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 § 102
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:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LaMantia in US Patent 6550083.
Regarding Claim 1, LaMantia teaches a canopy for a child play yard comprising: a first support rod (146 on the right) for supporting a canopy material (66); wherein the canopy material is dimensioned to cover at least a portion of the child play yard and comprises a skirt (70/74) dimensioned to overhang the child play yard and at least one breakaway point comprising a slit (the space between the sides of 70 and 74, see Fig. 14) positioned on the skirt.
Regarding Claim 4, LaMantia teaches that the canopy material is dimensioned to cover at least one corner of the child play yard (see Fig. 3) and attaches to a corner material (154) dimensioned to be supported by the corner of the child play yard.
Regarding Claim 5, LaMantia teaches that the first support rod extends the canopy material from a first corner of the child play yard to a second corner of the child play yard.
Regarding Claim 6, LaMantia teaches a second support rod (146 on the left) extending the canopy material from a third corner of the child play yard to a fourth corner of the child play yard.
Regarding Claim 7, LaMantia teaches that the first support rod supports a front panel (the front portion) of the canopy material (the first rod supports the front portion of the canopy where it is adjacent the front portion) and the second support rod supports a back panel (the rear portion) of the canopy material the second rod supports the rear portion of the canopy where it is adjacent the rear portion.
Regarding Claim 8, LaMantia teaches that the front panel is supported at a substantially right angle (there is a right angle formed at the corner), and the back panel is supported at an angle smaller than a right angle (the rear portion is sloped from the bottom to the top).
Regarding Claim 9, LaMantia teaches that the canopy material comprises at least two breakaway points (at 114).
Regarding Claim 10, LaMantia teaches that the canopy material comprises at least one pleat (such as at the inner end of 126).
Regarding Claim 12, LaMantia teaches that the at least one breakaway point is fastened by at least one hook and loop (see Column 4, lines 17-18), snap, or magnet.
Regarding Claim 13, LaMantia teaches that the canopy material comprises a pocket (150) for the at least one support rod.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LaMantia in US Patent 5517707.
Regarding Claim 14, LaMantia teaches a canopy for a child play yard comprising: a canopy material (10) extending across a perimeter of the child play yard; and at least one support rod (“shock cord rod” – see Column 3, line 3) for supporting the canopy material, wherein the canopy material comprises a front panel skirt (44) and a back panel skirt (66) overhanging the child play yard, the back panel skirt covering a portion of a side wall of the child play yard larger than a portion covered by the front panel skirt (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, LaMantia teaches that the back panel skirt is dimensioned to cover at least 40% of the side wall of the child play yard.
Regarding Claim 16, LaMantia teaches that the back panel skirt is dimensioned to cover at least 90% of the side wall of the child play yard.
Regarding Claim 17, LaMantia teaches that the canopy material comprises at least one breakaway point (16).
Regarding Claim 18, LaMantia teaches that the at least one breakaway point is positioned on the skirt (see Fig. 3).
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. in US Patent 2820468.
Regarding Claim 19, Park teaches a canopy for a child play yard comprising: a canopy material (C) extending across a perimeter of the child play yard; and at least one support rod (R) for supporting the canopy material, wherein the canopy material comprises a corner material (34) dimensioned to be supported by a corner of the child play yard.
Regarding Claim 20, Park teaches that the canopy material comprises more than one corner material, each corner material corresponding with a respective corner of the child play yard.
Regarding Claim 21, Park teaches that a first support rod (R on the right) extends the canopy material from a first corner of the child play yard to a second corner of the child play yard, and a second support rod (R on the left) extends the canopy material from a third corner of the child play yard to a fourth corner of the child play yard.
Regarding Claim 22, Park teaches that the canopy material comprises at least one breakaway point (at 35).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaMantia as applied to Claim 1 above. LaMantia is silent on the force needed to separate the canopy from the play yard. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a material for the breakaway that provides a breakaway force of about 0.6-2.4 lbf (2.67-10.68 N) in order to meet the user’s needs, since 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and 4-18 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.
With respect to Claim 19, the rejection under Park has been amended to reflect the new claim language. Park teaches that the canopy comprises a corner material (34) that explicitly attaches to a corner of the play yard.
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 NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah Chandler Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights