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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/01/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 23 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the supporting member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-10, 14, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 2719126 Y to Hou in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2,551,509 to Smith.
Claims 1 and 26, Hou discloses a carrycot defined by a baby carrier 1 comprising a frame comprising surrounding walls 22; and a support plate connected to a base of the surrounding walls, the frame and support plate defining a receiving area for an infant to lie in a sleeping position, the support plate comprises: a plate body 3 defining a transverse direction and a longitudinal direction; and wherein the plate body is provided with a plurality of through holes 31 extending through the plate body (fig. 1). Hou is silent to reinforcing members. Smith discloses a carry cot having longitudinal and transverse reinforcing members defined by slats 11 that are fixed in place such that the transverse support bar is arranged along the transverse direction and the longitudinal support bar is arranged along the longitudinal direction and intersect with each other at a central portion of a baby carrier; and the plurality of reinforcing members are fixed in place with respect to the plate body (fig. 2). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the reinforcing members disclosed in Smith with the carrycot of Hou with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided additional support to the cot.
Claim 4, Hou, as modified, discloses the device, but is silent the support bars being made of a plastic or metal material. Selecting from a plethora of known material and selecting a thickness for loading member is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a metal material for the support bar of Hou with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative material for the support bar of Hou.
Claims 5-6, Hou, as modified, discloses the device wherein the plate body is integrally formed. With regards to the transverse support bar and the longitudinal support bar being integrally formed or the support plate being formed by injection molding, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Claim 7, Hou discloses the device wherein Smith further discloses the reinforcing member is provided with a male engaging section defined by the ends of the slat 13 body is provided with a female engaging section defined by pockets 14 the slate male slate ends the pockets are configured to be engaged with each other.
Claim 9, Hou, as modified, discloses the device wherein the plate body has two end sections located opposite to each other, and an end of the reinforcing member is connected to one of the two end sections, and another end of the reinforcing member is connected to the other one of the two end sections.
Claim 10, Hou, as modified, discloses the device wherein the reinforcing member 11 of Smith is affixed to the plate body. Hou is silent to the mean to affix the reinforcing member comprising a fastening element 74. Selecting from a plethora of known affixing means is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a fastening element for the reinforcing member of Hou with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative means to affix the reinforcing member of Hou.
Claim 14, Hou discloses the device further comprising a connection section defined by connecting rod 4, and the support plate is connected to an external device defined by a release assembly 6 via the connecting rod.
Claim 23, Hou, as best understood, discloses the device, wherein Smith further comprises a fabric cover, and a supporting member is laid in the fabric cover (col. 1 lines 24-28).
Claim 24, Hou, as modified, discloses the device wherein the support plate has an upper surface and a lower surface, and the reinforcing member is positioned on the lower surface of the support plate.
Claim 25, Hou discloses the device wherein a distal end of the longitudinal support bar is coupled to a connection section defined by a connecting rod 4, which connection section is configured to couple the support plate to an external device defined by a release assembly 6.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 2719126 Y to Hou in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2,551,509 to Smith, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 1,453,942 to Mills.
Claim 8, Hou, as modified, discloses the device wherein the reinforcing member is provided at two ends of the reinforcing member with a male fastening section and a female fastening section respectively, and thus the male fastening section and the female fastening section are engaged with each other, but is silent to the reinforcing member being bent from one surface another surface of the plate body. Mills discloses a carry cot having a plurality of support bars having bent portions. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the bent portions of the reinforcing members disclosed in Mills with the carrycot of Hou with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a contour for the carrycot of Hou.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 18-21 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,717,056 to Carmichael discloses an infant carrying device.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,571,760 to Kasai discloses an infant carrying device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached on (571) 270-3654. 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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights