Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/25 has been entered.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because “the periphery” in line 2 should be “a periphery” in order to avoid antecedent basis issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. 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.
6. Claims 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Gal (D527,953 S) in view of Bowen et al. (US 6,129,416 A) and Scarton et al. (US 7,793,904 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Le Gal discloses a tray comprising: a tray portion including outer ends at a periphery of said tray portion (see Figures, one end being proximate the arms, one end being opposite the arms), at least one cup holder (see recessed cup holder portion of tray in Figures) and at least one snack compartment (see flat portion of tray in Figures), said cup holder and said snack compartment being located interiorly of the peripheral outer ends (see Figures); and at least two arms (see hooks in Figures), each connected to said tray portion at a first outer end location by at least one mount (see Figures); wherein an outer end of said tray portion at a location opposite said first outer end being unsupported (see absence of arms on the opposite side which presumably indicates lack of support on that side).
Le Gal fails to disclose the arms being bendable arms such that they are detachably attachable to the bumper bar of a stroller portion (neither the bumper bar nor the stroller currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “attachable”) by the arms being wrapped around at least a portion of the bumper bar. Le Gal also fails to disclose the arms being detachably connected to said tray portion by the at least one mount. Being a design patent, it is not entirely clear just how the arms are connected to the tray.
Regarding the arms being bendable, Bowen teaches that it was already known in the art to mount a device (12) a stroller bar using a bendable arm (20) that wraps around the stroller bar. Bowen teaches that the wrapped arm design provides for flexibility in allowing a user to mount the device to different types of supports including strollers, cribs, and car seats without the need for multiple special mounts or brackets (see col. 1 lines 37-47 and col. 3 lines 31-33). Bowen also teaches that the bendable arm can be used to attach devices other than shades visors to a stroller as well (see col. 3 lines 41-44). Considering these references in their entirety, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the arms of Le Gal as flexible arms like those of Bowen, the motivation being to allow a user to easily attach the tray to any of a stroller, a crib, or car seat without the need for multiple special mounts or brackets, as taught by Bowen. Nothing in this modified Le Gal tray would physically prevent a user from choosing to wrap the arms around the bumper bar of a stroller as only functionally claimed.
Regarding the arms being detachably connected, it is not clear if the aperture mount between the arm and device of Bowen is detachable or not (see Bowen col. 3 lines 22-24). Scarton teaches that it was already known for a device (10) to be mounted to a stroller (14) where the device (10) includes an aperture (20) formed in an outer end thereof to which an arm (12) is detachably attached (via head 32 removable within the aperture). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the aperture mount of Bowen with any other suitable mount design, in this case a detachable head-in-slot mount design like that of Scarton. The proposed modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known mount design for another in order to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have realized through their own available knowledge and reasoning that removable arms would allow damaged parts of the tray system to be replaced without having to replace the entire system or would alternatively allow a user to remove the tray for deep cleaning without having to first unwind the arms.
Regarding claim 4, Le Gal as modified above would include the stroller tray of claim 3, wherein said at least two bendable arms are tubular in shape when not bent, as taught by Bowen (see Figure 3), and are attachable to said bumper bar having said arms wrapped around said stroller bumper bar while said tray portion remains supported with said stroller bumper bar. Again, nothing in this modified Le Gal tray would physically prevent a user from choosing to wrap the arms around the bumper bar of a stroller as only functionally claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Le Gal as modified above would include the stroller tray of claim 3, wherein said at least one cup holder is circular in shape and has a contoured surface, as originally taught by Le Gal (see Figures).
Regarding claim 6, Le Gal as modified above would include the stroller tray of claim 3, wherein said at least one cup holder is sized to hold bottles and children's sippy cups, as originally taught by Le Gal (see Figures).
Regarding claim 7, Le Gal as modified above would include the stroller tray of claim 3, wherein said at least one cup holder is sized to accommodate any size drink container, including large bottles and cups, as originally taught by Le Gal (see Figures).
