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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 3, 2025, has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 3, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 21-26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruyn-Zuidam (EP 1,190,631 A2, hereinafter Bruyn-Zuidam) in view of Schneider (US Patent No. 4,083,064, hereinafter Schneider) and Miller (US Patent Pub. 2014/0298564, hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 21, Bruyn-Zuidam discloses an infant swaddling (outer cloth 2 of swaddling assembly 1, Figs. 1-3C; the outer cloth 2 being usable alone, see ¶ 55) comprising:
an upper portion (“[a]t the location of the child’s trunk,” ¶ 32; see Fig. 3C) comprising:
a first upper flap (i.e., the portion of outer cloth 2 with VELCRO strips 22a and 23a; see Fig. 2B-D),
a second upper flap (i.e., the portion of outer cloth 2 with VELCRO strips 22b, 23b), and
an upper edge (at collar 20);
a lower portion (at the location of the child’s legs, Fig. 3C; see annotated Figs. 2B, 2D below) positioned directly beneath the upper portion comprising:
a first lower flap continuous with the first upper flap (Fig. 2B),
a second lower flap continuous with the second upper flap (Fig. 2B), and
a lower edge (Fig. 2B);
an outward-facing surface of the first upper flap comprising a first attachment (22a, 23a);
an inner-facing surface of the second upper flap comprising a second attachment (22b, 23b; shown in dashed outlines in Fig. 2B),
wherein the first upper flap is configured to be positioned over the chest of the infant and the second upper flap is configured to be positioned over the chest of the infant after the first upper flap is positioned (see Fig. 3C; ¶ 32), wherein the second attachment (22b, 23b) is configured to be secured to the first attachment (22a, 23a) after the first upper flap and the second upper flap are positioned (see Figs. 2D and 3C; ¶ 32),
wherein the lower portion comprises a retainer (cord 18) as means to secure the lower portion by being wrapped around the lower portion and beneath the feet of the infant (the outer cloth being secured “below the feet by means of cord 18,” ¶ 32), wherein the lower portion is configured to be gathered within an opening defined by the retainer (when cord 18 is tied as shown in Fig. 2D), wherein the retainer is fixed to the lower portion at an attachment point (¶ 29; see Figs. 2B-D), wherein, in use, when the second attachment (22b, 23b) is secured to the first attachment (22a, 23a), the lower portion is configured to be opened to allow access through the lower portion to the infant (by untying cord 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bruyn-Zuidam differs from the claimed invention in the following ways: in the illustrated embodiments, the retainer (18) below the infant’s feet is not “the only attachment below the first attachment and the second attachment” due to an additional intermediate cord (19); the retainer is a cord (18) that is tied to form the opening (Fig. 2D) rather than being “stretched” with the opening being “intrinsically” in the retainer as claimed; Bruyn-Zuidam is silent with respect to the manner of attaching the retainer at the attachment point; and the location at which the retainer is fixed is not “closer to a second side edge of the second lower flap than a first side edge of the first lower flap.” Each of these limitations will be addressed in turn below.
First, with respect to the retainer being “the only attachment below the first attachment and the second attachment,” the examiner recognizes that Bruyn-Zuidam illustrates an additional intermediate attachment (cord 19) below the first and second attachments (22a, 23a, 22b, 23b) for the purpose of restricting leg movement in infants older than six months (¶ 45). However, Bruyn-Zuidam teaches that use of the additional intermediate attachment (cord 19) may be undesirable in infants under six months of age “for whom it should be made sure that the legs are not wrapped too tightly, in connection with the prevention of hip dysplasia” (¶ 44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bruyn-Zuidam by eliminating the intermediate attachment (19), such that the retainer/lowermost cord (18) is the only attachment below the first and second attachments (22a, 23a; 22b, 23b), in order to prevent misuse of the device in younger infants for whom the additional leg restriction would be undesirable.
Second, with respect to the form of the retainer, Schneider teaches an infant gown comprising a retainer (“fastening device 84 which may be constituted, for example, of a rubber band,” col. 6:55-68; see Fig. 4) configured to secure a lower portion of the gown by being stretched around the lower portion beneath the feet of an infant, wherein the lower portion is configured to be gathered (see gathered arrangement 82, Fig. 4) and passed through an opening intrinsically in the retainer (when fastening device 84 is “a rubber band,” col. 6:61). Schneider teaches that this form of retainer is advantageous for closing the bottom of the gown “while permitting nevertheless an opening for the ingress and egress of connections … which lead to and from supervisory or regulatory medical apparatus or the like” (col. 6:63-68). Additionally, the examiner notes that Bruyn-Zuidam recognizes drawbacks to the use of a tied cord, teaching that the cords must be of minimal length “in order to prevent that the cords are used for securing to the bed” (¶ 29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Bruyn-Zuidam by replacing the tied cord with a stretchable band as taught by Schneider, since this involves the simple substitution of one known retainer for closing the lower portion of an infant covering with another known retainer for closing the lower portion of an infant covering, to yield predictable results. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the stretchable band taught by Schneider may be preferable to a tied cord because it reduces the risk of harm from misuse of the cord, while also permitting ingress and egress for medical monitoring.
Third, with respect to the manner of attaching the retainer, while Bruyn-Zuidam does not explicitly state that the retainer is sewn, Bruyn-Zuidam does teach that the lower portion is made of cloth (“outer cloth 2 of relatively thin and cool material, such as cotton,” ¶ 25) and that components of a cloth swaddling apparatus are attached to one other “by means of stitches” (¶ 37), as is well understood in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sew the retainer to the lower portion at the attachment point, as a conventional, convenient, and reliable manner of attachment that is well understood in the art of cloth articles.
Fourth, with respect to the particular location of the attachment point of the retainer on the lower portion, the examiner notes that relocating the attachment point of the retainer from the rear of the swaddling (as in Bruyn-Zuidam) to closer to the second side edge of the second flap would not change the function of the retainer to close the lower portion of the swaddling, because in either location, the retainer would be accessible to the user for passing the gathered lower portion through the retainer. Because the particular location of the retainer does not appear to be critical to the operation of the swaddling, the examiner concludes that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the attachment point of the retainer to be closer to a second side of the second lower flap (this being the exposed, outermost flap when the infant is wrapped) than a first side edge of the first lower flap (this flap being covered when the infant is wrapped; see Fig. 2D), since the court has held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of engineering design choice when the rearrangement of parts would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04.VI.C.
In further support of the examiner’s position with respect to the manner of attaching the retainer to the lower portion when the retainer is a stretchable loop, the examiner notes that Miller teaches a cloth baby blanket comprising an elastic loop retainer (70, Fig. 1) that is understood to be sewn at its attachment point (“secured to one of the side edges 40,” ¶ 35, where sewing is disclosed to be an attachment means known by those skilled in the art, ¶ 33-34). Thus, the examiner finds that sewing would have been an obvious means of attaching the retainer to the lower portion closer to the second side edge when the tied cord of Bruyn-Zuidam is replaced with a stretchable loop as taught by Schneider as discussed above.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Bruyn-Zuidam teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, including the retainer being “stretched” as taught by Schneider, as set forth above for claim 21. Schneider further teaches the retainer comprises elastic (“rubber,” col. 6:61).
Regarding claims 23-26, the modified Bruyn-Zuidam teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Bruyn-Zuidam further teaches the first attachments (22a, 23a) and second attachments (22b, 23b) are “Velcro strips” (¶ 32), which is understood to encompass the first attachment (22a, 23a) comprising loop fabric (claim 23), the second attachment (22b, 23b) comprising hook fabric (claim 24), the first attachment comprising tabs (i.e., strips; see Fig. 2C) of hook or loop fabric (claim 25), and the second attachment (22b, 23b) comprising tabs of hook or loop fabric (claims 26).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Bruyn-Zuidam teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Bruyn-Zuidam further teaches the upper portion is approximately half of the infant swaddling (see Fig. 2B).
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruyn-Zuidam in view of Schneider and Miller, in further view of Barski (US Patent No. 8,607,364, hereinafter Barski).
Regarding claims 27-29, the modified Bruyn-Zuidam teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Bruyn-Zuidam does not explicitly teach that the swaddling comprises a blend of polyester and spandex (claim 27), spandex (claim 28), or polyester (claim 29). However, Barski teaches an infant swaddling comprising spandex, polyester, or blends thereof (“spandex, polyesters … and combinations or blends thereof,” ¶ 19), to provide optimal swaddling with “a normal range of motion in a womb-like environment thereby promoting and enhancing motor development while maintaining an effective swaddle” (¶ 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Bruyn-Zuidam by selecting a blend of polyester and spandex (claim 27), spandex (claim 28), or polyester (claim 29) as taught by Barski for the material of the swaddle, in order to facilitate an effective swaddle while permitting an appropriate range of motion for enhancing motor development.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruyn-Zuidam in view of Schneider and Miller, in further view of Waters et al. (US Patent No. 8,793,813, hereinafter Waters).
Regarding claim 30, the modified Bruyn-Zuidam teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Bruyn-Zuidam does not explicitly teach that the swaddling comprises a moisture-wicking material. However, Waters teaches an infant swaddle (col. 3:26-30) comprising a moisture-wicking material (col. 1:53-63) in order to reduce risks of overheating and accumulation of wetness from sweat (col. 1:41-58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Bruyn-Zuidam by selecting a moisture-wicking material as taught by Waters for the swaddle, in order to enhance the safety and comfort of the swaddle.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruyn-Zuidam in view of Schneider and Miller, in further view of Sims (US Patent No. 6,839,924, hereinafter Sims).
Regarding claim 32, the modified Bruyn-Zuidam teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Bruyn-Zuidam does not explicitly teach that the second attachment is along the second side edge and the first attachment is offset from the first side edge. However, Sims teaches a similar infant swaddling (Figs. 2A-C) comprising a second attachment (hook and loop fastener sections 32a-c) along a second side edge of a second flap (i.e., adjacent to and arrayed along the second side edge; compare to Applicant’s fasteners 809 on inner-facing surface 801, Fig. 11A) and a first attachment (hook and loop fastener sections 26a-c, Fig. 2B, on the back side of the blanket; col. 5:1-4) offset from a first side edge of a first flap (see Figs. 2A-C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Bruyn-Zuidam by arranging the second attachment along the second side edge and the first attachment offset from the first side edge, as taught by Sims, since this involves the simple substitution of one known arrangement of attachments for another known arrangement of attachments for the same purpose of closing overlapping flaps of an infant swaddling, to yield predictable results.
Claims 33-36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruyn-Zuidam in view of Schneider.
Regarding claim 33, Bruyn-Zuidam discloses a swaddling for an infant (outer cloth 2 of swaddling assembly 1, Figs. 1-3C; the outer cloth 2 being usable alone, see ¶ 55) comprising:
an upper portion (“[a]t the location of the child’s trunk,” ¶ 32; see Fig. 3C) comprising:
a first upper flap (i.e., the portion of outer cloth 2 with VELCRO strips 22a and 23a; see Fig. 2B-D),
a second upper flap (i.e., the portion of outer cloth 2 with VELCRO strips 22b, 23b), and
an upper edge (at collar 20);
a lower portion (at the location of the child’s legs, Fig. 3C; see annotated Figs. 2B, 2D above) positioned directly beneath the upper portion comprising:
a first lower flap continuous with the first upper flap (Fig. 2B),
a second lower flap continuous with the second upper flap (Fig. 2B), and
a lower edge (Fig. 2B);
an outward-facing surface of the first upper flap comprising a first attachment (22a, 23a);
an inner-facing surface of the second upper flap comprising a second attachment (22b, 23b; shown in dashed outlines in Fig. 2B),
wherein the first upper flap is configured to be positioned at least partially around the infant and the second upper flap is configured to be positioned at least partially around the infant after the first upper flap is positioned (see Fig. 3C; ¶ 32), wherein the second attachment (22b, 23b) is configured to be secured to the first attachment (22a, 23a) after the first upper flap and the second upper flap are positioned (see Figs. 2D and 3C; ¶ 32),
wherein the lower portion comprises a retainer (cord 18) as means to secure the lower portion by being wrapped around the lower portion (the outer cloth being secured “below the feet by means of cord 18,” ¶ 32), wherein the lower portion is configured to be gathered within an opening defined by the retainer (when cord 18 is tied as shown in Fig. 2D), wherein the retainer is fixed to the lower portion (¶ 29; see Figs. 2B-D), wherein, in use, when the second attachment (22b, 23b) is secured to the first attachment (22a, 23a), the lower portion is configured to be opened to allow access through the lower portion to the infant (by untying cord 18).
Bruyn-Zuidam differs from the claimed invention in the following ways: in the illustrated embodiments, the retainer (18) is not “the only means to secure the lower portion” due to an additional intermediate cord (19); the retainer is a cord (18) that is tied to form the opening (Fig. 2D) rather than being “stretched” with the opening being “intrinsically” in the retainer as claimed; and the location at which the retainer is fixed is not “closer to a second side edge of the second lower flap than a first side edge of the first lower flap but spaced inward from the second side edge.” Each of these limitations will be addressed in turn below.
First, with respect to the retainer being “the only means to secure the lower portion,” the examiner recognizes that Bruyn-Zuidam illustrates an additional intermediate attachment (cord 19) for the purpose of restricting leg movement in infants older than six months (¶ 45). However, Bruyn-Zuidam teaches that use of the additional intermediate attachment (cord 19) may be undesirable in infants under six months of age “for whom it should be made sure that the legs are not wrapped too tightly, in connection with the prevention of hip dysplasia” (¶ 44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bruyn-Zuidam by eliminating the intermediate attachment (19), such that the retainer/lowermost cord (18) is the only means to secure the lower portion, in order to prevent misuse of the device in younger infants for whom the additional leg restriction would be undesirable.
Second, with respect to the form of the retainer, Schneider teaches an infant gown comprising a retainer (“fastening device 84 which may be constituted, for example, of a rubber band,” col. 6:55-68; see Fig. 4) configured to secure a lower portion of the gown by being stretched around the lower portion beneath the feet of an infant, wherein the lower portion is configured to be gathered (see gathered arrangement 82, Fig. 4) and passed through an opening intrinsically in the retainer (when fastening device 84 is “a rubber band,” col. 6:61). Schneider teaches that this form of retainer is advantageous for closing the bottom of the gown “while permitting nevertheless an opening for the ingress and egress of connections … which lead to and from supervisory or regulatory medical apparatus or the like” (col. 6:63-68). Additionally, the examiner notes that Bruyn-Zuidam recognizes drawbacks to the use of a tied cord, teaching that the cords must be of minimal length “in order to prevent that the cords are used for securing to the bed” (¶ 29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Bruyn-Zuidam by replacing the tied cord with a stretchable band as taught by Schneider, since this involves the simple substitution of one known retainer for closing the lower portion of an infant covering with another known retainer for closing the lower portion of an infant covering, to yield predictable results. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the stretchable band taught by Schneider may be preferable to a tied cord because it reduces the risk of harm from misuse of the cord, while also permitting ingress and egress for medical monitoring.
Finally, with respect to the particular location of the attachment point of the retainer on the lower portion, the examiner notes that relocating the attachment point of the retainer from the rear of the swaddling (as in Bruyn-Zuidam) to a location closer to but spaced inward from the second side edge of the second flap would not change the function of the retainer to close the lower portion of the swaddling, because in either location, the retainer would be accessible to the user for passing the gathered lower portion through the retainer. Because the particular location of the retainer does not appear to be critical to the operation of the swaddling, the examiner concludes that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the attachment point of the retainer to be closer to a second side of the second lower flap (this being the exposed, outermost flap when the infant is wrapped) than a first side edge of the first lower flap (this flap being covered when the infant is wrapped; see Fig. 2D) but spaced inward from the second side edge, since the court has held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of engineering design choice when the rearrangement of parts would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04.VI.C.
Regarding claim 34, the modified Bruyn-Zuidam teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, including the retainer being “stretched” as taught by Schneider, as set forth above for claim 33. Schneider further teaches the retainer comprises elastic (“rubber,” col. 6:61).
Regarding claims 35-36, the modified Bruyn-Zuidam teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 33. Bruyn-Zuidam further teaches the first attachments (22a, 23a) and second attachments (22b, 23b) are “Velcro strips” (¶ 32), which is understood to encompass the first attachment (22a, 23a) comprising loop fabric and the second attachment (22b, 23b) comprising hook fabric (claim 35), and the first attachment comprising tabs (i.e., strips; see Fig. 2C) of hook or loop fabric and the second attachment (22b, 23b) comprising tabs of hook or loop fabric (claims 36).
Regarding claim 39, the modified Bruyn-Zuidam teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 33. Bruyn-Zuidam further teaches the upper portion is approximately half of the infant swaddling (see Fig. 2B).
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruyn-Zuidam in view of Schneider, in further view of Barski.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, the modified Bruyn-Zuidam teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 33. Bruyn-Zuidam does not explicitly teach that the swaddling comprises spandex (claim 37) or polyester (claim 38). However, Barski teaches an infant swaddling comprising spandex or polyester (“spandex, polyesters,” ¶ 19), to provide optimal swaddling with “a normal range of motion in a womb-like environment thereby promoting and enhancing motor development while maintaining an effective swaddle” (¶ 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Bruyn-Zuidam by selecting spandex (claim 37) or polyester (claim 38) as taught by Barski for the material of the swaddle, in order to facilitate an effective swaddle while permitting an appropriate range of motion for enhancing motor development.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruyn-Zuidam in view of Schneider, in further view of Sims.
Regarding claim 40, the modified Bruyn-Zuidam teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 33. Bruyn-Zuidam does not explicitly teach that the second attachment is along the second side edge and the first attachment is offset from the first side edge. However, Sims teaches a similar infant swaddling (Figs. 2A-C) comprising a second attachment (hook and loop fastener sections 32a-c) along a second side edge of a second flap (i.e., adjacent to and arrayed along the second side edge; compare to Applicant’s fasteners 809 on inner-facing surface 801, Fig. 11A) and a first attachment (hook and loop fastener sections 26a-c, Fig. 2B, on the back side of the blanket; col. 5:1-4) offset from a first side edge of a first flap (see Figs. 2A-C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Bruyn-Zuidam by arranging the second attachment along the second side edge and the first attachment offset from the first side edge, as taught by Sims, since this involves the simple substitution of one known arrangement of attachments for another known arrangement of attachments for the same purpose of closing overlapping flaps of an infant swaddling, to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 3, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant generally states that the rejections are traversed and requests reconsideration in light of the amendment of claims 21 and 33. However, Applicant has not pointed out any specific disagreements with the examiner’s contentions as set forth in the prior Office action or explained why Applicant believes the amended claims to be patentable over the cited prior art. The examiner finds the amended claims to be obvious over the prior art for the reasons set forth in detail above in response to Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993