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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2014/0061563 to Weisbeck et al. (herein Weisbeck) in view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2023/0383109 to Cavalieri et al. (herein Cavalieri).
Regarding claims 1-7¸Weisbeck teaches a play yard including a plurality of side panels coupled to one another and a gate panel coupled to two of the side panels to create an enclosed space (abstract). Weisbeck teaches that the play yard is made of a plastic material (paragraph 0036).
Weisbeck teaches no details of the plastic material.
Cavalieri teaches a propylene composition containing (a) recycled polypropylene, (b) a polyolefin elastomer, (c) a polypropylene-containing composition, and (d) a filler (abstract). Cavalieri teaches that the propylene composition is used to make articles via injection molding (paragraph 0090). Cavalieri teaches that the polypropylene composition has a melt flow rate of 10 to 50 g/10 min (paragraph 0081), a flexural modulus of 800 to 1400 MPa, or 116 to 203 kpsi (paragraph 0082), a tensile strength at yield of equal to or higher than 15 MPa, or 2,180 psi (paragraph 0084), and an elongation at break of 10% or higher (paragraph 0084). Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider an elongation at break of 10% or higher to overlap with the claimed range of approximately 6%. Cavalieri is silent as to a desired specific gravity of the propylene composition; however, Cavalieri teaches that component (b) has a density of 0.85 to 0.89 g/cm3 (paragraph 0040), additives (d) can be polyethylenes such as high-density polyethylene or low-density polyethylene (paragraph 0062), and the inventive examples of Cavalieri use a component (a) having a density of 0.915 g/cm3 (0117). Cavalieri teaches that the components are present in the propylene composition in the following amounts: (a) 55-85 wt%, (b) 10-30 wt%, (c) 3-12 wt%, and (d) 0.5-7 wt% (paragraphs 0071-0080). Combining the teachings of component density and amounts yields a range of density of the composition that overlaps the claimed amount. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the play yard of Weisbeck to be made from the resin of Cavalieri because it would improve the sustainability of the play yard (paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisbeck and Cavalieri as applied above and in further view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2011/0190447 to Li et al. (herein Li).
Regarding claim 8, Weisbeck and Cavalieri teach all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above.
Cavalieri is silent as to the notched Izod impact strength of the propylene composition.
Li teaches an injection molded article made from a composition comprising one or more propylene copolymers (abstract). Li teaches that the polymeric blend has a notched Izod impact strength of at least 0.7 ft-lb/in (paragraph 0098). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the propylene composition to have the notched Izod impact strength taught by Li because it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Weisbeck, Cavalieri, and Li teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Weisbeck teaches that the play yard can be made from plastic (paragraph 0036). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider this to teach that the entirety of the play yard is made from plastic, and as such, a portion (and other portions as well) are made from plastic.
Regarding claim 11, Weisbeck, Cavalieri, and Li teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Fig 1 of Weisbeck shows the plurality of side panels as well as the gate panel include a mesh or lattice (paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 12, Weisbeck, Cavalieri, and Li teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Weisbeck teaches that the play yard includes a gate (abstract).
Claim(s) 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisbeck in view of Cavalieri and Practical Injection Molding by Olmsted et al. (herein Olmsted).
Regarding claims 13-19, Weisbeck teaches a play yard including a plurality of side panels coupled to one another and a gate panel coupled to two of the side panels to create an enclosed space (abstract). Weisbeck teaches that the play yard is made of a plastic material (paragraph 0036).
Weisbeck teaches no details of the plastic material nor the process by which the play yard is produced.
Regarding the plastic material, Cavalieri teaches a propylene composition containing (a) recycled polypropylene, (b) a polyolefin elastomer, (c) a polypropylene-containing composition, and (d) a filler (abstract). Cavalieri teaches that the propylene composition is used to make articles via injection molding (paragraph 0090). Cavalieri teaches that the polypropylene composition has a melt flow rate of 10 to 50 g/10 min (paragraph 0081), a flexural modulus of 800 to 1400 MPa, or 116 to 203 kpsi (paragraph 0082), a tensile strength at yield of equal to or higher than 15 MPa, or 2,180 psi (paragraph 0084), and an elongation at break of 10% or higher (paragraph 0084). Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider an elongation at break of 10% or higher to overlap with the claimed range of approximately 6%. Cavalieri is silent as to a desired specific gravity of the propylene composition; however, Cavalieri teaches that component (b) has a density of 0.85 to 0.89 g/cm3 (paragraph 0040), additives (d) can be polyethylenes such as high-density polyethylene or low-density polyethylene (paragraph 0062), and the inventive examples of Cavalieri use a component (a) having a density of 0.915 g/cm3 (0117). Cavalieri teaches that the components are present in the propylene composition in the following amounts: (a) 55-85 wt%, (b) 10-30 wt%, (c) 3-12 wt%, and (d) 0.5-7 wt% (paragraphs 0071-0080). Combining the teachings of component density and amounts yields a range of density of the composition that overlaps the claimed amount. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the play yard of Weisbeck to be made from the resin of Cavalieri because it would improve the sustainability of the play yard (paragraph 0003).
Regarding the process by which the play yard is produced, Olmsted teaches an injection molding process (page 1) wherein the process comprises the steps of heating, melting, and injecting the plastic into a closed mold (page 3), allowing the molten plastic to cool and removing the resulting plastic part (page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the play yard of Weisbeck using the process taught by Olmstead because it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisbeck, Cavalieri, and Olmsted as applied above and in further view of Li.
Regarding claim 20, Weisbeck, Cavalieri, and Olmsted teach all the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above.
Cavalieri is silent as to the notched Izod impact strength of the propylene composition.
Li teaches an injection molded article made from a composition comprising one or more propylene copolymers (abstract). Li teaches that the polymeric blend has a notched Izod impact strength of at least 0.7 ft-lb/in (paragraph 0098). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the propylene composition to have the notched Izod impact strength taught by Li because it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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, Maria V Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783