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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Barnes does not disclose or describe a bassinet. In response to this the examiner notes that Barnes teaches adjustable crib walls that are secured in position. Providing an additional locking position by scaling down the side walls to be similar to that of a bassinet i.e. a known adjustment range constitutes a routine design choice that would have been well within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to achieve predictable size variations.
The proposed modification does not introduce a new structure, but recognizes an smaller position along the adjustment range that can be achieved by scaling down the side walls of Barnes to that of a bassinet so that there are three positions i.e. bassinet, minicrib/non-full-sized crib, and a full-sized crib. Kroeker teaches the known bassinet dimensions for infant sleeping enclosures. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the reduced-size configuration of Barnes to conform to the known bassinet dimensions taught by Kroeker, yielding the claimed first-stage bassinet configuration. The claim does not require a particular locking mechanism, a specific number of locking positions, or prohibit dimensional modification of the adjustable panels. Accordingly, the modification represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Accordingly the rejection of claim 1 and new claims 6-16 are sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,7,10,12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of U.S. Publication No. 20180027990 issued to Kroeker.
Regarding claim 1,
Barnes discloses a multi-stage convertible crib (Barnes: FIG. 1) apparatus, comprising a first stage configuration (Barnes: FIG. 6) … a pair of … side walls (Barnes: FIG. 6 (40, 50)) comprising a first … side wall (Barnes FIG. 6 (40)) and a second … side wall, (Barnes: FIG. 6 (50)) a pair of … end walls (Barnes: FIG. 6 (20)) comprising a first … end wall and a second … end wall, (Barnes: FIG. 6 (20)) the first … end wall structured to be adjacent to and in contact with a first side portion of the first …side wall and a first side portion of the second … side wall, the second … end wall structured to be adjacent to and in contact with a second side portion of the first … side wall and a second side portion of the second … side wall, (Barnes: FIG. 6) … a second stage configuration in the form of a non-full-sized crib comprising: a pair of non-full-sized crib end walls comprising the pair of bassinet side walls, a pair of non-full-sized crib walls comprising a full non-full-sized crib side wall and a second-non-full-sized crib side wall, the first bassinet side wall structured to be adjacent to and in contact with a first side portion of the first non-full-sized crib side wall and a first side portion of the second non-full-sized crib side wall, and the second bassinet side wall structured to be adjacent to and in contact with a second side portion of the first non-full-sized crib side wall and a second side portion of the second non-full-sized crib side wall; (Barnes: FIG. 6, the examiner notes that when modified by Kroeker as discussed below, the sidewall can be adjusted to be the length of that of FIG. 6 i.e. the combination of both walls will be the non-full sized crib sidewalls and the bassinet end walls would otherwise be non-full sized crib end walls, it is noted that the claim does not require the presence of all the walls.) and a third stage configuration in the form of a full-sized crib (Barnes: FIG. 6A) comprising: a pair of full-sized crib end walls comprising the pair of bassinet side walls, a pair of full-sized crib side walls comprising a first full-sized crib side wall and a second full-sized crib side wall, the first bassinet side wall structured to be adjacent to and in contact with a first side portion of the full-sized crib side wall and a first side portion of the second full-sized crib side wall, and the second bassinet side wall structured to be adjacent to and in contact with a second side portion of the first full-sized crib side wall and a second side portion of the second full sized crib sized wall. (Barnes: FIG. 6A, the bassinet walls, when modified by Kroeker as discussed below are in contact with the full sized crib side wall i.e. the wall that extends outward from the walls (20, 50) which are also in contact with the end walls (20, 22))
Barnes does not appear to disclose a first stage configuration in the form of a bassinet comprising: a pair of bassinet side walls comprising a first bassinet side wall and a second bassinet side wall, a pair of bassinet end walls comprising a first bassinet end wall and a second bassinet end wall, the first bassinet end wall structured to be adjacent to and in contact with a first side portion of the first bassinet side wall and a first side portion of the second bassinet side wall, the second bassinet end wall structured to be adjacent to and in contact with a second side portion of the first bassinet side wall and a second side portion of the second bassinet side wall, and the bassinet having a length of not more than approximately 30 inches 762 mm) and a width of not more than approximately 20 inches (457 mm);
However, Kroeker discloses a bassinet… and the bassinet having a length of not more than approximately 30 inches 762 mm) and a width of not more than approximately 20 inches (457 mm); (Kroeker: [0027] “the bassinet can have a length ranging from about 20 inches to about 50 inches (e.g., about 22 inches to about 40 inches, from about 24 inches to about 35 inches, or from about 26 inches to about 31 inches.) In some cases, the bassinet can have a height ranging from about 8 inches to about 15 inches (e.g., from about 9 inches to about 13 inches, or from about 10 inches to about 12 inches).)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the mini crib by adjusting the dimenions as taught in Kroeker and adding a “in-between” locking mechanism that would allow the telescopic wall to adjust to a position that is of a non-fullsized crib shown in FIG. 6 once the panel is modified dimensionally since it has been held in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc, 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 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 7,
Barnes in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising a bassinet panel forming a base for at least one of the stage configurations. (Kroeker: FIG. 1B (15), the examiner notes that would be the equivalent to the base panel of Barnes which is shown in halves but could be modified to be in more separate pieces to support multiple configurations as discussed in [0021]))
Regarding claim 10,
Barnes in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 7, further comprising a plurality of supports removably attachable to a plurality of the end walls for supporting the bassinet panel in a predetermined elevated position. (Barnes: FIG. 4 (206))
Regarding claim 12,
Barnes in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of corner posts; and a pair of closure walls attached to respective corner posts opposite at least one of the side walls. (Barnes: FIG. 1 (corner posts are shown on the end walls (20) to which closure walls (262) attaches 2 via (271))
Regarding claim 14,
Barnes in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising the third stage configuration comprising two full size panels forming a base for the third stage configuration. (Barnes: FIG. 2 (200,201))
Regarding claim 15,
Barnes in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising a mattress height adjustment system comprising: at least one panel; (Barnes: FIG. 2 (199)) a series of bolts embedded in the at least one panel; (Barnes: FIG. 2 (205)) and a plurality of elongate supports having a plurality of holes formed therein each structured to receive one of the series bolts therethrough. (Barnes: FIGS. 3-4 (206, 221))
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of U.S. Publication No. 20180027990 issued to Kroeker further in view of Japanese Publication No. 2001190366 issued to Takahashi.
Regarding claim 6,
Barnes in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 1.
Barnes in view of Kroeker does not appear to disclose further comprising at least one of the end walls being formed of respective half-walls.
However, Takahashi discloses further comprising at least one of the end walls being formed of respective half-walls. (Takahashi: FIG. 3A (16a, 16b) show end panel (5) broken into half-walls)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barnes in view of Kroeker directed to a convertible crib by making the end walls half walls as taught in Takahashi directed to a crib since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing greater modularity of the crib and allowing for folding of the crib when not in use.
Regarding claim 13,
Barnes in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 12.
Barnes in view of Kroeker does not appear to disclose further comprising: at least one of the end walls being formed of respective half-walls of the bassinet; and wherein the closure walls are counterparts of the half-walls.
However, Takahashi discloses further comprising: at least one of the end walls being formed of respective half-walls of the bassinet; and wherein the closure walls are counterparts of the half-walls. (Takahashi: FIG. 3a (16a, 16b) are halfwalls of the end walls which when modified with Barnes, the closure walls (262) will be the counterparts of the half-walls)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barnes in view of Kroeker directed a modular crib by making the end walls in halves as taught in Takashi directed to a folding crib since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for a crib to fold when not in use making it storage friendly.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of U.S. Publication No. 20180027990 issued to Kroeker further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160338505 issued to Bien-Willner.
Regarding claim 8,
Barnes in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 7.
Barnes in view of Kroeker does not appear to disclose further comprising a plurality of supports removably attachable to a plurality of the side walls for supporting the bassinet panel in a predetermined elevated position.
However, Bien-Willner discloses further comprising a plurality of supports removably attachable to a plurality of the side walls for supporting the bassinet panel in a predetermined elevated position. (Bien-Willner: FIG. 3 (18) shows a plurality of supports removably attachable to the side walls to support the panel in a predetermined elevated position.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barnes in view of Kroeker directed to a crib by adding a plurality of supports that allow the panel to be supported in different elevations as taught in Bien-Willer directed to a crib since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for a the child to be supported at different heights depending on its age.
Regarding claim 9,
Barnes in view of Kroeker in view of Bien-Willner discloses the apparatus of Claim 8, wherein each predetermined elevated position corresponds to a mattress position structured to adjust a height of a mattress to a top of the apparatus. (Bien-Willner: FIG. 3)
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of U.S. Publication No. 20180027990 issued to Kroeker further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190014919 issued to Matsumoto
Regarding claim 11,
Barnes in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 10.
Barnes in view of Kroeker does not appear to disclose wherein each predetermined elevated position corresponds to a mattress position structured to adjust a height of a mattress to a top of the apparatus.
However, Matsumoto discloses wherein each predetermined elevated position corresponds to a mattress position structured to adjust a height of a mattress to a top of the apparatus. (Matsumoto: [0028] “More specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 11, a bolt 44 whose head 43 is fixed to a depressed portion 42 disposed at a knob 41 and a nut 46 fixed to a depressed portion 45 disposed at the end of the short side of the bed board 21 are used. The tops of the bolts 44 are screwed and fastened with the nuts 46 through holes 47 bored at predetermined intervals vertically on the vertical frames 14 of the baby fence to install the bed board 21 to the baby fence 11.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barnes in view of Kroeker directed to a crib by adding more supports as taught in Matsumoto directed to a cribsince all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing more height positions for the mattress to be placed on the end wall.
Regarding claim 16,
Barnes in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 1.
Barnes in view of Kroeker does not appear to disclose further comprising at least one caster removably attached to a bottom portion of the apparatus.
However, Matsumoto discloses further comprising at least one caster removably attached to a bottom portion of the apparatus. (DeHart: [0011] “With the reassemblable crib according to the disclosure including the removable foot members and the removable casters, the height is adjustable from the installation surface to the top of the baby fence by the height of the foot members, the height of the casters, or further the heights of the foot members and the casters.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barnes in view of Kroeker directed to a crib by adding removable casters as taught in Matsumoto directed to a crib since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for the crib to be easily transported to other living spaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached on 571-272-8525. 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights