use), as suggested by claim 1 and the preamble of claim 8, then claim 8 is indefinite because it recites a limitation that must be viewed as optional or ignored.
Claims 2, 4 and 5 are included in the rejection 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):
“Eggert-Crowe et al.”
US Publication No. 2019/0337550 A1
“Gibson”
US Publication No. 2019/0217879 A1
“Gillett”
US Publication No. 2015/0232114 A1
“Hu”
US Publication No. 2022/0371643 A1
“Leng et al.”
CN Publication No. 103072612 B (with translation)
“Wang et al.”
CN Publication No. 108674478 A (with translation)
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art listed above is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Gillett teaches a stroller comprising adapters 241 that pivot between a storage position and a deployed position to engage a child seat.
Leng et al. teaches a stroller comprising adapters 71/710 that pivot between a storage position and a deployed position to engage a child seat.
Wang et al. teaches a stroller comprising adapters 53 that pivot between a storage position and a deployed position to engage a child seat.
Gibson teaches a stroller comprising adapters 140 that pivot between a storage position and a deployed position to engage a child seat.
Eggert-Crowe et al. teaches a stroller comprising adapters 130 that pivot between a storage position and a deployed position to engage a child seat.
Hu teaches a stroller comprising adapters 100 that pivot between a storage position and a deployed position to engage a child seat.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to because:
In ¶ 00125, “111” (l. 4) should read “112”.
In ¶ 00127, “111” (l. 10) should read “114”.
In ¶ 00129, “substantially L-shaped narrow sides 602a, 602b, 604a, 604b” (l. 5) appears to be inaccurate. The sides alone are not substantially L-shaped; rather, an “L” shape is defined by the main planar surface and each side.
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.
“the compartment housing is made of a flexible and soft material” (claim 3).
“the pair of adapters are releasably attached to the compartment housing” (claim 6).
“the detachable apparatus includes at least one of…a child safety seat, a pram, a bassinet, or a storage component” (claim 8).
“the pair of adapters are configured to be in the deployed position to receive the detachable apparatus in a rearward facing position” (claim 10).
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 Center1: 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 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).
Prosecution Insights