DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is based on the amendments filed October 28, 2025 for application 17/893,442. Claims 1, 2, 17, 20, and 21 have been amended; claims 1-8 and 10-21 are currently pending.
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 . 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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosures of prior-filed applications 17/068,384, 17/068,316, 63/057,899, 16/577,448, and 62/733,637 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for at least independent claims 1 and 17 of this application. Although applications 17/068,384 and 17/068,316 disclose “the triangle sleeves may include a built in silicone teether or a pacifier at the end of pointed end”, the applications do not support “an attachment mechanism to removably attach a pacifier thereto” as recited in claims 1 and 17.
For at least this reason, these claims are not entitled to the priority benefit of the prior-filed applications. For purposes of applicable prior art, claims independent claims 1 and 17, as well as dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20, have an effective filing date of August 23, 2022, which is the filing date of the current application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes the limitation “attachment mechanism” in claims 1, 17, 20, and 21 that does not use the word “means” but is nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification discloses the “attachment mechanism” to include but not limited to hook and loop fasteners, buttons, zippers, or snaps (¶ 0015, 0071, & 0081).
If Applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the current rejection using Sheppard (US 2020/0397066) to teach a garment having two sleeves including a pair of side edges converging to an outer tip to define a triangle shape.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the distal ends of the sleeves include a mitten cuff configured to enclose the infant’s hands, wherein the mitten cuff is operable to open and expose the infant’s hands”. While this specific limitation is supported in the specification with respect to the embodiments illustrated in Figs. 2A-2F and 8A-8C, the combination of the limitations in claim 8 and claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, are not clearly described in the specification as originally filed. Claim 1 requires the limitation “the sleeves including a pair of edges converging to an outer tip to define a triangle shape”, wherein the term “tip” is being used to distinguish over the blunter ends of the sleeves taught by Damir et al. (US 2018/0332902) and Krawchuk (US 9,179,711) cited in the previous Office action as noted in Applicant’s arguments filed October 28, 2025. However, this feature is only supported by the embodiments illustrated in Figs. 4A-5B of Applicant’s disclosure and it is not clear that the sleep device can have sleeves including both the features of edges converging to an outer tip defining a triangle shape and mitten cuffs at distal ends that are operable to open and expose the infant’s hands as required by claim 8. For examination purposes, claim 8 has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation such that the general shape of the sleeves is triangular despite the presence of mitten cuffs at the distal ends thereof.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the sleeves include a pair of side edges converging to an outer tip to define a triangle shape” and “the at least one paid of sleeves includes half-up/half-down sleeves”. While both limitations are supported individually in the specification, wherein the triangular shaped sleeves are shown in Figs. 4A-5B and the half-up/half-down sleeves are shown in Figs. 8A-8C, it is not clear that the sleep device can have sleeves including both the features of edges converging to an outer tip defining a triangle shape and a half-up/half-down configuration as required by claim 17. For examination purposes, claim 17 has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation to such that the “half-up/half-down” configuration is embodied by the “triangle shape” of the sleeves.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-14, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheppard (US 2020/0397066), in view of Barski (US 10,104,916), and in further view of Damir et al. (US 2018/0332902).
Regarding claim 1, Sheppard discloses a sleep device (infant bodysuit 500) for an infant comprising a garment suitable for infant sleep having two arm openings, each operable for receiving an arm of the infant, and two sleeves (arm portions 504+506, 505+507) attached to the arm openings of the garment, the sleeves (504+506, 505+507) including a pair of side edges converging to an outer tip to define a triangle shape, wherein the sleeves (504+506, 505+507) are operable to surround the infant’s arms such that the infant’s elbows are positioned within the sleeves (504+506, 505+507), wherein the sleeves (504+506, 505+507) extend outwards (Fig. 5; ¶ 0037, 0049-0050, & 0052).
Although Sheppard discloses that the sleeves (arm portion 406) include an attachment mechanism to removably attach a hand portion (401) with a teething surface (402) thereto (Fig. 4; ¶ 0046-0047), Sheppard fails to teach that the sleeves are detachable from the garment and include an attachment mechanism to removably attach a pacifier thereto.
