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
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/12/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments regarding Rampton not disclosing a “single cloth body”
Applicant argues that Rampton fails to disclose “a single cloth body continuously extending…” because padded member 250 and 208 are separate components.
The examiner acknowledges that Rampton discloses padded member 250 and sleeve 208 as distinct elements. However, the rejection now does not rely on Rampton alone to teach “a single cloth body.” Rather the rejection relies on the combination of Rampton in view of Jackson (20140068857).
Jackson discloses that fabric components (e.g., panels including element 110) may be joined together via stitching to form a continuous cloth structure (Jackson: [0028])
Response to Arguments regarding lack of “continuous extension”
Applicant asserts that Rampton does not disclose a cloth body continuously extending from the handrail to the end of the post. As discussed above when Rampton is modified by Jackson the result is a continuous fabric structure. When joined these components collectively form a continuous cloth body extending along the frame.
Response to Arguments regarding that the office improperly combined separate elements
This argument is addressed above. Furthermore, the proposed modification is a predictable use of a known technique (stitching fabric panels) to improve structural continuity.
Response to Arguments regarding lack of motivation to combine.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the proposed combination by the examiner reduces discontinuities or gaps between fabric sections, improves structural integrity and durability of the fabric covering, and simplifies manufacturing by reducing the number of separate components and assembly steps, such modifications are well-known design considerations in fabric-based structures.
Response to Arguments that the modification renders Rampton unsatisfactory for its intended purpose
Applicants assert that modifying Rampton to form a single cloth body would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (e.g., removable liner)
The argument is not persuasive. The proposed modification by the examiner pertains to forming the underlying cloth components as a continuous structure. The liner 200 and its attachment via zipper remain intact and fully functional. Thus the removable and washable liner feature of Rampton is preserved. The modification does not destroy the purpose of Rampton, but rather represents a design alternative that maintains functionality while improving structural continuity.
Conclusion:
It is further noted that applicants have not identified, and the specification does not disclose, ANY criticality associated with the cloth component being a single, unitary piece.
The specification does not indicate that a one-piece construction is required to achieve the intended function, nor does it suggest that multi-piece constructions are inferior or inoperable. Rather, the claimed functionality relates to coverage and arrangement of the cloth along the frame, which can be achieved using multipiece fabric components joined together.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first combining structure, second combining structure, connecting assembly, and linking assembly in claims 2-3,5-7, 9-12, 14-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the single cloth member extending continuously must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “single cloth member” is not supported in the specification. The specification and drawing is silent on whether the cloth member is single or not and the drawings to not delineate enough details to reasonably determine if the inventor had possession of the invention at the time filed. Furthermore, with regards to claim 1, the limitation “continuously” is also not sufficiently supported by the specification and drawings.
Claims 2-13 and 15-20 are also rejected under 112 (a) as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(a).
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) 1-3, 6-10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9149128 issued to Rampton in view of U.S. Publication No. 20090077741 issued to Burns further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20140068857 issued to Jackson.
Regarding claim 1,
Rampton discloses a child crib (Rampton: FIG. 1 (100) see Abstract “Various embodiments of the present invention are directed to a play yard configured for providing an enclosed space for a child.”) comprising: a frame body (Rampton: FIG. 1 (100) col. 4 line 51 “FIG. 1 illustrates a play yard frame 100…”) comprising a handrail (Rampton: FIG. 1 (102) see col. 4 lines 52-53 “the frame 100 includes a plurality of upper horizontal frame members 102,”) and a post; (Rampton: FIG. 1 (106, 108) see also col. 4 lines 54-55 “the frame 100 includes a plurality of upper horizontal frame members 102,”) a corner component connected to the handrail and the post; (Rampton: FIGS. 1-7 show (114) connecting to (102) and (106, 108)) a … cloth component continuously extending from the handrail to an end of the post away from the handrail, (Rampton: FIGS. 12 -13 the sleeves (208) slide over members (108) well as col. 10 lines 10-13 in addition see col. 8 lines 49-64 “As will be appreciated from the description herein, it is contemplated that the various components of the liner 200—including the sidewalls 202, floor panel 204, and sleeves 208—may be constructed from a variety of suitable materials, including various combinations of fabric and non-fabric materials.” Wherein fabric materials (208, 250) see the combination for 250 below, may be interpreted as a cloth component. The examiner notes that the cloth component extends from the handrail to an end of the post away from the handrail i.e. (208) and (250) collectively, the examiner notes that it extends continuously due to the presence of the zipper in (250)) the corner component being … exposed out of the cloth component; (Rampton: FIG. 18 refer also to FIGS. 15 and 12 as well as col. 10 lines 14-19 “As can be seen in FIG. 15, when the retention members 108 are fully inserted into the sleeves 208, their respective engagement members 117 will extend just above the upper openings 209 of the sleeves 208. This prevents the sleeves 208 from being caught in any component of the retention member fasteners 114.” wherein the corner component is exposed out of the cloth component (208, 250), the examiner notes that the corner component is exposed) and a covering member comprising a covering body, (Rampton: FIG. 11 (212)) the covering body comprising a first side and a second side, the first side of the covering body being opposite to the second side of the covering body, (Rampton: see annotated figure below) when the first side of the covering body is connected to an inner side of the cloth component, at a side of the corner component away from the hand rail, (Rampton: FIG. 17 see how zipper (260) engages with (252) and (206) of the flap panel (212) refer to col. 10 lines 43-51 for further details. When the flap (212) connects to (250) on a first side i.e. (inner side) via zipper (260), a ring-shaped structure is formed which can be seen partially in FIG. 17 as well as FIGS. 10-11 and the 2nd ring-shaped structure is formed when it is folded downwards shown in FIG. 26. The examiner notes that the cloth component (208, 250) would otherwise be connected to the flap away from the hand rail when comparing FIG. 1 and FIG. 17 of Rampton since (250) is clearly larger than the handrail shown in FIG. 1, since the covering member (212) is connected at the bottom of (250) it is therefore connected away from the handrail and at a side of the corner component as required by the claim.) by positioning the second side of the covering body on an outer side of the cloth component, the inner side and the outer side of the cloth component being respectively enclosed by the covering member covering the corner component. (Rampton: This feature is demonstrated in FIG. 26 and FIG. 17, first the covering member (212) is disposed within the crib by connecting (206) to (250) via zipper (260), afterwards, (212) is lifted upwards shown in FIG. 11 and then placed downward covering any exposed corner members as well as both first and second sides of components (250) as well as components (208) and (202))
PNG
media_image1.png
374
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rampton does not appear to disclose specifically that (250) padded members are of a single cloth component …. exposed corner components
However, Burns describes fabric material in [0063] “each side wall 206 includes a substantially solid fabric material portion 230 adjacent the frame members 202, 208, 210 and a mesh portion 231 extending between the substantially solid fabric material portions 230” wherein (230) which is the equivalent of padded members (250) in Rampton may be interpreted as having a cloth component since cloth and fabric are interchangeable terms.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the padded material (250) of Rampton to include cloth components as taught by Burns by utilizing the cloth components as a cover for the padded material as an extra layer of protection in order to protect the padded material of Rampton from contamination and bacteria and act as a washable cover in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as a predictable result.
Rampton in view of Burns does not appear to disclose that the corner component is exposed… a single cloth body
However, Jackson discloses the corner component is exposed. (Jackson: FIG. 3 (60) is entirely exposed) a single cloth body. (Jackson: FIG. ` (110) connects to (82, 84, 86, 88) and [0028] describes that it can be connected via stitching if desired making it a singular cloth body)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to redesign the Rampton in view of Burns reference to have the corner component entirely exposed in order to save on manufacturing cost and make the play-yard more aesthetically pleasing when it is not desired to use the liners. Furthermore, it has been held that the rearrangement of parts i.e. the cloth component (208, 250) such that the corner component is entirely exposed, would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Thus it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to expose the entire corner component for aesthetic purposes when it is not desired to use the flap panel, and there is no evidence in the specification that this limitation possess criticality.
Furthermore, it has been held that forming a one piece article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893), in addition the court has also held that "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.") In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Such a modification would have reduced gaps or discontinuities in the covering, improve the structural integrity and durability of the fabric system of Rampton and simplify manufacturing by reducing separate components and assembly steps.
Regarding claim 2,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 1, wherein the covering member further comprises a connecting assembly configured to detachably position the second side of the covering body on the second side of the cloth component. (Rampton: FIG. 18 (218) may be interpreted as a connecting assembly see also col. 10 lines 56-60 “As shown, the flap panel 212 includes flap fasteners 218 disposed adjacent corner regions along its outer edge 216. The flap fasteners 218 are configured to engage flap mating fasteners 219 positioned on an outer portion of the vertical frame members 106.” The examiner notes that all sides of the covering body (212) has a connecting assembly in accordance to the above quote.)
Regarding claim 3,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 2, wherein the connecting assembly comprises a first combining structure disposed on the second side of the covering body, (Rampton: FIG. 18 (218) see col. 10 lines 56-60) the post comprises a second combining structure disposed on a portion of the post exposed out of the second side of the cloth component, (Rampton: FIG. 18 (219) see also col. 10 lines 58-60 “The flap fasteners 218 are configured to engage flap mating fasteners 219 positioned on an outer portion of the vertical frame members 106.” The examiner notes that 106 is outside sleeve (208) which only covers (108)) the second combining structure is configured to detachably combine with the first combining structure, so as to detachably position the second side of the covering body on the second side of the cloth component. (Rampton: refer to col. 10 lines 65-67 and col. 11 lines 1-2 as well as FIG. 19, the examiner notes that in accordance to col. 8 lines 49-64 “As will be appreciated from the description herein, it is contemplated that the various components of the liner 200—including the sidewalls 202, floor panel 204, and sleeves 208—may be constructed from a variety of suitable materials, including various combinations of fabric and non-fabric materials.” Wherein fabric materials may be interpreted as a cloth component” that (204, 208) may be interpreted as cloth materials as well as (250) when modified by the below reference.)
Regarding claim 6,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 2, wherein the connecting assembly comprises a first combining structure disposed on the second side of the covering body, the first combining structure is configured to detachably combine with the second side of the cloth component, so as to detachably position the second side of the covering body on the second side of the cloth component. (Rampton: FIG. 18 (218) may be interpreted as a first combining structure see also col. 10 lines 56-60 “As shown, the flap panel 212 includes flap fasteners 218 disposed adjacent corner regions along its outer edge 216. The flap fasteners 218 are configured to engage flap mating fasteners 219 positioned on an outer portion of the vertical frame members 106.” Which is disposed on the second side of the covering body. Fasteners (218) detachably combines with the fasteners (219) on the post which allows the entire covering body (212) to be detachably disposed on the second side of the cloth component. The examiner notes that all sides of the covering body (212) has a connecting assembly in accordance to the above quote.)
Regarding claim 7,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 1, wherein the covering member further comprises a linking assembly configured to detachably couple the first side of the covering body to the first side of the cloth component. (Rampton: FIG. 17 shows the first side of the covering body connected to the interior of the cloth component/padded component (250) via zipper (260) see col. 10 lines 43-49 the zipper tracks (252) on (250) and the zipper tracks positioned on (206) which is a part of flap (212) may be interpreted as a linking assembly as well as (252) and (260).)
Regarding claim 8,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 7, wherein the linking assembly comprises a first zipper element and a zipper connector, the first zipper element is disposed on the first side of the covering body, the cloth component comprises a second zipper element disposed on the first side of the cloth component, (Rampton: FIG. 17 shows the first side of the covering body connected to the interior of the cloth component/padded component (250) via zipper (260) see col. 10 lines 43-49 the zipper tracks (252) on (250) and the zipper tracks positioned on (206) which is a part of flap (212) may be interpreted as a linking assembly as well as (252) and (260). (252) may be interpreted as a second zipper element, the zipper tracks on (206) may be interpreted as a first zipper element and zipper (260) may be interpreted as a zipper connector.) the zipper connector is configured to drive the first zipper element to engage with the second zipper element for coupling the first side of the covering body to the first side of the cloth component or to drive the first zipper element to disengage from the second zipper element for separating the first side of the covering body from the first side of the cloth component. (Rampton: FIG. 17 shows how the zipper (260) couples the flap (212) to the cloth component (250) and how it zips around.)
Regarding claim 9,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 7, wherein the linking assembly comprises a first combining element disposed on the first side of the covering body, the cloth component comprises a second combining element disposed on the first side of the cloth component, the second combining element is configured to detachably combine with the first combining element, so as to detachably couple the first side of the covering body to the first side of the cloth component. (Rampton: FIG. 17 shows the first side of the covering body connected to the interior of the cloth component/padded component (250) via zipper (260) see col. 10 lines 43-49 the zipper tracks (252) on (250) and the zipper tracks positioned on (206) which is a part of flap (212) may be interpreted as a linking assembly as well as (252) and (260). The zipper tracks on (206) may be interpreted as a first combining element, the zipper tracks (252) may be interpreted as a second combining element, and lastly (260) assist in combining first and second combining elements to detachably couple the first side of the covering body to the first side of the cloth component.)
Regarding claim 10,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 7, wherein the linking assembly comprises a first combining element disposed on the first side of the covering body, the first combining element is configured to detachably combine with the first side of the cloth component, so as to detachably couple the first side of the covering body to the first side of the cloth component. (Rampton: FIG. 17 shows the first side of the covering body connected to the interior of the cloth component/padded component (250) via zipper (260) see col. 10 lines 43-49 the zipper tracks (252) on (250) and the zipper tracks positioned on (206) which is a part of flap (212) may be interpreted as a linking assembly as well as (252) and (260). The zipper tracks on (206) may be interpreted as a first combining element, the zipper tracks (252) may be interpreted as a second combining element, and lastly (260) assist in combining first and second combining elements to detachably couple the first side of the covering body to the first side of the cloth component.)
Regarding claim 12,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 1, wherein the covering body is separable from the cloth component, a first ring-shaped opening structure and a second ring-shaped opening structure are respectively formed by the first side of the covering body and the second side of the covering body, and the first ring-shaped opening structure and the second ring-shaped opening structure are respectively connected to the first side of the cloth component and the second side of the cloth component. (Rampton: FIGS. 16-17 show how the covering body (200) connects to cloth component (250) via zippers see col. 10 lines 43-49 “Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 17, the zipper teeth 252 of the padded members 250 and the zipper teeth disposed along the upper perimeter 206 of the liner 200 are engaged with each other by a zipper 260. By fully engaging the zipper teeth, the upper perimeter 206 of the liner 200 is secured to the padded members 250 and thereby to the upper horizontal frame members 102 as well.”)
Regarding claim 13,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 1.
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson does not appear to disclose wherein the cloth component at least partially covers the handrail and the post, exposing a gap between the corner component and the handrail or a gap between the corner component and the post.
However, Jackson discloses wherein the cloth component at least partially covers the handrail and the post, exposing a gap between the corner component and the handrail or a gap between the corner component and the post. (Jackson: FIG. 3 cloth components (58) expose a gap)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rampton in view of Burns by decreasing the size of the padded member of Rampton so that there is a gap in order to save on manufacturing costs of the padded member of Rampton. Furthermore, it has been held that the rearrangement of parts i.e. the cloth component (208, 250) such that the corner component is entirely exposed, would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim(s) 11, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9149128 issued to Rampton in view of U.S. Publication No. 20090077741 issued to Burns further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20140068857 issued to Jackson further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20180035821 issued to Bass-Conn.
