DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The Amendments filed December 11th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 32, 44-49, 51, 54-55, 57, and 60 remain pending in the application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8, 32, 44-49, 51-55, 57, and 60 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 32, the limitation “in a manner” is recited. There is a high degree of subjectivity as to what “in a manner” concerns within the scope of the claim, particularly in consideration that fasteners have already been disclosed by the claim, so the limitation “in a manner” almost appears conditional on the limitation “attached to an upper/lower portion of the side wall of the carry cot”, and itself conditional (the manner) for ‘being flappable downward/upward’. Thereby there would be a degree of uncertainty whether the claim is attempting to claim the process of attaching the invention, rather than merely being configured to achieve; and further what would ‘in a manner’ encompass for such process. To the matter of the claim invoking both a claim and an apparatus a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011. (MPEP 2173.05(p) is relevant). Furthermore, there is no disclosure in the body of the specification or the figures that respectfully elucidates what the “manners” are, whether simply pressing them together, bringing them into contact, sliding them into abutment, and so on, and therefor the scope the limitation cannot be ascertained. Furthermore, it’s unclear in the manner the apparatus is claimed as to whether the limitation is merely an intended use of the invention or not or merely narrative of the attachment of the invention. Additional clarity is respectfully requested and otherwise amendment is necessary. For the purposes of examination, the limitations are construed as “configured to attach to an upper portion of the side wall in a carry cot and is configured to flip downward or configured to attach to a lower portion of the side wall of the carry cot and configured to be flippable upward” in light of the fact applicant’s invention is directed to an apparatus in the preamble (e.g. “A/The foldable infant carry cot”.
Claims 2, 4-5, 8, 42, 44-49, 51, 54-55, 57, and 60 are likewise rejected as being dependent on a rejected and indefinite antecedent claims (at least claims 1 and 32).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kane (U.S. Pat. No. 4999863).
Regarding claim 1, Kane discloses (FIGS. 1-7) a foldable infant carry cot comprising: at least one cushion (48; FIG. 2) disposed on an interior side of the carry cot (as illustrated in FIG. 1-3), the at least one cushion comprising a plurality of removably attachable fasteners (62; FIG. 1-3) for attaching the at least one cushion to a side wall of the carry cot (As illustrated in FIG. 1-3 to mating fasteners 64), wherein a top edge or a bottom edge of each of the at least one cushion is attached to an upper portion of the side wall of the carry cot (to the upper located fastener of 64; FIG. 1-3) in a manner to be flippable downward (where eminently and in the ordinary use of the invention in FIGS. 1-3 the walls are viewed to be foldable at their corner’s hinges in a downward direction or foldable upward when retrieving from the interior of the basket, and would be considered capable of and otherwise configured to do so). Where it is considered as illustrated between FIGS. 1-3, the top edge and the bottom edge of the at least one cushion is attached to the sidewall of the carry cot (attached, adjacent, and abutting by connection of the plurality of fasteners).
Regarding claim 2, Kane discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 1, the at least one cushion comprising at least one of: a shock-absorbing component (50/52; FIG. 1) that absorbs impact coming from any of the sides of the carry cot (As illustrated in FIG. 1; where 50/52 are clarified as “pads” which would absorb impact in the ordinary operation of the device as a ‘pad’ facilitates), and an elastic body or an elastic body covered with material or fabric (As illustrated in FIG. 1, 52 comprises an outer cover).
Regarding claim 5, Kane discloses (FIGS. 1-3) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 1, the removably attachable fasteners comprising hook and loop fabric fasteners (62/64; FIGS. 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Kane discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 1, wherein the at least one cushion is attached to an upper frame or a lower frame of the carry cot by a joint, fabric, a hinge, a fabric hinge, (where as illustrated in FIG. 2 and 3, the cushion (48) is clearly attached to the upper frame through 50/52 that are connected through a fabric hinge joint that avails a joint, fabric, a hinge, and a fabric hinge).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane in view itself and Rose (U.S. Pub. No. 20100170042) with Rose used as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 4, Kane discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 1.
However, while Kane does disclose what appears to be a foam padding (FIG. 1) Kane does not explicitly disclose the at least one cushion comprising Styrofoam, expandable polypropylene (EPP), expandable polystyrene (EPS), expandable polyolefin (EPO), polyethylene (PE) board with foam, or PE board with rubber.
Regardless, Kane teaches discloses the claimed invention except for being produced of Styrofoam, expandable polypropylene (EPP), expandable polystyrene (EPS), expandable polyolefin (EPO), polyethylene (PE) board with foam, or PE board with rubber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have produced the cushion with Styrofoam, expandable polypropylene (EPP), expandable polystyrene (EPS), expandable polyolefin (EPO), polyethylene (PE) board with foam, or PE board with rubber, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select 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. Where there is a lack of criticality as to the particular material by applicant (paragraphs [0008]/[0064]/[0085]) where the paragraphs only note a material elected for impact absorption, of which the foam of Kane would achieve. Wherein the results would be predictable to produce the padding/cushions of Kane in Styrofoam, expandable polypropylene (EPP), expandable polystyrene (EPS), expandable polyolefin (EPO), polyethylene (PE) board with foam, or PE board with rubber as Rose demonstrates and clarifies “One of ordinary skill in the art would however appreciate that any material providing support and firmness characteristics similar to those provided by foam rubber can be used in the mattress of the present invention without exceeding the scope of the invention. Examples of alternate materials comprise latex foam, coir foam, XPS (Extruded Polystyrene) foam such as Styrofoam or Foamcore, or any other similar material known to persons of ordinary skill in the art” [0040], at a minimum setting forth Styrofoam and polystyrene being well known to the art of bedding/mattresses for cushioning which Kane arbitrarily provides.
Claim(s) 32, 44-49, 51, 55, 57, and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane in view of Chu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20070006910); hereafter “Chu”.
Regarding claim 32, Kane discloses (FIGS. 1-7) a foldable infant carry cot comprising: at least one cushion (48; FIG. 2) disposed on an interior side of the carry cot (as illustrated in FIG. 1-3), the at least one cushion comprising a plurality of removably attachable fasteners (62; FIG. 1-3) for attaching the at least one cushion to a side wall of the carry cot (As illustrated in FIG. 1-3 to mating fasteners 64), wherein a top edge or a bottom edge of each of the at least one cushion is attached to an upper portion of the side wall of the carry cot (to the upper located fastener of 64; FIG. 1-3) in a manner to be flippable downward (where eminently and in the ordinary use of the invention in FIGS. 1-3 the walls are viewed to be foldable at their corner’s hinges in a downward direction or foldable upward when retrieving from the interior of the basket, and would be considered capable of and otherwise configured to do so). Where it is considered as illustrated between FIGS. 1-3, the top edge and the bottom edge of the at least one cushion is attached to the sidewall of the carry cot (attached, adjacent, and abutting by connection of the plurality of fasteners).
However, Kane does not explicitly disclose a foldable frame allowing the carry cot to fold and collapse.
Regardless, Chu teaches (FIGS. 1-4E) a foldable infant carry cot (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4E), wherein the foldable infant carry cot further comprises a foldable frame (10; FIG. 1-4E) allowing the carry cot to fold and collapse (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-4E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the foldable frame of Chu (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4E) into the flexible sidewalls and assembly of Kane (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-3). Where the results would have been predictable as both Kane and Chu are concerned with collapsible infant cots/bedding configurations with foldable walls and utilize flexible walls (Chu: FIGS. 1-5; Kane: FIGS. 1-3). And furthermore where the use of the solid frame of Chu would avail the construction of Kane to better stand upright under it’s own weight and construction and resist deformation by sudden or abrupt action of the occupant (to which Kane is concerned [1:15-17]: “the need to constrain the baby so it doesn't roll off the changing area”) as a purely freely flexible cot of Kane would provide, despite Kane’s address, a purely fabric wall is subject to deformation without a rigid backing, which Chu could provide to an fabric enclosure (Chu: FIGS. 1-5).
Regarding claim 44, Kane in view of Chu discloses (Kane: FIGS. 1-3; Chu: FIGS. 1-4E) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 32, the foldable frame comprising: an upper frame (Chu: 12; FIGS. 1-4E); a lower frame (14; FIG. 1-4E); a flexible sidewall (Chu: 18; FIGS. 1-4E/Kane: 14; FIGS. 1-3) disposed between the upper frame and the lower frame (As conveyed through Chu: FIGS. 1-4E); a carrying handle (Kane: 54/56; FIG. 1-3); and a plurality of hinges (Chu: 34 FIG. 1-4E) disposed between the upper frame and the lower frame (As illustrated in FIG. 1-4E).
It should be understood in the alternate that the combination of Chu in view of Kane would be equally reasonable as the modification may be viewed as a combination of references as Chu clearly already avails the use of flexible fabric walls (FIGS. 1-5, particularly demonstrated in FIG. 5), and Kane is such a fabric walled infant cushion, Chu is non-illustrative of it’s mattress and arbitrary but Kane is an explicit mattress configuration that avails enhanced securement to the walls through the fastener systems of Kane and would therefore be beneficially combinable to better secure the mattress as Kane does to the walls of Chu. Where Chu would continue to support an infant therein as would Chu, but Kane’s securement would enhance Chu’s containment, and Chu’s containment would enhance Kane’s securement interchangeably respectively.
