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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1, figures 8-16 in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/04/2025.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of a torso ring which is directed toward species II, figures 18-22. Therefore, claims 1-12 are withdrawn.
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 13-20 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Claim 13 recites wherein moving the first adjustment position from first to second position. However, the claim fails to recite what happens after it moves from first to second position.
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) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2011/0127810) in view of Petrie (5,503,458).
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. disclose a convertible child activity apparatus 110 comprising: a frame 112 comprising a base and a seat support structure; a seat insert 146 removably coupled to the seat support structure; a first actuator 144 coupled to a first side of the base and a first side of the seat support structure; and a first adjustment mechanism 128 coupled to the first side of the base and the first actuator, wherein the first adjustment mechanism is configured to move along the base from a first predetermined position to a second predetermined position; wherein moving the first adjustment mechanism from the first predetermined position to the second predetermined position (see figures 1-3).
However, Lee et al. fail to disclose a fabric seat insert. Instead, Petrie discloses a fabric seat insert 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Petrie and use a fabric insert in the invention of Lee et al. because it is flexible, durable and inexpensive.
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al. disclose a second actuator 144 coupled to a second side of the base and a second side of the seat support structure; and a second adjustment mechanism 128 coupled to the second side of the base and the second actuator.
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. as modified further disclose the fabric seat insert 146 defines a seat.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. as modified fail to disclose a leg rest portion configured to the support the feet of the child in the seat, wherein the leg rest portion comprises one or more fastener receivers; and a fabric panel extending from the leg rest portion comprising: one or more fasteners; a first snap tab; a first snap; a second snap tab; and a second snap; wherein the one or more fastener receivers couple to the one or more fasteners, the first snap tab couples to the first, and the second snap tab couples to the second snap to secure the fabric seat insert to the seat support structure. No other prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can solve these dissimilarities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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.
/SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636