DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figs. 7 and 8, two different components are denoted “61.” The second actuation structure (lower right “61” in both Figs.) should be –62—(or in Fig. 8 --621—since the leader line is directed to that particular portion of the second actuation structure). Lastly, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “63.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
on page 7, last paragraph, “form an receiving” should be –form a receiving--;
on page 11, next to last line, “sleeve seat 434” should be –sleeve seat 634--; and
on pages 14 and 15, at three places, “sliding seat body 633” should be –sliding seat body 632--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (CN 208498578, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a carrier, wherein the carrier has a folded state (see Fig. 5) and an unfolded state (see Fig. 1), the carrier comprising a first correlation structure (9) and a second correlation structure (2), the carrier further comprising:
two first supporting structures (5,6), wherein each of the first supporting structures is respectively connected to the first correlation structure (9), and each of the first supporting structures is rotatable with respect to each other (see e.g., Fig. 3);
two second supporting structures (3,4), wherein each of the second supporting structures is respectively connected to the second correlation structure (2), and each of the second supporting structures is rotatable with respect to each other (see e.g., Fig. 3);
a linkage structure (7,8) disposed between the first supporting structure (5,6) and the second supporting structure (3,4) and movable with respect to at least one of the first supporting structure and the second supporting structure (see pivoting movement between Figs. 1 and 5);
an actuation mechanism (e.g., the locking mechanism in ¶0038-0039 and 0044) coupled to the first correlation structure and the second correlation structure, wherein when the carrier is in an unfolded state, the first correlation structure and the second correlation structure are locked by the actuation mechanism (e.g., locking the relative position between the slider 2 and the vertical slide bar 1) to locate the relative positions of each of the first supporting structures and each of the second supporting structures;
when the carrier is transformed from the unfolded state into the folded state, the first correlation structure and the second correlation structure are unlocked by the actuation mechanism (see ¶0038), so that each of the first supporting structure and each of the second supporting structure respectively rotates with respect to each other; and
each of the first supporting structure, each of the second supporting structure and the linkage structure are folded inwards (see Figs. 3-5 showing the inward folding and ¶0043).
Regarding claim 13, Ma further discloses that when the carrier is in the unfolded state (see e.g., Fig. 2), each of the first supporting structure (5,6), the linkage structure (7,8) and each of the second supporting structure (3,4) is unfolded respectively to form a receiving space; and a symmetrically arranged bi-mechanical quadrilateral is formed at a side of the carrier (see the trapezoidal shape defined by the four bars).
Regarding claim 14, Ma further discloses that the carrier further comprises a grip (see un-numbered handle in Fig. 1) provided with a second connecting piece (e.g., the two downwardly depending legs attaching the laterally arranged handle to the carrier) rotatably disposed (see e.g., Fig. 3 showing the handle pivoting relative to the carrier) on a second shaft (implicit).
Regarding claim 15, Ma further discloses a stroller (see Fig. 7), wherein the stroller comprises: the carrier according to claim 1, wherein a first engagement member (17) is disposed on the second correlation structure (2); and an outer support (12, 13) provided with a second engagement member (slot, see ¶0048) adapted to the first engagement member (17), wherein the first engagement member is engaged with the second engagement member to assemble the carrier onto the outer support.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma.
Regarding claim 12, Ma further discloses that the second correlation structure (2) is provided with a first engagement member (17) adapted to an outer support (via slot in stroller frame, see Fig., 7 and ¶0048) for engaging the carrier to the outer support (stroller) or disengaging the carrier from the outer support; when the carrier is engaged to the outer support and the carrier is in an unfolded state, the horizontal plane (defined by 5, 6 in Fig. 8) on which the bottom of the carrier formed by each of the second supporting structures is located is shown above the bottom (e.g., where the wheels engage the ground) of the outer support.
Ma, however, does not specifically disclose that the bottom of the carriage is more than 40cm above the ground when mounted on the stroller.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the stroller/carrier combination of Ma to have a ground clearance of at least 40 cm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to improve ergonomics and ensure the baby/passenger is sufficiently close to the pusher without bending over too far.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Ding (CN 116714658, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Ma further discloses a second actuation structure (e.g., the unlocking elements driven by unlocking latch 10) adjacent the second correlation structure (2), but does not disclose a first actuation structure adjacent to the first correlation structure and is driven by the connection structure to unlock the first correlation structure.
Ding teaches another carrier including upper and lower supporting structures (11/21) that fold inwardly with a first correlation structure (upper pivoting elements in Fig. 8) including a first actuation structure (second locking piece 91); and a second correlation structure (4) with a second actuation structure (first locking piece 71) with a connection structure (311) connected to the two correlations structures (see Figs. 8 and 12) wherein when the carrier is transformed from the unfolded state into the folded state (see Figs. 1 and 6), the second correlation structure (4) is unlocked by the second actuation structure (71) so that each of the second supporting structures rotates with respect to each other (see e.g., ¶0066), and the first actuation structure (91) is driven by the connection structure to unlock the first correlation structure to enable each of the first supporting structures to rotate with respect to each other (see ¶0082 describing how the vertical movement of slide 4 causes the second joint’s lock 91 to unlock).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the carrier of Ma with the second locking mechanism on the spaced folding joint that is driven by the sliding motion along a vertical shaft between the joints as taught by Ding to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using multiple joint locks controlled by a single unlocking operation) to known devices (e.g., inwardly collapsing bassinets/carriers) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------a folding bassinet having a more robust folding joint without additional unlocking/unlatching operations).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or otherwise fairly suggest the that the second correlation structure including two articulation members connected to the two supporting structures with the first articulation member being slidably connected to the second actuation structure and wherein the two articulation members are arranged coaxially on a pivot shaft, wherein the sliding of the second actuation structure within the first articulation member unlocks the second correlation structure and rotates the two articulation members about the shaft in opposite directions along with the recited connection structure driving the first actuation structure to unlock the first correlation structure.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