Regarding claim 45, Kane in view of Chu discloses (Kane: FIGS. 1-3; Chu: FIGS. 1-4E) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 44, each of the plurality of hinges comprising: an upper bracket (50; FIG. 2A) rotatably connected to the upper frame (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4E correspondent 50 and 12; and conveyed particularly through FIG. 3B); a lower bracket (52; FIG. 2A) rotatably connected to the lower frame (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4E correspondent 50 and 12; and conveyed particularly through FIG. 3B); and a pivot pin (correspondent to the pins of 50/56 or 52/58; FIG. 2A-2B), the pivot pin holding a bottom of the upper bracket and a top of the lower bracket together while allowing the upper bracket and the lower bracket to rotatably move away from or closer to each other by pivoting around the pivot pin (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4E correspondent 50 and 12; and conveyed particularly through FIG. 3B).
Regarding claim 46, Kane in view of Chu discloses (Chu: FIGS. 1-4E) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 45, wherein as the hinge folds (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4E correspondent 50 and 12/52 and 14; and conveyed particularly through FIG. 3B) and the carry cot collapses (As illustrated in FIGS. 2A, 3A-3E) , the upper bracket and lower bracket move closer to each other (As illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 3A-3E), the top of the upper bracket rotates around the upper frame (200) in a first direction (As illustrated between FIGS. 3A-3E), and the bottom of the lower bracket rotates around the lower frame (300) in a second direction (As illustrated in FIG. 3A-3E).
Regarding claim 47, Kane in view of Chu discloses (Chu: FIGS. 1-4E) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 46, wherein as the hinge opens (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4E correspondent 50 and 12/52 and 14; and conveyed particularly through FIG. 4D) and the carry cot unfolds (as illustrated in FIGS. 2B and 4A-4E), the upper bracket and lower bracket move away from each other(as illustrated in FIGS. 2B and 4A-4E), the top of the upper bracket rotates around the upper frame in the second direction (as illustrated in FIGS. 2B and 4A-4E), and the bottom of the lower bracket rotates around the lower frame in the first direction (as illustrated in FIGS. 2B and 4A-4E).
Regarding claim 48, Kane in view of Chu discloses (Chu: FIGS. 1-4E) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 44, wherein two of the plurality of hinges are disposed on either side of the carry cot nearest an occupant's head position (As illustrated at either end (head or foot) in FIG. 1-4E; alongside two parallel about where an occupant’s head position could be considered (correspondent with the retractable hood as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4E but particularly demonstrated in 3A-3B and 4D-4E).
Regarding claim 49, Kane in view of Chu discloses (Chu: FIGS. 1-4E) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 44, wherein one of the plurality of hinges is disposed at an end of the carry cot nearest an occupant's head position; or wherein one of the plurality of hinges is disposed at an end of the carry cot nearest an occupant's feet position (As illustrated at either end (head or foot) in FIG. 1-4E).
Regarding claim 51, Kane in view of Chu discloses (Chu: FIGS. 1-4E) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 44, the plurality of hinges further comprising: locking elements (Chu: FIGS. 2A-2B; [0016]: “snap-lock hinges”; [0045]: “snap-lock condition”) allowing the hinges to be locked in place when the folding frame of the carry cot is unfolded and prevents the upper frame (200) and the flexible sidewall from collapsing (As demonstrated in FIG. 2B and clarified in [0016] and [0045] alongside claim 3).
Regarding claim 55, Kane in view of Chu discloses (Chu: FIGS. 1-4E) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 44, wherein at least one of the upper frame or the lower frame comprise at least one of: a single piece hoop/ring structure, and a plurality of pieces that fit together to form a hoop/ring structure (As illustrated in FIGS. 2, the rings of the top and bottom frame (12 and 14 respectively) are both of a single piece hoop/ring structure as being of one unit with hinges connective, and simultaneously comprise a plurality of constituent pieces that form the hoop/ring structure).
Regarding claim 57, Kane in view of Chu discloses (Chu: FIGS. 1-4E) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 44, wherein the upper frame {and} the lower frame comprise metal or plastic material that is hollow or solid (where [0051] avails the frames made of “metal rods” (i.e. metal and solid; alongside where [0039] avails the frames made of “plastic tubes” (i.e. plastic and hollow));the flexible sidewall is removable from the upper frame and the lower frame; and the flexible sidewall comprising mating fastening elements that connect to hold the top of the flexible sidewall to the upper frame and the bottom of the flexible sidewall to the lower frame (as set forth in [0040]: “the fabric sheet 18 can be fastened to the top and bottom frames 12, 14 by conventional methods, including but not limited to zipping,”).