Regarding claim 8, Le Gal as modified above would include the stroller tray of claim 3, wherein said at least one snack compartment has a contoured surface that is larger in width than said at least one cup holder but smaller in depth than said at least one cup holder, as originally taught by Le Gal (see Figures).
Regarding claim 9, Le Gal as modified above would include the stroller tray of claim 5, wherein said at least one snack compartment is generally oval in shape, with a wall of said at least one snack compartment adjoining said at least one cup holder being curved to wrap around the circular edge of said at least one cup holder, as originally taught by Le Gal (see Figures where the flat bottom wall of the snack container curves to wrap around the cup holder where the cup holder drops below this bottom wall).
Regarding claim 10, Le Gal as modified above would include the stroller tray of claim 1, wherein Le Gal discloses said tray portion is curved in a U-shape (see Figures 1-3) to align with the shape of a curved stroller bumper bar (stroller bumper bar still not being claimed in combination). Le Gal shows his tray having a U-shape that could match the shape of some curved stroller bumper bar.
Regarding claim 11, Le Gal as modified above would include the stroller tray of claim 3, wherein said at least two bendable arms are coated in gripping materials, as taught by Bowen (16, see col. 2 lines 59-61).
Regarding claim 12, Le Gal as modified above would include the stroller tray of claim 3, where said at least one mount is directly formed from an outer end of said tray portion, as collectively taught by Le Gal and Scarton.
Regarding claim 13, Le Gal as modified above would include the stroller tray of claim 3, wherein said at least two bendable arms each contain an inner bendable rod, as taught by Bowen (14).
Regarding claim 14, Le Gal as modified above would include the stroller tray of claim 3, wherein said inner bendable rod is made of metal material, as taught by Bowen (see col. 2 lines 44-46).
7. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Gal (D527,953 S) in view of Bowen et al. (US 6,129,416 A), Scarton et al. (US 7,793,904 B2), and Magnani (US 5,964,501 A).
Regarding claim 16, Le Gal discloses a method of providing a tray (see Figures where a tray is provided) comprising: providing a tray portion having at least one cup holder (see recessed cup holder portion of tray in Figures) and at least one snack compartment (see flat portion of tray in Figures); and providing two arms, each connected to said tray portion by at least one mount (see Figures).
Le Gal fails to disclose the arms being bendable arm. Le Gal also fails to disclose the method step of bending at least one of the arms so that it is at least partially wrapped about a stroller bumper bar for support of said tray from the stroller bumper bar. Finally, Le Gal fails to disclose the arms being detachably connected to said tray portion by the at least one mount. Being a design patent, it is not entirely clear just how the arms are connected to the tray.
Regarding the arms being bendable, Bowen teaches that it was already known in the art to mount a device (12) a stroller bar using a bendable arm (20) that wraps around the bar. Bowen teaches that the wrapped arm design provides for flexibility in allowing a user to mount the device to different types of supports including strollers, cribs, and car seats without the need for multiple special mounts or brackets (see col. 1 lines 37-47 and col. 3 lines 31-33). Considering these references in their entirety, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the arms of Le Gal as flexible arms like those of Bowen, the motivation being to allow a user to easily attach the tray to any of a stroller, a crib, or car seat without the need for multiple special mounts or brackets, as taught by Bowen.
Regarding the method step of attaching the tray to a stroller bumper bar, Magnani teaches that it was already known in the art to use a tray (48 on a stroller bumper bar (24). Considering these references in their entirety, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have wrapped the bendable arms of the modified Le Gal tray around a stroller bumper bar where such mounting location was already known to be suitable for such tray use, as shown by Magnani.
Regarding the arms being detachably connected, it is not clear if the aperture mount between the arm and device of Bowen is detachable or not (see Bowen col. 3 lines 22-24). Scarton teaches that it was already known for a device (10) to be mounted to a stroller (14) where the device (10) includes an aperture (20) formed in an outer end thereof to which an arm (12) is detachably attached (via head 32 removable within the aperture). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the aperture mount of Bowen with any other suitable mount design, in this case a detachable head-in-slot mount design like that of Scarton. The proposed modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known mount design for another in order to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have realized through their own available knowledge and reasoning that removable arms would allow damaged parts of the tray system to be replaced without having to replace the entire system or would alternatively allow a user to remove the tray for deep cleaning without having to first unwind the arms.
Regarding claim 17, the normal provision and use of the modified Le Gal stroller tray would include the method of 16, further comprising: providing said at least two bendable arms in a tubular shape when not bent, as taught by Bowen; providing at least one mount on an outer end of said tray portion to detachably connect said at least two bendable arms to said tray portion, as collectively taught by Le Gal and Scarton; and providing said at least one mount in a location on said outer end, as collectively taught by Le Gal; wherein said at least two bendable arms attach to a stroller bumper bar for support, as collectively taught by Bowen and Magnani, while said tray portion remains unsupported at a location on an outer end of said tray portion which is opposite the location of said mount, as taught by Le Gal.
Regarding claim 18, the normal provision and use of the modified Le Gal stroller tray would inherently include the method of 16, further comprising: providing said at least one cup holder that is circular in shape and has a contoured surface, as originally taught by Le Gal (see Figures); providing said at least one cup holder that is sized to hold bottles and children's sippy cups, as originally taught by Le Gal (see Figures); providing said at least one snack compartment that has a contoured surface that is larger in width than said at least one cup holder but smaller in depth than said at least one cup holder, as originally taught by Le Gal (see Figures); providing said at least one snack compartment that is generally oval in shape, with a wall of said at least one snack compartment adjoining said at least one cup holder being curved to wrap around the circular edge of said at least one cup holder, as originally taught by Le Gal (see Figures).
Regarding claim 19, the normal provision and use of the modified Leg Gal tray would include the method of claim 16, further comprising providing said at least two bendable arms that are coated in gripping materials, as taught by Bowen (16, see col. 2 lines 59-61); providing said at least two bendable arms that each contain an inner bendable rod, as taught by Bowen (14).
Regarding claim 20, the normal provision and use of the modified Leg Gal tray would include the method of claim 16, further comprising: providing said tray portion that is curved in a U-shape, as taught by Le Gal (see Figures 1-3), to align with the shape of a curved stroller bumper bar (doesn’t have to be THE stroller bar of the previous claims). Le Gal shows his tray having a U-shape that could match the shape of some curved stroller bumper bar.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments filed 12/18/25 with respect to the prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
9. In response to Applicant’s argument that Examiner has failed to articulate specific rationale for combining the references, Examiner has underlined the specific rationale in the rejections above.
10. In response to Applicant’s argument that the numerous references are so disparate and remote from each other or from the area of concern, Examiner notes that the present invention is directed to a tray mounted to a stroller bumper bar with bendable arms. Le Gal is directed to a mountable tray with arms. Bowen is directed to bendable arms for a stroller mounted device. Scarton is directed to a stroller mounted device. Magnani is directed to a tray mounted to a stroller bumper bar. Each of these references are in the field of Applicant’s endeavor and/or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Applicant was concerned.
11. In response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the load characteristics of a tray and how they might pertain to the Bowen arm design, Examiner notes that the claims fail to recite any special features or characteristics of the bendable arms to structurally differentiate them from the design of the Bowen arm that is now part of the modified Le Gal tray. All that is collectively claimed is a “bendable arm” (claim 1), “tubular in shape” (claim 4), “coated in gripping materials” (claim 11), “inner bendable rod is made of metal” (claims 13-14). Bowen discloses all of these arm properties (see col. 2 lines 42-61). Applicant’s Specification fails to recite any structural details beyond those already claimed and certainly never gets into load characteristics. If Applicant’s argument were to be found persuasive, where the Bowen arm, which is structurally identical to that being claimed, is not capable of performing the intended use, it would logically follow that Applicant’s own claimed invention is equally incapable of performing the intended use. Examiner assumes this is not the case and that Applicant has claimed a working invention.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 2/12/26