DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 4/03/2025 cancelled claim 1, and added new claims 2-21. Claims 2-21 are currently pending herein.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,731,682. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-21 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent 11,731,682. In other words, claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent 11,731,682 fully encompasses the subject matter of claims 2-21 and therefore anticipate claims 2-21. Since claims 2-21 are anticipated by claims 1-16 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claims 1-16. Thus, the invention of claims 1-16 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of claims 2-21. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claims 2-21, are anticipated (fully encompassed) by claims 1-16 of the patent, claims 2-21 are not patentably distinct from claims 1-16, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1-16.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/17/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant is advised that the M.P.E.P. states the following with respect to large information disclosure statements (such as the one filed 3/17/2025): Although a concise explanation of the relevance of information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted. Concise explanations (especially those that point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more is highly relevant to patentability (M.P.E.P. § 609)
Therefore, it is recommended that if any information that has been cited by Applicant in the disclosure statement is known to be material for patentability as defined by 37 CFR 1.56, Applicant should present a concise statement as to the relevance of that/those particular documents therein cited. The references cited by applicants in the IDS and listed on the numerous 1449s have been made of record.
While the statements filed clearly do not comply with the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2004 regarding both the number of references cited and the elimination of clearly irrelevant art and marginally cumulative information, compliance with these guidelines is not mandatory. Furthermore, 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 do not require that the information be material, rather they allow for submission of information regardless of its pertinence to the claimed invention. Also, there is no requirement to explain the materiality of the submitted references, however, the cloaking of a clearly relevant reference by inclusion in a long list of citations may not comply with Applicant's duty of disclosure, see Penn Yan Boats, Inc. V. Sea Lark boats Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, aff'd 479 F. 2d. 1338.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the stroller frame's front wheel support portion” (line 8-9) should be rewritten as: “the front wheel support portion.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the stroller frame's back wheel support portion” (line 10) should be rewritten as: “the back wheel support portion.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding the claims, claim recites the limitation “the plurality of back wheels” (line 19) which is of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite (Applicant should take note that line 10 recites the limitation: “two rear wheels”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 4, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding the claims, each of the claims recites the term “substantially”, which renders the claims indefinite, since the term is a relative term. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since no tolerances have been defined by the specification or claims, it's impossible to determine what range has been actually claimed, thus rendering the scope of the claim(s) not clearly defined. 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Cheng (US 7,475,900 B2).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Cheng discloses: A convertible stroller (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8), configured for being converted from a single stroller to a double stroller (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8), the stroller comprising:
a stroller frame (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 3+4+5+10+etc.);
configured for being adjusted between a folded configuration and an unfolded configuration (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8), the stroller frame comprising: a handle portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 10); a front wheel support portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 31); and a back wheel support portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 32);
at least one front wheel (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 33) secured to the stroller frame's front wheel support portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8);
two rear wheels (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 34) secured to the stroller frame's back wheel support portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8);
a first seat (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 72) removably attached to the stroller frame (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8);
one or more seat attachment portions (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, unlabeled portion of seat 71) removably attached to the stroller frame (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 410); and
a second seat (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 71) removably attached to the one or more seat attachment portions (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8) and positioned in front of the first seat (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8); wherein at least one of the first seat and the second seat is configured for being removably attached to the stroller frame in a forward-facing configuration and a backward-facing configuration (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8); and wherein the first seat and the second seat are positioned such that a center of gravity of the stroller is between the at least one front wheel and the plurality of back wheels (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
A convertible stroller configured for being converted from a single stroller to a double stroller, the stroller comprising:
a stroller frame configured for being adjusted between a folded configuration and an unfolded configuration, the stroller frame comprising: a handle portion; a front wheel support portion; and a back wheel support portion; at least one front wheel secured to the front wheel support portion; two rear wheels secured to the back wheel support portion; a first seat removably attached to the stroller frame; a first seat attachment portion removably attached to the stroller frame, wherein the first seat attachment portion does not extend in front of the at least one front wheel; and a second seat removably attached to the first seat attachment portion and positioned in front of the first seat; wherein at least one of the first seat or the second seat is configured for being removably attached to the stroller frame in both: (i) a forward-facing configuration, and (ii) a backward-facing configuration; and wherein the first seat and the second seat are positioned such that a center of gravity of the stroller is between the at least one front wheel and the two rear wheels.
3. The stroller of claim 2, wherein the second seat is positioned over the at least one front wheel.
4. The stroller of claim 2, wherein the first seat is positioned over the two rear wheels.
5. The stroller of claim 2, wherein the first seat is positioned adjacent to the handle portion.
6. The stroller of claim 2, wherein the first seat is positioned nearer to the handle portion than the second seat.
7. The stroller of claim 2, wherein the first seat attachment portion is removably attached to the front wheel support portion.
8. The stroller of claim 2, wherein the first seat attachment portion supports the second seat above the at least one front wheel.
9. The stroller of claim 2, wherein the first seat attachment portion comprises a seat connector configured for connecting to the second seat.
10. The stroller of claim 2, wherein the stroller further comprises a second seat attachment portion connected to the stroller frame; and wherein the first seat is removably attached to the second seat attachment portion.
11. The stroller of claim 10, wherein the first seat attachment portion is removably attached to the front wheel support portion, and wherein the second seat attachment portion is connected to the stroller frame adjacent to the handle portion.
12. The stroller of claim 2, wherein the first seat is configured for being attached to the stroller frame in a forward-facing configuration and a backward-facing configuration.
13. The stroller of claim 2, wherein the at least one front wheel comprises two front wheels secured to the front wheel support portion.
14. The stroller of claim 2, wherein the second seat is configured for being attached to the one or more seat attachment portions in a forward-facing configuration and a backward-facing configuration.
15. The stroller of claim 2, wherein the first seat is configured for being removably attached to the stroller frame at a first vertical position, and the second seat is configured for being removably attached to the one or more seat attachment portions at a second vertical position that is below the first vertical position.
16. The stroller of claim 2, wherein the handle portion and the front wheel support portion are parallel when the stroller frame is in the unfolded configuration.
17. A convertible stroller configured for being converted from a single stroller to a double stroller, the stroller comprising: a stroller frame configured for being adjusted between a folded configuration and an unfolded configuration, the stroller frame comprising: a handle portion; a front wheel support portion; and a back wheel support portion; two front wheels secured to the front wheel support portion, wherein the two front wheels are aligned on opposite sides of the stroller frame; two rear wheels secured to the back wheel support portion; a first seat removably attached to the stroller frame; a first seat attachment portion removably attached to the stroller frame; and a second seat removably attached to the first seat attachment portion and positioned in front of the first seat; wherein at least one of the first seat and the second seat is configured for being removably attached to the stroller frame in both: (i) a forward-facing configuration, and (ii) a backward-facing configuration; and wherein the first seat and the second seat are positioned such that a center of gravity of the stroller is between the two front wheels and the two rear wheels.
18. The stroller of claim 17, wherein the first seat attachment portion does not extend in front of the at least one front wheel.
19. The stroller of claim 17, wherein the two front wheels are only two front wheels.
20. The stroller of claim 17, wherein the two rear wheels are only two rear wheels.
21. The stroller of claim 17, wherein the stroller comprises a total of only four wheels
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Cheng discloses: wherein the second seat is positioned substantially over the at least one front wheel (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Cheng discloses: wherein the first seat is positioned substantially over the two rear wheels (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, Cheng discloses: wherein the first seat is positioned adjacent to the handle portion of the stroller frame (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, Cheng discloses: wherein the first seat is positioned nearer to the handle portion than the second seat (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, Cheng discloses: wherein the one or more seat attachment portions are removably attached to the front wheel support portion of the stroller frame (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, Cheng discloses: wherein the one or more seat attachment portions are positioned to support the second seat above the at least one front wheel (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, Cheng discloses: wherein the one or more seat attachment portions each comprise a seat connector (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 71+420 )configured for connecting to the second seat (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Cheng discloses: wherein the one or more seat attachment portions comprise one or more first seat attachment portions (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 71) and the stroller further comprises one or more second seat attachment portions (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 410+420)connected to the stroller frame (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8); and wherein the first seat is removably attached to the one or more second seat attachment portions (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 11] Regarding Claim 11, Cheng discloses: wherein the one or more first seat attachment portions are removably attached to the stroller frame's front wheel support portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8), and wherein the one or more second seat attachment portions are connected to the stroller frame adjacent to the frame's handle portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, Cheng discloses: wherein the first seat is configured for being attached to the stroller frame in a forward-facing configuration and a backward-facing configuration (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 13] Regarding Claim 13, Cheng discloses: wherein the at least one front wheel comprises two front wheels (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8, 33) secured to the stroller frame's front wheel support portion (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 14] Regarding Claim 14, Cheng discloses: wherein the second seat is configured for being attached to the one or more seat attachment portions in a forward-facing configuration and a backward-facing configuration (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 15] Regarding Claim 15, Cheng discloses: wherein the first seat is configured for being removably attached to the stroller frame at a first vertical position (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8), and the second seat is configured for being removably attached to the one or more seat attachment portions at a second vertical position that is below the first vertical position (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
[Claim 16] Regarding Claim 16, Cheng discloses: wherein the handle portion and the front wheel support portion are substantially parallel when the stroller frame is in the unfolded configuration (See, e.g., Fig. 4-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618.
Prosecution Insights