Regarding claim 11,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim .
Rampton in view of Burns does not appear to disclose wherein the cloth component includes a window section extending along the post of the frame body.
However, Bass-Conn discloses multiple breathable meshes that connects to an upper railing (i.e. equivalent of a cloth component). (Bass-Conn: FIG. 6 (20) See also [0059] “Assembly 10 further comprises an inner breathable mesh wall 20 detachably attached to a portion of the framework, in this case railing 16 and base 14, and extending between base 14 and upper railing 16 so that base 14 and inner breathable mesh wall 20 taken together define a primary containment area PA (FIG. 1).”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson directed to a play-yard by adding another breathable mesh layer as taught in Bass-Conn directed to a play-yard. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create a safe, sturdy, yet soft and elastic environment for the occupant, to which the occupant is protected from any possible structure related injuries, such as impact or breakage, as well as possible structure related fatalities, such as positional asphyxia or suffocation” (Bass-Conn: [0032])
Regarding claim 14,
Rampton discloses a child crib (Rampton: FIG. 1 (100) see Abstract “Various embodiments of the present invention are directed to a play yard configured for providing an enclosed space for a child.”) comprising: a frame body (Rampton: FIG. 1 (100) col. 4 line 51 “FIG. 1 illustrates a play yard frame 100…”) comprising a handrail (Rampton: FIG. 1 (102) see col. 4 lines 52-53 “the frame 100 includes a plurality of upper horizontal frame members 102,”) and a post; (Rampton: FIG. 1 (106, 108) see also col. 4 lines 54-55 “the frame 100 includes a plurality of upper horizontal frame members 102,”) a corner component connected to the handrail and the post; (Rampton: FIGS. 1-7 show (114) connecting to (102) and (106, 108)) a … cloth component at least partially covering the frame body, (Rampton: FIGS. 12 -13 the sleeves (208) slide over members (108) well as col. 10 lines 10-13 in addition see col. 8 lines 49-64 “As will be appreciated from the description herein, it is contemplated that the various components of the liner 200—including the sidewalls 202, floor panel 204, and sleeves 208—may be constructed from a variety of suitable materials, including various combinations of fabric and non-fabric materials.” Wherein fabric materials may be interpreted as a cloth component.) … the corner component being … exposed out of the cloth component; (Rampton: FIG. 18 refer also to FIGS. 15 and 12 as well as col. 10 lines 14-19 “As can be seen in FIG. 15, when the retention members 108 are fully inserted into the sleeves 208, their respective engagement members 117 will extend just above the upper openings 209 of the sleeves 208. This prevents the sleeves 208 from being caught in any component of the retention member fasteners 114.” wherein the corner component is exposed out of the cloth component (208)) and a covering member comprising a covering body, (Rampton: FIG. 11 (212)) and a connecting assembly, (Rampton: FIG. 18 (218) see also col. 10 lines 56-60 “As shown, the flap panel 212 includes flap fasteners 218 disposed adjacent corner regions along its outer edge 216. The flap fasteners 218 are configured to engage flap mating fasteners 219 positioned on an outer portion of the vertical frame members 106.”) the covering body comprising a first side and a second side, the first side of the covering body being opposite to the second side of the covering body, (Rampton: see annotated figure in claim 1) the connecting assembly being configured to detachably position the second side of the covering body on a second side of the cloth component, when the first side of the covering body is connected to a first side of the cloth component, at a side of the corner component away from the handrail the covering member covering the corner component by detachably positioning the second side of the covering body on the second side of the cloth component; (Rampton: FIGS. 17-18 shows the first side of the covering body connected to the interior of the cloth component/padded component (250) via zipper (260) Afterwards, the covering body (212) is lifted up in the manner shown in FIG. 18 and removably attached to fasteners (219) which is on a second side of the cloth component, i.e. the side that faces the outside of the crib. Refer to col. 10 lines 65-67 and col. 11 lines 1-2, The examiner notes that the cloth component extends from the handrail to an end of the post away from the handrail i.e. (208) and (250) collectively) wherein the covering member further comprises a linking assembly configured to detachably couple the first side of the covering body to the first side of the cloth component. (Rampton: FIG. 17 shows the first side of the covering body connected to the interior of the cloth component/padded component (250) via zipper (260) see col. 10 lines 43-49 the zipper tracks (252) on (250) and the zipper tracks positioned on (206) which is a part of flap (212) may be interpreted as a linking assembly as well as (252) and (260).)
Rampton does not appear to disclose specifically that (250) padded members are of a single cloth component… wherein the cloth component includes a window section extending along the post of the frame body… the corner component is exposed.
However, Burns describes fabric material in [0063] “each side wall 206 includes a substantially solid fabric material portion 230 adjacent the frame members 202, 208, 210 and a mesh portion 231 extending between the substantially solid fabric material portions 230” wherein (230) which is the equivalent of padded members (250) in Rampton may be interpreted as having a cloth component since cloth and fabric are interchangeable terms.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the padded material (250) of Rampton to include cloth components as taught by Burns by utilizing the cloth components as a cover for the padded material as an extra layer of protection in order to protect the padded material of Rampton from contamination and bacteria and act as a washable cover in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as a predictable result.
Rampton in view of Burns does not appear to disclose wherein the single cloth component includes a window section extending along the post of the frame body… the corner component is exposed.
However, Bass-Conn discloses multiple breathable meshes that connects to an upper railing (i.e. equivalent of a cloth component). (Bass-Conn: FIG. 6 (20) See also [0059] “Assembly 10 further comprises an inner breathable mesh wall 20 detachably attached to a portion of the framework, in this case railing 16 and base 14, and extending between base 14 and upper railing 16 so that base 14 and inner breathable mesh wall 20 taken together define a primary containment area PA (FIG. 1).”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rampton in view of Burns directed to a play-yard by adding another breathable mesh layer as taught in Bass-Conn directed to a play-yard. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create a safe, sturdy, yet soft and elastic environment for the occupant, to which the occupant is protected from any possible structure related injuries, such as impact or breakage, as well as possible structure related fatalities, such as positional asphyxia or suffocation” (Bass-Conn: [0032])
Rampton in view of Burns does not appear to disclose that the corner component is exposed… a single cloth body
However, Jackson discloses the corner component is exposed. (Jackson: FIG. 3 (60) is entirely exposed) a single cloth body. (Jackson: FIG. ` (110) connects to (82, 84, 86, 88) and [0028] describes that it can be connected via stitching if desired making it a singular cloth body)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to redesign the Rampton in view of Burns reference to have the corner component entirely exposed in order to save on manufacturing cost and make the play-yard more aesthetically pleasing when it is not desired to use the liners. Furthermore, it has been held that the rearrangement of parts i.e. the cloth component (208, 250) such that the corner component is entirely exposed, would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Thus it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to expose the entire corner component for aesthetic purposes when it is not desired to use the flap panel, and there is no evidence in the specification that this limitation possess criticality.
Furthermore, it has been held that forming a one piece article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893), in addition the court has also held that "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.") In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Such a modification would have reduced gaps or discontinuities in the covering, improve the structural integrity and durability of the fabric system of Rampton and simplify manufacturing by reducing separate components and assembly steps.
Regarding claim 15,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Bass-Conn in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 14, wherein the connecting assembly comprises a first combining structure disposed on the second side of the covering body, (Rampton: FIG. 18 (218) see col. 10 lines 56-60) the post comprises a second combining structure disposed on a portion of the post exposed out of the second side of the cloth component, (Rampton: FIG. 18 (219) see also col. 10 lines 58-60 “The flap fasteners 218 are configured to engage flap mating fasteners 219 positioned on an outer portion of the vertical frame members 106.” The examiner notes that 106 is outside sleeve (208) which only covers (108)) the second combining structure is configured to detachably combine with the first combining structure, so as to detachably position the second side of the covering body on the second side of the cloth component. (Rampton: refer to col. 10 lines 65-67 and col. 11 lines 1-2 as well as FIG. 19, the examiner notes that in accordance to col. 8 lines 49-64 “As will be appreciated from the description herein, it is contemplated that the various components of the liner 200—including the sidewalls 202, floor panel 204, and sleeves 208—may be constructed from a variety of suitable materials, including various combinations of fabric and non-fabric materials.” Wherein fabric materials may be interpreted as a cloth component” that (204, 208) may be interpreted as cloth materials as well as (250) when modified by the below reference.)
Regarding claim 16,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Bass-Conn in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 14, wherein the linking assembly comprises a first zipper element and a zipper connector, the first zipper element is disposed on the first side of the covering body, the cloth component comprises a second zipper element disposed on the first side of the cloth component, (Rampton: FIG. 17 shows the first side of the covering body connected to the interior of the cloth component/padded component (250) via zipper (260) see col. 10 lines 43-49 the zipper tracks (252) on (250) and the zipper tracks positioned on (206) which is a part of flap (212) may be interpreted as a linking assembly as well as (252) and (260). (252) may be interpreted as a second zipper element, the zipper tracks on (206) may be interpreted as a first zipper element and zipper (260) may be interpreted as a zipper connector.) the zipper connector is configured to drive the first zipper element to engage with the second zipper element for coupling the first side of the covering body to the first side of the cloth component or to drive the first zipper element to disengage from the second zipper element for separating the first side of the covering body from the first side of the cloth component. (Rampton: FIG. 17 shows how the zipper (260) couples the flap (212) to the cloth component (250) and how it zips around.)
Regarding claim 17,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Bass-Conn in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 14, wherein the linking assembly comprises a first combining element disposed on the first side of the covering body, the cloth component comprises a second combining element disposed on the first side of the cloth component, the second combining element is configured to detachably combine with the first combining element, so as to detachably couple the first side of the covering body to the first side of the cloth component. (Rampton: FIG. 17 shows the first side of the covering body connected to the interior of the cloth component/padded component (250) via zipper (260) see col. 10 lines 43-49 the zipper tracks (252) on (250) and the zipper tracks positioned on (206) which is a part of flap (212) may be interpreted as a linking assembly as well as (252) and (260). The zipper tracks on (206) may be interpreted as a first combining element, the zipper tracks (252) may be interpreted as a second combining element, and lastly (260) assist in combining first and second combining elements to detachably couple the first side of the covering body to the first side of the cloth component.)
Regarding claim 18,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Bass-Conn in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 14, wherein the linking assembly comprises a first combining element disposed on the first side of the covering body, the first combining element is configured to detachably combine with the first side of the cloth component, so as to detachably couple the first side of the covering body to the first side of the cloth component. (Rampton: FIG. 17 shows the first side of the covering body connected to the interior of the cloth component/padded component (250) via zipper (260) see col. 10 lines 43-49 the zipper tracks (252) on (250) and the zipper tracks positioned on (206) which is a part of flap (212) may be interpreted as a linking assembly as well as (252) and (260). The zipper tracks on (206) may be interpreted as a first combining element, the zipper tracks (252) may be interpreted as a second combining element, and lastly (260) assist in combining first and second combining elements to detachably couple the first side of the covering body to the first side of the cloth component.)
Regarding claim 19,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Bass-Conn in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 14, wherein the cloth component extends from the hand rail to an end of the post away from the hand rail. (Rampton: FIGS. 1-15 The examiner notes that the cloth component extends from the handrail to an end of the post away from the handrail i.e. (208) and (250) collectively))
Regarding claim 20,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson in view of Bass-conn discloses the child crib of claim 14, wherein the cloth component at least partially covers the handrail and the post, exposing a gap between the corner component and the handrail or a gap between the corner component and the post.
However, Jackson discloses wherein the cloth component at least partially covers the handrail and the post, exposing a gap between the corner component and the handrail or a gap between the corner component and the post. (Jackson: FIG. 3 cloth components (58) expose a gap)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rampton in view of Burns by decreasing the size of the padded member of Rampton so that there is a gap in order to save on manufacturing costs of the padded member of Rampton. Furthermore, it has been held that the rearrangement of parts i.e. the cloth component (208, 250) such that the corner component is entirely exposed, would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9149128 issued to Rampton in view of U.S. Publication No. 20090077741 issued to Burns further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20140068857 issued to Jackson further in view of Chinese Publication No. 2794341Y issued to Li.
Regarding claim 4,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 2.
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson does not appear to disclose wherein the connecting assembly comprises a first zipper structure and a zipper fastener, the first zipper structure is disposed on the second side of the covering body, the cloth component comprises a second zipper structure disposed on the second side of the cloth component, the zipper fastener is configured to drive the first zipper structure to engage with the second zipper structure for coupling the second side of the covering body to the second side of the cloth component or to drive the first zipper structure to disengage from the second zipper structure for separating the second side of the covering body from the second side of the cloth component.
However, Li discloses wherein the connecting assembly comprises a first zipper structure (Li: FIG. 2 see annotated figure below) and a zipper fastener, (Li: FIG. 2 (11) see also annotated figure below although difficult to see, there is a zipper head hanging off of the first zipper structure (7)) the first zipper structure is disposed on the second side of the covering body, (Li: FIG. 2 the examiner notes that the covering body (3) has a second side shown in the annotated figure below.) the cloth component comprises a second zipper structure disposed on the second side of the cloth component, (Li: see annotated figure below) the zipper fastener is configured to drive the first zipper structure to engage with the second zipper structure for coupling the second side of the covering body to the second side of the cloth component or to drive the first zipper structure to disengage from the second zipper structure for separating the second side of the covering body from the second side of the cloth component. (Li: FIGS. 1-2 show the coupling and uncoupling of (3) to (4) through the use of a zipper fastener in the manner described in the above limitation. Zipper (11) engages with zipper tracks (7) when it is folded down in the manner shown in FIG. 1. Zipper (11) can then close the device as shown in FIG. 1 or disengage shown in FIG. 2.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson by adding zipper fasteners on the sides of the cloth body and on the sides of the liners taught by Li in order to ensure that the liner is secured snugly to the walls of the cloth body in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as a predictable result.
PNG
media_image2.png
497
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5,
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson discloses the child crib of claim 2.
Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson does not appear to disclose wherein the connecting assembly comprises a first combining structure disposed on the second side of the covering body, the cloth component comprises a second combining structure disposed on the second side of the cloth component, the second combining structure is configured to detachably combine with the first combining structure, so as to detachably position the second side of the covering body on the second side of the cloth component.
However, Li discloses wherein the connecting assembly comprises a first combining structure disposed on the second side of the covering body, (Li: FIG. 2 see annotated figure in claim 4 first zipper structure may be interpreted as a first combining structure) the cloth component comprises a second combining structure disposed on the second side of the cloth component, (Li: see annotated figure in claim 4 second zipper structure may be interpreted as a second combining structure.) the second combining structure is configured to detachably combine with the first combining structure, so as to detachably position the second side of the covering body on the second side of the cloth component. (Li: FIGS. 1-2 show the coupling and uncoupling of (3) to (4) through the use of a zipper fastener in the manner described in the above limitation. Zipper (11) engages with zipper tracks (7) when it is folded down in the manner shown in FIG. 1. Zipper (11) can then close the device as shown in FIG. 1 or disengage shown in FIG. 2.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rampton in view of Burns in view of Jackson by adding zipper fasteners or otherwise “combining structures” on the sides of the cloth body and on the sides of the liners taught by Li in order to ensure that the liner is secured snugly to the walls of the cloth body in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as a predictable result.
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