Barski discloses a sleep device (infant garment) for an infant comprising a garment (main body 2) having two arm openings (arm openings 10) and two sleeves (removable sleeves 4) attached to the arm openings (10), wherein the sleeves are detachable from the garment (2) (via attachment means 6, 8) and include an attachment mechanism (complementary snaps 16, 14 or VELCRO) to removably attach a pacifier (pacifier 12) thereto (Fig. 3; column 2, lines 9-20, 33-65, & 54-67; column 3, lines 1-5 & 27-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sleep device taught by Sheppard such that the sleeves are detachable from the garment as taught by Barski for the purpose of enabling the sleep device to be convertible to form a security blanket or pillow when the sleeves are removed. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sleep device taught by Sheppard such that the sleeves include an attachment mechanism to removably attach a pacifier thereto as also taught by Barski for the purpose of providing comfort to the infant with a pacifier with or without the sleeves removed.
Although Sheppard discloses that the sleep device (500) may be unfitted or loose (Fig. 5; ¶ 0037), the combination of Sheppard and Barski fails to expressly teach that the sleeves allow for complete range of movement of the infant’s arms.
Damir discloses a sleep device (swaddling device 100/600) for an infant comprising a garment suitable for infant sleep having two sleeves (first and second sleeves 104a, 104b) operable to surround the infant’s arms such that the infant’s elbows are positioned within the sleeves (104a, 104b), and wherein the sleeves (104a, 104b) are configured to allow for complete range of movement of the infant’s arms (Figs. 1A-1B & 6; ¶ 0019-0020, 0022, & 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sleeves of the sleep device taught by the combination of Sheppard and Barski to be configured to allow for complete range of movement of the infant’s arms as taught by Damir for the purpose of enabling the infant to use their arms to reposition their head if they roll over into a prone position.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Sheppard further discloses that the sleeves (504+506, 505+507) include a material (teething surfaces 502, 503) to soothe the infant’s gums at the distal end of the sleeves (504+506, 505+507), wherein the material (502, 503) is a semi-circular shape and is removably attachable to the sleeves (Fig. 5; ¶ 0049 & 0052).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Damir further discloses that the sleeves (104a, 104b) are shorter than full length sleeves and are configured to provide resistance to dampen the Moro reflex (Fig. 6; ¶ 0025-0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sleep device taught by the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir such that the sleeves are shorter than full length sleeves and are configured to provide resistance to dampen the Moro reflex as further taught by Damir for the purpose of keep the infant’s hands closer to the infant’s head and body.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Damir further discloses that the distal ends of the sleeves (104a, 104b) include a mitten cuff (cuffs 106) configured to enclose the infant’s hands, wherein the mitten cuff is operable to open and expose the infant’s hands (Figs. 1A & 6-7; ¶ 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sleep device taught by the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir such that the distal ends of the sleeves include a mitten cuff configured to enclose the infant’s hands and is operable to open and expose the infant’s hands as further taught by Damir for the purpose of enabling a caregiver to selectively foldover or open each sleeve allow the infant to self-soothe by sucking on his or her hand(s).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Barski further discloses that the sleeves (4) are reversibly attached to the garment (2) using a zipper, a hook-and-loop closure (VELCRO), buttons, or snaps (complementary snaps 6, 8) (Fig. 3; column 2, lines 14-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sleep device taught by the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir such that the sleeves are reversibly attached to the garment using a zipper, a hook-and-loop closure, buttons, or snaps as further taught by Barski for the purpose of using well-known conventional means to removably connect the sleeves to the arm openings of the garment.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, wherein the infant’s arm would be capable of extending out of the garment through the arm opening when the sleeve is detached from the garment.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Sheppard further discloses that the garment is selected from a wearable blanket, a sleep sack, a bodysuit, a onesie, pajamas, a swaddle, or any other garment (bodysuit or infant clothes) that is safe and suitable for infant or toddler sleep (Fig. 5; ¶ 0003).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Sheppard further discloses that the arm openings in the garment are configured to extend from the infant’s shoulders down to the infant’s chest, wherein the sleep device (500) may be unfitted or loose (Fig. 5; ¶ 0037) such that there may be bagginess or an extra or seemingly unnecessary portion of fabric leading into the arm openings.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Sheppard further discloses that the garment comprises a front panel and a back panel, wherein the front panel comprises a zippered opening extending downward from a neck opening (Fig. 5; ¶ 0052).
Regarding claim 17, Sheppard discloses kit comprising a garment (infant bodysuit 500) suitable for infant sleep having two arm openings, each operable for receiving an arm of the infant, and at least one pair of sleeves (arm portions 504+506, 505+507) attached to the garment, the sleeves (504+506, 505+507) including a pair of side edges converging to an outer tip to define a triangle shape, wherein the at least one pair of sleeves (504+506, 505+507) includes half-up/half-down sleeves that extend outwards (Fig. 5; ¶ 0037, 0049-0050, & 0052).
Although Sheppard discloses that the sleeves (arm portion 406) include an attachment mechanism to removably attach a hand portion (401) with a teething surface (402) thereto (Fig. 4; ¶ 0046-0047), Sheppard fails to teach that the sleeves are removably detachable from the garment and include an attachment mechanism to removably attach a pacifier thereto.
Barski discloses a kit comprising a garment (main body 2) having two arm openings (arm openings 10) and at least one pair of sleeves (removable sleeves 4) removably detachable from the garment (2) (via attachment means 6, 8) and include an attachment mechanism (complementary snaps 16, 14 or VELCRO) to removably attach a pacifier (pacifier 12) thereto (Fig. 3; column 2, lines 9-20, 33-65, & 54-67; column 3, lines 1-5 & 27-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the kit taught by Sheppard such that the sleeves are removably detachable from the garment as taught by Barski for the purpose of enabling the sleep device to be convertible to form a security blanket or pillow when the sleeves are removed. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sleep device taught by Sheppard such that the sleeves include an attachment mechanism to removably attach a pacifier thereto as also taught by Barski for the purpose of providing comfort to the infant with a pacifier with or without the sleeves removed.
Although Sheppard discloses that the sleep device (500) may be unfitted or loose (Fig. 5; ¶ 0037), the combination of Sheppard and Barski fails to expressly teach that the sleeves allow for complete range of movement of the infant’s arms.
Damir discloses a sleep device (swaddling device 100/600) for an infant comprising a garment suitable for infant sleep having two sleeves (first and second sleeves 104a, 104b) operable to surround the infant’s arms such that the infant’s elbows are positioned within the sleeves (104a, 104b), and wherein the sleeves (104a, 104b) are configured to allow for complete range of movement of the infant’s arms (Figs. 1A-1B & 6; ¶ 0019-0020, 0022, & 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sleeves of the kit taught by the combination of Sheppard and Barski to be configured to allow for complete range of movement of the infant’s arms as taught by Damir for the purpose of enabling the infant to use their arms to reposition their head if they roll over into a prone position.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the sleep device of claim 1 substantially as claimed, as described above, and Sheppard further discloses a method of using the sleep device (500) comprising placing an infant inside the sleep device (500) and Damir further discloses that the sleeves (104am 104b) are operable to provide some resistance via gentle pressure to help aid in reducing the infant’s premature startles and are capable of allowing for full extension, contraction, and movement of the infant’s arms (Figs. 1A-1B & 6; ¶ 0019-0020, 0022, & 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method taught by the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir such that the sleeves are operable to provide some resistance via gentle pressure to help aid in reducing the infant’s premature startles and are capable of allowing for full extension, contraction, and movement of the infant’s arms as further taught by Damir for the purpose of providing snugness and support without arm restraints for sufficient range of motion for the infant’s upper body which will reduce risk of suffocation for the infant.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the method substantially as claimed, as described above, and Barski further discloses removing at least one sleeve (4) from the garment (2) using a second attachment mechanism (complementary snaps 6, 8 or VELCRO) (Fig. 3; column 2, lines 14-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method taught by the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir to include removing at least one sleeve from the garment using a second attachment mechanism as further taught by Barski for the purpose of using well-known conventional means to selectively removably connect the sleeves to the arm openings of the garment as desired.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the sleep device substantially as claimed, as described above, and Sheppard further discloses an attachment mechanism configured to removably attach a teether (a teething surface 402) thereto (Fig. 4; ¶ 0046-0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the attachment mechanism of the sleep device taught by the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir to be configured to removably attach a teether thereto as further taught by Sheppard for the purpose of soothing to an infant’s tender gums.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheppard, in view of Barski, in further view of Damir as applied to claim 1 above, and in even further view of Krawchuk (US 9,179,711).
The combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Barski further discloses that the sleeves (4) include a rounded edge for attachment to the arm openings (10) of the garment (proximal edge of sleeve 4 corresponds to rounded opening 10) (Fig. 3) and Damir further discloses that the sleeves are configured to provide resistance via gentle pressure to dampen the Moro reflex (¶ 0026 & 0028).
First, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sleep device taught by the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir such that the sleeves include a rounded edge for attachment to the arm openings of the garment as further taught by Barski since Applicant has not disclosed that such a rounded shape solves any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a proximal sleeve edge for attachment to a rounded arm opening. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Second, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sleep device taught by the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir such that the sleeves are configured to provide resistance via gentle pressure to dampen the Moro reflex as further taught by Damir for the purpose of enabling the infant to sleep longer with fewer awakenings.
However, the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir fails to teach that the sleeves include at least one elastic component.
Krawchuk discloses a sleep device (swaddling suit 300) comprising a garment suitable for infant sleep having two sleeves (wing portions 140) including at least one elastic component (tension pouches 190), wherein the sleeves (140) are configured to provide resistance via gentle pressure to dampen the Moro reflex (startle reflex) (Figs. 5A-5E; column 7, lines 49-67; column 10, lines 1-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sleep device taught by the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir such that the sleeves include at least one elastic component as further taught by Krawchuk for the purpose of biasing the infant’s hands toward the infant’s face to trigger the rooting reflex.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheppard, in view of Barski, in further view of Damir as applied to claim 1 above, and in even further view of Blackburn et al. (US 2019/0069609).
The combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach that the sleeves include a plurality of layers including at least one inner layer of filling between two outer layers of fabric, wherein the inner layer of filling is configured to dampen a Moro reflex, and wherein the inner layer of filling includes a filling component, polyfiber filling, or polyester filling.
Blackburn discloses a sleep device (sleep suit 160) for an infant comprising a garment suitable for infant sleep having two arm openings, each operable for receiving an arm of the infant and two sleeves (sleeves 162) attached to the arm openings of the garment, wherein the sleeves (162) are detachable from the garment (via zippers 164), wherein the sleeves (162) are operable to surround the infant’s arms, and wherein the sleeves (162) include a plurality of layers including at least one inner layer of filling between two outer layers of fabric, wherein the inner layer of filling is configured to provide resistance via a gentle pressure (heavier fill material) to dampen a Moro reflex, wherein the inner layer of filling includes a filling component, polyfiber filling, or polyester filling (Figs. 12, 20, & 22-23; ¶ 0030-0031, 0039, 0047, & 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sleeves of the sleep device taught by the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir to include a plurality of layers including at least one inner layer of filling between two outer layers of fabric, wherein the inner layer of filling is configured to provide resistance via a gentle pressure to dampen a Moro reflex, and wherein the inner layer of filling includes a filling component, polyfiber filling, or polyester filling as taught by Blackburn for the purpose of helping to mimic the pressure of being held to provide a calming sense of comfort to an infant.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheppard, in view of Barski, in further view of Damir as applied to claim 1 above, and in even further view of Giangeruso (US 2018/0242660).
The combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Barski further discloses that each of the two sleeves (4) attached to the arm openings (10) of the garment (2) are detachable from the garment (via attachment means 6, 8) (Fig. 3; column 2, lines 14-20).
However, the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir fails to teach that each of the two sleeves are individually interchangeable with one or more sleeves that are a different type.
Giangeruso discloses an adaptable garment (garment 100) analogous to a sleep device for an infant, the adaptable garment (100) comprising a garment (garment body 110) having two arm openings (arm openings 112, 114) and two sleeves (long sleeves 122, 124) attached to the arm openings (112, 114) of the garment (110), wherein each of the two sleeves (122, 124) are detachable from the garment (110) and are individually interchangeable with one or more sleeves (short sleeves 522, 524) that are a different type (Fig. 6; ¶ 0027-0029 & 0041-0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the sleep device taught by the combination of Sheppard / Barski / Damir such that each of the two sleeves are individually interchangeable with one or more sleeves that are a different type as taught by Giangeruso for the purpose of controlling the temperature of the infant through the use of interchangeable sleeves of different lengths.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keri J. Nelson whose telephone number is 571-270-3821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachael E. Bredefeld, can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 2/2/2026