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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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, 6-9 and 11-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL article Nestig in view of German Publication No. DE202017106713 issued to Olymp and U.S. Publication No. 20180027990 issued to Kroeker.
Regarding claim 1,
Nestig discloses a multi-stage convertible crib apparatus, comprising: multiple parts wherein a plurality of the multiple parts are structured for co-use in multiple stage configurations of the apparatus; (Nestig: see figure with “product parts” list) … a second stage configuration in the form of a non-full-sized crib (Nestig: see figures describing mini-crib) comprising: the pair of bassinet side walls of the first stage configuration co-used in the second stage configuration as a pair of non-full-sized crib end walls a pair of non-full-sized crib side walls comprising a first non-full-sized crib side wall and a second non-full-sized crib side wall, the first co-used 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 co-used 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; (Nestig: see figures describing minicrib, as set forth in the combination below, Olymp teaches using bassinet end walls to make a minicrib, Nestig teaches using minicrib side walls to make a full size crib, the same concept can be applied to Nestig when modified by Olymp since it is nothing more than a change in dimension of the side wall, thus as outlined below in the obvious statement the combination discloses using bassinet side wall structure as a end wall for a mini-crib since Olymp adds another configuration to Nestig and Nestig teaches repurposing the sidewall of the smaller configuration as the endwall) and a third stage configuration in the form of a full-sized crib comprising: the pair of bassinet side walls of the first stage configuration or the second stage configuration co-used in the third stage configuration as a pair of full-sized crib end 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 co-used bassinet side wall structured to be adjacent to and in contact with a first side portion of the first full-sized crib side wall and a first side portion of the second full-sized crib side wall, and the second co-used 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 side wall. (Nestig: see figures describing a full-sized crib, the examiner notes the same concept described in the above mapping is also applied to the full-sized crib i.e. repurposing the side wall of the mini-crib or bassinet when modified by Olymp to be a end wall)
Nestig 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, Olymp discloses 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, (Olymp: FIG. 7A see also page 4 “7A the modular furniture system as a large bassinet in a schematic perspective view)
Nestig in view of Olymp does not appear to disclose 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);
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a bassinet stage by importing the teachings of Olymp to configure the bassinet as a minicrib preserving Nestig’s functionality as taught by Olymp in order “to provide a furniture system available, which can be converted in a simple manner as needed into different pieces of furniture and find as many elements as possible [to] use. Furthermore, a PHOSITA would have recognized that adding a bassinet configuration to Nestig would have allowed for the invention to be used on a infant lessening the need to purchases a bassinet separately saving a user money.
However, Kroeker discloses the dimensions of the bassinet (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 aobut 8 inches to about 15 inches …. )
It would have been obvious to modify Nestig in view of Olymp to have the bassinets configured in the dimensions above as taught by 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.
Regarding claim 6,
Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 1.
Nestig in view of Olymp 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, Olymp discloses further comprising at least one of the end walls being formed of respective half-walls. (Olymp: FIG. 10B (17) allows for connection of the other half of the half-wall)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nestig i directed to a convertible crib by making the end walls half walls as taught in Olymp 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 different configurations other than a crib as demonstrated in FIG. 10A, 10B of Olymp.
Regarding claim 7,
Nestig in view of Olymp 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 configuration. (Olymp: FIG. 7A)
Regarding claim 8,
Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 7, 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. (Nestig: see figures i.e. mattress support bolts)
Regarding claim 9,
Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein each predetermined elevated postion corresponds to a mattress position structure to adjust a height of a mattress to a top of the apparatus. (Nestig: see figures)
Regarding claim 11,
Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker in view of Golden discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein each predetermined elevated position corresponds to a mattress position structured to adjust a height of a mattress to a top of the apparatus. (Nestig, Golden see figures)
Regarding claim 12,
Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of corner posts; (Nestig: see figures there’s corner posts at the end of each wall) and a pair of closure walls attached to respective corner posts opposite at least one of the side walls. (Olymp: FIG. 10B shows closure walls as does Nestig in its figures in the toddler bed configuration)
Regarding claim 13,
Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 12.
Nestig 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, Olymp 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. (Olymp: FIG. 10B shows closure walls being configured from 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 Nestig directed a modular crib by making the end walls in halves as taught in Olymp directed to a modular 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 toddler to easily get out of the bed while also making use of every single modular part as promoted by Olymp.
Regarding claim 14,
Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker discloses further comprising the third stage configuration comprising two full size panels forming a base for the third stage configuration. (Olymp: FIG. 4C shows two full size panels)
Regarding claim 16,
Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising at leat one caster removably attached to a bottom portion of the apparatus (Nestig: see figures)
Claim(s) 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL article Nestig in view of German Publication No. DE202017106713 issued to Olymp and U.S. Publication No. 20180027990 issued to Kroeker further in view of Barnes.
Regarding claim 10,
Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of claim 7.
Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker does not appear to disclose further comprising a plurality of supports removably attachable to the end walls for supporting the bassinet panel in a predetermined elevated position.
However, Barnes discloses further comprising a plurality of supports removably attachable to the end walls for supporting the bassinet panel in a predetermined elevated position. (Barnes: FIG. 4 (206))
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker by configuring the mattress supports to be at the end walls as taught by Barnes so that the mattress support can be moved to different heights furthermore, this difference constitutes a mere change in placement of a known feature that performs the same function in the same way to achieve the same result. Absent any indication that the claimed location produced a new or unexpected result or cooperates with the structure in a different manner, the particular placement of the plurality of mattress supports is considered an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950)
Regarding claim 15,
Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker discloses the apparatus of Claim 1.
Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker does not appear to disclose further comprising a mattress height adjustment system comprising: at least one panel; a series of bolts embedded in the at least one panel; and a plurality of elongate supports having a plurality of holes formed therein each structured to receive one of the series bolts therethrough.
However Barnes discloses 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))
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nestig in view of Olymp in view of Kroeker by configuring the mattress supports to be at the end walls as taught by Barnes so that the mattress support can be moved to different heights furthermore, this difference constitutes a mere change in placement of a known feature that performs the same function in the same way to achieve the same result. Absent any indication that the claimed location produced a new or unexpected result or cooperates with the structure in a different manner, the particular placement of the plurality of mattress supports is considered an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950)
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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights