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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 30-41 and 44-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 30 recites “the baby carrier can be carried in at least three wearing positions” It is unclear exactly what would be considered one wearing position versus another. i.e. how much of a change from one position to another position would be required to meet the limitation to be a second position. Further it is unclear what exactly the wearing position applies to. I.e. the position of the baby relative to the wearer, the configuration of the baby within the carrier, the configuration of the straps on the wearer. It is unclear if a baby held in a single position whereby a change in strap configuration would be considered to meet the limitation of a different wearing position. For this reason, the scope of claim 30 is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that a change in the configuration of the carrier or a change in position of a baby when held in the carrier relative to the wearer is considered a different wearing position.
Claims 31-41 and 44-55 are rejected as depending from claim 30 and therefore incorporating the indefinite scope.
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) 30-33, 35-38, 41, 44, and 49-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telford (US 2020/0163466 A1) in view of Yim (KR 101359888 B1) and Kimura (JP 2003102598 A).
Regarding claim 30 and 53, Telford discloses a baby carrier for carrying and developing a baby on a body of a person (Fig. 5C), said baby carrier comprising: a body panel member (122) shaped for providing a seat for a baby and a back support for the baby, wherein the body panel member comprises a support layer mainly constituted by a woven fabric (Paragraph 0064), a waist support member (110) connected to a lower end of the body panel member for fastening the body panel member to a waist of the person (Fig. 5C), a pair of shoulder fastening members (160) connected to an upper end of the body panel member and arranged for fastening the body panel member over each shoulder of the person, respectively, a pair of side fastening members (130/142), each side fastening member being connected to the side of the body panel member (Fig. 3), respectively, and comprising a fastening means (noting buckles 142), wherein each shoulder fastening member comprises: a shoulder strap arranged for extending over a shoulder (Fig. 5C), respectively, wherein the shoulder strap comprises a support layer (noting the material of 160) constituted by a woven fabric, a belt (noting the strap to which 164 is attached) and a fastening means (164) mounted onto the belt for releasably connecting the belt to one of the side fastening members (Fig. 9A) and wherein the fastening means is slidably arranged for adjusting a belt length between the fastening means and the shoulder strap (noting portions 164 demonstrate well-known adjustable buckles), wherein the waist support member including the body panel member are arranged for selectively adjusting a body height support length of the body panel member, by selectively folding or rolling the lower end of the body panel member in the direction of the body height support length (Paragraphs 0109-0111) before tightening (noting adjustable buckle 116) the waist support member including the body panel member to the waist of the person. Telford demonstrates a child carrier capable of carrying a baby in at least four positions, noting Figs. 6C 6D noting rear facing and front facing positions with the seat extending below the belt, or 13B, whereby the child can be placed forward or backward therein, when the seat extends above the belt.
To the degree that Telford does not specifically disclose that the shoulder strap support layer is constituted by a woven fabric, such a change would have required a mere choice of a known suitable material such as the textile fabric of the body panel. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Telford does not specifically disclose the side fasteners the fastening means of one side fastening member has a male element and the fastening means of another one side fastening member has a corresponding female element, or the ability to attach one shoulder fastening member to the fastening means of another one of the shoulder fastening member, wherein the fastening means of one shoulder fastening member has a male element and the fastening means of another shoulder fastening member has a corresponding female element.
Yim demonstrates a similar baby carrier having a pair of shoulder straps including fastening means, as well as a pair of side fasteners whereby each one shoulder fastening means is a male (185), and the other a female (188), and the side fastening means (146/149) has one male (148) and the other is a female fastener (147), as well as the ability to attach male and female buckles together to form different carrying positions (5th and 6th paragraph on page 4, of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Telford and switch one of the shoulder fastening means and one of the side fastening means to the other of a male or female buckle because such a change would allow the straps to be connected in different ways and allow for more varied carrying positions as suggested by Yim. Alternatively, such a change would have required a mere reversal of parts. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
To the degree that it can be argued that modified Telford does not specifically disclose the male fastening means of the shoulder fastening member and the male mechanical fastening means of the side fastening member are both arranged at a same first side of the body panel member and the female fastening means of the other shoulder fastening member and the female mechanical fastening means of the other side fastening member are both arranged at a same second side of the body member panel, and wherein both the male fastening means of the shoulder fastening member and the male mechanical fastening means of the side fastening member can be connected with both the female fastening means of the other shoulder fastening member and the female mechanical fastening means of the other side fastening member.
Kimura demonstrates a baby carrier including a plurality of straps whereby each side of the baby carrier has either all male buckles (12a/13a/15a) attached to the straps or all female buckles (12b/14b/16a) attached to the straps.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Telford and have the male fastening means on one side and the female fastening means on the other side similar to that of Kimura because such a change would have required the choice from a finite number of solutions and would have been obvious to try and would have yielded predictable results. Further such a change would have required the mere reversal of one set of male and female buckles. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 31, modified Telford discloses the waist support member including the body panel member are arranged for selectively rolling the lower end of the body panel member in the direction of the body height support length (noting the change between a fully extended back portion to a smaller back portion).
Regarding claim 32-33, modified Telford discloses wherein the waist support member comprises at least one waist strap (110), the at least one waist textile strap being arranged on at least one side, preferably at both sides (as it extends beyond both sides), at the lower end of the body panel member extending along at least a part of the waist support member, wherein the at least one waist strap is foldable and rollable (inasmuch as the waist strap is rollable relative to the back support section).
To the degree that Telford does not specifically disclose that waist strap is a textile strap, and wherein the waist textile strap comprises a support layer mainly constituted by a woven fabric, such a change would have required a mere choice of a known suitable material such as the textile fabric of the body panel. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
To the degree that Telford does not specifically disclose the waist strap is has an effective thickness less than 5 mm, such a change would have required a mere change in size of a component, or the mere finding of a suitable width range.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 35, modified Telford discloses the waist textile strap is a part of the body panel member (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 36, modified Telford discloses a height of the waist textile strap provides a folding distance for the body panel member, when turning the waist textile strap, which is at most 25% of the maximum body height support length of the body panel member (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 37, to the degree that it can be argued that modified Telford does not specifically disclose a height of the waist textile strap is at most 15 cm, such a change would have required a mere finding of an optimum workable range and/or a change in size of a component.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 38, modified Telford demonstrates a use of the baby carrier comprising the steps of adjusting a body height support length of the body panel member by folding and/or rolling the lower end of the body panel member in the direction of the body height support length (noting the motion of rolling or folding the waist belt relative to the bottom of the back support), before tightening the waist support member including the body panel member to the waist of the person (noting the action of attaching the waist belt to the person Fig. 5C, and/or adjusting belts 114); fastening the waist support member including the body panel member to the waist of the person (Fig. 5C); placing the baby inside the baby carrier, fastening the male fastening means of said one shoulder fastening member to the female fastening means of said another one side fastening member and the female fastening means of said another one shoulder fastening member to the male fastening means of said one side fastening member (Fig. 5B, the teaching of Yim to reverse the type of one of the shoulder and side fastening means from male to female or vice versa), supporting the shoulder fastening members on the shoulders of the person; and carrying a baby inside the baby carrier on the body of a person (Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 41, modified Telford discloses the waist support member (Fig. 1) further comprises a belt, and a fastening means (116) arranged for releasable fastening the waist support member to the waist of the person.
Regarding claim 44, modified Telford discloses the support layer of at least one of the body panel member, the shoulder strap and the waist textile strap is mainly constituted by a number of layers of the woven fabric, noting 0 and 1 may be included as they are numbers. To the degree that it can be argued that modified Telford does not specifically disclose the woven fabric of the body panel member has a thickness, which is less than 5 mm, such a change would have required a mere change in size of a component i.e., the thickness of a component, and/r a mere finding a workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 49, modified Telford disclose the shoulder strap is connected to the body panel member such that the shoulder strap comprises a pleat (162), wherein said pleat is arranged for selectively adjusting a wearing width of the shoulder strap (Paragraph 0066), when wearing the shoulder strap on a shoulder of the carrying person.
Regarding claim 50, to the degree that is can be argued that modified Telford does not disclose a width of the shoulder strap is at least 10 cm and at most 20 cm, and an extension length of the shoulder strap is at most 105 cm, and at least 40 cm, and a length of the belt of the shoulder fastening member is at least 80 cm, such a change would have required a mere change in size of a component and/or a mere finding of a workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 51, modified Telford and specifically Yim discloses at least one side fastening member comprises a belt (146/149), Telford further discusses adjustment of a fastener along a belt (Paragraph 0094) to the degree that modified Telford does not specifically disclose the fastening means is slidably mounted onto the belt for adjusting a belt length between the fastening means and the body panel member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include belt portions on the side fastening members similar to those of Yim because such a change would allow for additional adjustability by including additional material length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the length of the belt of the fastening member at least 80 cm and including an adjustable length between 0 and 80 cm because such a change would have required a mere finding of an optimal range, or a change in size of a component. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 52, modified Telford discloses the fastening means is selected from at least one of a buckle member.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telford (US 2020/0163466 A1) in view of Yim (KR 101359888 B1) and Kimura (JP 2003102598 A) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of DE 202011104489 U1.
Regarding claims 34, modified Telford does not specifically disclose the waist textile strap is partly enclosed by layers of the body panel member.
DE 202011104489 U1 demonstrates a baby carrier having a body panel including a lower sleeve (30) that partially surrounds and encloses a removably secured waist strap (40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Telford and removably attach the waist strap within a fabric sleeve similar to that of DE 202011104489 U1 because such a change would allow the waist strap to be removed and replaced and would allow for easier cleaning of the components or allowing for better individual cleaning of components.
Claim(s) 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telford (US 2020/0163466 A1) in view of Yim (KR 101359888 B1) and Kimura (JP 2003102598 A) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Parness et al. (US 2011/0240693 A1)(Parness).
