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 § 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:
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 and 5 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. 20130180047 issued to Veronneau.
Regarding claim 1,
Barnes discloses a convertible crib, comprising plural panels: (Barnes: FIG. 2 (200, 201)) at least one first stage configuration in the form of a bassinet … (Barnes: [0010] “[0010] FIG. 6 illustrates the present invention assembled as a mini-crib.” See also FIG. 6) at least one additional stage configuration in the form of a toddler bed, a day bed, a junior bed and/or a full-size crib, … and at least 1 or more panels being used in both the first and additional stage configurations (Barnes: [0035] “As shown in FIG. 6, the convertible bed assembly may be converted into a mini-size crib utilizing first base frame (200) of mattress support assembly (199), head board 20, footboard 22, first side panel 40, and second side panel 50.” See also [0037] “As shown in FIG. 6A, the convertible bed assembly may be converted into a full-size crib utilizing first base frame (200) and second base frame 201 of mattress support assembly (199), head board 20, footboard 22, first side panel 40, and second side panel 50.”)
Barnes does not appear to disclose having a length of not more than approximately 30 inches (762 mm) and a width of not more than approximately 20 inches (457 mm); having a length of at least approximately 54 inches and a width of at least approximately 30 inches;
However, Kroeker discloses 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 dimensions as taught in Kroeker 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.
Barnes in view of Kroeker does not appear to disclose having a length of at least approximately 54 inches and a width of at least approximately 30 inches;
However, Veronneau discloses having a length of at least approximately 54 inches and a width of at least approximately 30 inches; (Veronneau: [0005] “For example, known in the art are North American standard cribs having an outside length of about 54 inches and an inside length of about 52 inches, which may be convertible into a double or full-sized bed having an outside width of about 54 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 dimensions as taught in Veronneau 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 5,
Barnes in view of Kroeker in view of Veronneau discloses the convertible crib of claim 1, comprising at least one further stage configuration selected from a group consisting of a non-full-sized crib, a non-full sized toddler bed, a non-full- sized day bed, and a non-full-sized crib, having a length of at least approximately 38 inches and a width of at least approximately 30 inches. (Barnes: FIG. 6A, the examiner notes that the length can be adjusted via the track, furthermore, changing the size of the dimensions of the crib does not perform differently than the prior art see claim 1 reasonings.)
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 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