Regarding claim 60, Kane in view of Chu discloses (Kane: FIGS. 1-4E; Chu: FIGS. 1-7) the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 32, the carry cot further comprising: a retractable canopy (28; FIGS. 1-4E); wherein, the retractable canopy can be pushed back/down to expose an interior of the carry cot (as conveyed through FIG. 3B and 4D) for loading an occupant and pulled forward/up to cover an area above the occupant's head position (As conveyed through FIGS. 1, 3A and 4E).
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane in view of Chu in further view of Ziegler et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5727265); hereafter “Ziegler”.
Regarding claim 52, Kane in view of Chu discloses the foldable infant carry cot (100) according to claim 51.
However, Kane does not explicitly disclose the locking elements comprising a latch, a latch handle, a spring, and a lock shaft, wherein when the carry cot is completely unfolded, the spring pushes the lock shaft into an indentation, slot, or hole and the hinge becomes locked in an open position.
Regardless, Ziegler teaches (FIGS. 1-8) an infant bedding (FIGS. 1-3) wherein a locking member (correspondent 50; FIGS. 6-8) is used, wherein the locking elements comprise a latch (50; FIG. 6-8), a latch handle (58; FIG. 6-8), a spring (56/62/66; FIGS. 6-8), and a lock shaft (correspondent 64; FIG. 6-8), wherein when the carry cot is completely unfolded, the spring pushes the lock shaft into an indentation, slot or hole (60; FIG. 6-8) and the hinge becomes locked in an open position (As illustrated in FIGS. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the latch, latch handle, spring, lock shaft, and slot or hole of Ziegler (as illustrated in FIGS. 6-8) into the locking mechanisms of Kane in view of Chu (or in the alternate Chu in view of Kane as set forth in the rejection of claim 32). Where the results would have been predictable as Kane, Chu, and Ziegler are all concerned with collapsible infant bedding articles and cots. Where advantageously, the use of a latching scheme as Ziegler provides would enhance the security of Chu’s hinges by availing a controllable release of the hinge compared to a geometrically locking arrangement which could be undone by concussive or abrupt forces to the apparatus of Chu.
As set forth for claim 32, Kane in view of Chu can likewise be seen and treated as Chu in view of Kane in the alternate due to the combination of references being improvable upon each other separately as set forth; and because the combination of Kane in view of Chu meets antecedent claims 44 and 51, Chu in view of Kane (as a combination) would likewise anticipate claims 44 and 51.
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane in view of Chu in further view of Mover (U.S. Pat. No. 2586247).
Regarding claim 54, Kane in view of Chu discloses a foldable infant carry cot according to claim 44.
However, Kane does not explicitly disclose the lower frame further comprising a baseboard that provides a floor to the carry cot.
Regardless, Mover teaches (FIGS. 1-6) a collapsible infant cot (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-6); wherein a flexible wall is employed (15/17; FIG. 1 and 3-4) with an upper frame (13; FIG. 1) and a lower frame (correspondent 7 and 26; FIGS. 1-6); and the lower frame further comprising a baseboard that provides a floor to the carry cot ([3:1-7]: “Within the lower border 17 and resting on the bottom 19 is a board 22 which may be a paper board, fiber or other suitable stiff material. This is of such a size as to cover snugly the whole bottom and on this rests a mattress 23”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the baseboard of Mover (22; FIGS. 1-6) disposed with the lower frame of Kane in view of Chu (or in the alternate Chu in view of Kane as set forth in the rejection of claim 32 prior). Where the results would have been predictable as Kan, Chu, and Mover are all concerned with collapsible infant cots and bedding with flexible walls used. Where advantageously, Mover acknowledges “In addition to this when the crib is in its open position the base rests on longitudinal supports in which case the board within the enclosure, which board may be made from paper or more durable material, acts as a complete support bridging over the space between the two longitudinal supports of the frame of the crib” [1:25-32]; whereby the use of such a board would avail a supporting base that prevents sag when the apparatus is carried and otherwise flattens the surface and equalizes normal forces thereof, alongside providing a simple means of preventing impugnment by articles that may be beneath the apparatus in use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 26th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly with regard to applicant’s Remarks (pages 6-9) concerning that Kane does not provide a top or bottom edge of each of the at least one cushion is attached to an upper portion of the/a side wall of the carry cot to be flappable downward or flippable upward, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Particularly, Kane demonstrates between FIGS. 1-3 that the walls of Kane are configured to fold/flip relative the base of the cushion, and more particularly where the claim only necessitates the attachment of a single wall respectively. It has been considered that in the ordinary operation of the apparatus, the cushion being removable, and foldable, and modularly fastenable would leave the apparatus of Kane configured and capable to attach to one side wall, fold/flip downward to settle into the basket/crib, and secure the second flappable wall of the cushion. It has also been considered that “in a manner” is both a subjective and indefinite term as set forth and rejected in the 112b section herein, as such the ‘manner’ of attachment is not necessary at the present time and does not provide patentable weight to the invention also being considered an intended use of the invention. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). The understandings of the 112b section leaves consideration the cushion must have a hinge of some form to facilitate the capability/configuring to flip upward or downward.
It is additionally respectfully considered that applicant’s independent claims also do not necessitate both/more than one side walls be secured at the same time, nor that both the top and bottom edge of the cushion be secured such that the cuchion both flippable upward and flippable downward. The claims are respectfully an ‘or’ construction on either the top and bottom edge attaching, and also an ‘or’ construction’ of either being flippable downward or flippable upward. Where KIane at a minimum has configuration to be flippable (capable of flipping) upward or downward. Although “capability” is not always merited patentable weight, Examiner has in the instant application considered ‘capable of flipping” as posing patentable weight in light of necessitating a hinge or some such structure to facilitate the claimed functional feature (flipping), but such capability is inherently expressed within Kane due to having both hinges at the bottom edge of the cushion (that thus the base can be flipped upward while the top edge edge and bottom edge are both fastened and attached with the upper portion of the side wall through 62/64; and due to the uniform/unitary nature of the cushion side and the connection thereto, a connection of any part of the cushion to the side wall’s upper portion means a connection or attachment of the cushions top and bottom edges, indirectly or otherwise.
Respectfully consideration has been taken of applicant’s provided FIG. 2D, and that examiner considers how does the construction of FIG. 2D differentiate from Kane? Aside from the cushion being in two separate halves (and being used in a certain capacity), the attachment is likewise to the wall, the connectors are on the top or bottom edges of the side wall, and the cushion is capable of flipping at least downwardly about the bottom edge as applicant demonstrates in FIG. 2D. Consideration is respectfully considered for FIG. 2C, but applicant has respectfully not claimed such a feature as necessitated, but instead appears to claim such feature as option under an “or” construction. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, the Examiner is respectfully not persuaded at the present time that Kane fails to avail the features of claim 1 and claim 32 (in combination with Chu and others), and the rejections are maintained for reasons of record and those expounded upon further in the pertinent sections.
With regards to applicants arguments (pages 9-11) concerning 103 Rejection, although applicant respectfully does not appear to point out the deficiency in examiner’s rejections, examiner considers applicant to state that the KSR criteria/Graham v John inquiry criteria for obviousness was not considered in first determining the scope, ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, and resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art by objective evidence.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization as Examiner respectfully as one example; but analogously facilitated for all secondary/teaching references, that claim Kane provided the foldable infant carry cot according to claim 1 (by anticipating it under 102 previously), thereby determining the scope and content. However, examiner further elucidated that such cushion as that in Kane respectfully lacked any of the material choices claimed by applicant, and further identified that Rose provided a cushion that could be made of many materials thereby ascertaining the differences between applicant’s claimed invention and the prior art. And thereafter resolving the differences and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art whereby Rose explicitly states “One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate…” (for a cushion prior art in this instance, to which is relevant to Kane, utilizing a cushion for rest thereupon), and “Examples of alternate materials… styrofoam…or any other similar materials known to persons of ordinary skill in the art”, expressing that not only is the use of different materials obvious to the art of cushions, but further even acknowledges an identical material as applicant’s claims consider (at least Styrofoam), and that such is “known”, and would therefore be obvious to use by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Where particularly applicant did not expound on any particular criticality to the material (such as a hypothetic: foams ability to float, latexes ability to be cleaned, etc); only that such materials are used [0008], [0063], [0085]. Therefore, the KSR/Graham v John inqueries were respectfully considered and set forth for each statement of rejection in the pertinent 103 section. An identical approach and analogous consideration, pertinent the facts/scope and features of the claim was offered to all similar statement of rejections and claims by utilizing Chu, Zeigler, Mover, and other combinations thereof/therewith.
Therefore, Examiner is respectfully not persuaded at the present time that Kane in view of Rose, Chu and others fails to avail or otherwise make obvious the claimed features of applicants invention and the rejections are maintained for reasons of record and those elucidated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/LUKE HALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673