Regarding claims 39 and 40, modified Telford discloses adjusting a body height support length of the body panel member by folding and/or rolling the lower end of the body panel member in the direction of the body height support length (noting the motion of rolling or folding the waist belt relative to the bottom of the back support), before tightening the waist support member including the body panel member to the waist of the person (noting the action of attaching the waist belt to the person Fig. 5C, and/or adjusting belts 114); fastening the waist support member including the body panel member to the waist of the person (Fig. 5C); ); fastening the waist support member including the body panel member to the waist of the person (Fig. 5C); placing the baby inside the baby carrier, supporting the shoulder fastening members on the shoulders of the person and carrying a baby inside the baby carrier on the body of a person (Fig. 5C).
Modified Telford does not specifically disclose the body panel member further comprises a fastening assembly attached to an outer surface of the body panel member, wherein the fastening assembly comprises a pair of belt guiding loops, arranged for releasably fastening the fastening means of the shoulder fastening members to the body panel member guiding each of the belts of the shoulder fastening members through at least one of the belt guiding loops attached to the outer surface of the body panel member; fastening the male fastening means of said one shoulder fastening member to the female fastening means of said another one shoulder fastening member; thereby fastening the male fastening means of said one shoulder fastening member to the fastening assembly and fastening the female fastening means of said another one shoulder fastening member to the fastening assembly, thereby attaching the shoulder fastening members to the outer surface of the body panel member.
Parness demonstrates the ability to have a baby carrier having a pair of shoulder straps (20) and a body panel (12), the body panel having a fastening assembly comprising a set of belt guiding loops (24), as well as a step of guiding each of the shoulder belts through at least one of the belt guiding loops attached to the outer surface of the body panel and fastening the shoulder straps to one another (and the loops by guiding therethrough) to secure the shoulder belts to an outer surface of the body panel (Figs. 1, 8-10, and 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Telford and include a similar fastening assembly such that the shoulder straps can extend therethrough and connect to one another because such a change would allow the shoulder straps to be configured in a different way thereby allowing for different comfort levels for the baby and the carrier and thereby increasing the overall versatility of the device.
Claim(s) 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telford (US 2020/0163466 A1) in view of Yim (KR 101359888 B1) and Kimura (JP 2003102598 A) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of DE 202011103052 U1.
Regarding claims 45-47, modified Telford does not specifically disclose the woven fabric has a weave structure selected from one of a diagonal weave, a double diagonal weave and a jacquard weave, the woven fabric is predominantly made of a natural yarn selected from the group consisting of wool, cotton, linen, silk, and hemp, a silver coated yarn selected from the group consisting of silver coated wool, silver coated cotton, silver coated linen, silver coated silk, and silver coated hemp, a viscose yarn made from a material selected from the group consisting of bamboo, coffee, wood, and seaweed, or a reflective nanoparticle coated yarn, the woven fabric comprises a yarn having a weight of at least 150 g/m.
DE 202011103052 U1 demonstrates a baby carrying device including woven fabric has a weave structure selected from one of a diagonal weave, made of a natural yarn selected including cotton (Page 2 of the Translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Telford and use the teaching of DE 202011103052 U1 and make the device with a diagonal weave and including cotton as well as making it from a material having a weight at least 150 g/m because such a change would have required a mere choice of a known suitable material. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telford (US 2020/0163466 A1) in view of Yim (KR 101359888 B1) and Kimura (JP 2003102598 A) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Hiniduma-Lokuge (US 2008/0149674 A1).
Regarding claim 48, modified Telford does not specifically disclose at least one of the body panel member, the shoulder strap and the waist textile strap further comprises an inner contact layer comprising a fabric different from the support layer.
Hiniduma-Lokuge discloses a baby carrier including portions with an inner contact layer comprising a fabric different from a support layer (Paragraph 0031) noting a soft inner layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Telford and use the teaching of and include an inner layer of soft material in order to improve comfort for the wearer or the baby as demonstrated by Hiniduma-Lokuge.
Claim(s) 54-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telford (US 2020/0163466 A1) in view of Yim (KR 101359888 B1) and Kimura (JP 2003102598 A) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Williamson (GB 2548135 A).
Regarding claims 54-55, to the degree that modified Telford does not clearly demonstrate the ability to carry the baby carrier in at least five or six positions, Williamson teaches a similar baby carrier that can be carried on the front, back, or each hip of the wearer (Figs. 5-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Telford and use the teaching of Williamson and place the carrier on either hip or the back of the wearer in order to allow the wearer to carry the child in the most comfortable configuration/position for both themselves, and the child (i.e. if the wearer gets tired of carrying the baby in a single position for too long).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Telford and Yim fail to teach or disclose a carrier and straps that can be worn in at least three wearing positions. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the straps of Telford allow for at least four wearing positions noting the low and high seating configurations as well as the child facing inward and outward are considered to be at least four different wearing positions. Examiner notes that in this case the configuration of male and female fastening means enable at least three (four as noted) wearing positions.
Arguments with respect to claims 54-55 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734