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.
Examiner’s Comment
The petition decision dated 2/5/26 is noted. The petition was granted.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-14) and Species II (as represented by figures 7 and 8) in the reply filed on 12/17/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/17/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, the colon should be a comma. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 57. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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 11-13 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 11 recites “a pair of releasably attachable connections between the back face and the inside…” Claim 11 depends from claim 10, which depends from claim 9. Claim 9 recites “a mating fastener patch attached to the back face,” which appears to be the releasably attachable connection and claim 11 seems to merely be intended to have that previously introduced structure be a pair of releasably attachable connections instead of introducing an additional new pair, for which there does not appear to be support. Clarification / correction is required.
Claims rejected below are rejected as best understood.
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, 3-7, and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al. (US Patent No. 20070056098 and hereinafter “Schmid”).
Re Claim 1
Schmid discloses:
A sleep system (abstract; see all figs), comprising:
an infant sleep bag (wearable blanket 10, figs. 1-2, 4; 0020) having a back face (16, fig. 4); and
a swaddling piece (12, figs. 1-3) having
an inside (visible side, see figs. 1-3, 0030), an outside (reverse side; see 0030, see figs. 1-3), a left wrap (left portion 12a figs. 1-3) and a right wrap (right portion 12b, figs. 1-3);
a pair of wrap fastener patches (48a, 48b) on one of said wraps (figs. 1-3), the wrap fastener patches attached on said inside (figs. 1-3); and
a pair of wrap mating fastener patches attached on said outside on the other of the said wraps (50, see figs. 1-3, see 0030; regarding the mating fastener being a pair, see modification below);
a releasably attachable connection (34, see figs. 1-3, see 0023) between the back face and the inside (see figs. 1-3 and 0023).
Schmid does not explicitly disclose that the wrap mating fastener patch is a pair of wrap mating fastener patches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Schmid to have a pair of wrap mating fastener patches attached as claimed, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It is noted that it would have been obvious to do so to have two patches that each are positioned to mate with one of the other two wrap fastener patches on the opposing side (48a,48b) rather than one, and/or to save on material costs, and/or to facilitate opening/closing or attaching/detaching.
Re Claim 3
Schmid as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
further comprising said one of said pair of mating wrap fastener patches extending farther on one of the wraps than on the other wrap.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have one of said pair of mating wrap fastener patches extending farther on one of the wraps than on the other wrap, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Schmid to include the above for the purpose of accommodating infants in a wide size range / to accommodate a desired fit or tightness.
Re Claim 4
Schmid as modified above discloses:
the swaddling piece further comprising a centerline (e.g. a centerline horizontally in the perspective of figs. 3-4 through one of said pair of mating wrap fastener patches; see above); and
one of said pair of mating wrap fastener patches attached across the centerline (see above, one of said pair would be attached across the centerline as described above).
Re Claim 5
Schmid as modified above discloses:
further comprising said one of said pair of mating wrap fastener patches being offset from the centerline (see above, the other one of said pair of mating wrap fasteners would be offset in view of the modification / arrangement and centerline as described).
Re Claim 6
Schmid as modified above discloses:
said pair of wrap fastener patches (48a,48b) comprising an upper wrap fastener patch and a lower wrap fastener patch (figs. 1-3); and
said pair of mating wrap fastener patches (see modification above; 50; figs. 1-3) comprising an upper mating wrap fastener patch and a lower mating wrap fastener patch (see above; see figs. 1-3).
See the modification above which explains that the positioning would be complementary to mate with the other fastener patches. Nevertheless, to the extent necessary, having an upper and lower mating patch would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re Claim 7
Schmid as modified above discloses:
the swaddling piece further comprising an upper corner and a lower corner on a first of said wraps (see figs. 1-3, rounded corners);
and one each of said pair of wrap fastener patches located in one each of said upper corner and lower corner (see figs. 1-3).
While it is believed that the rounded corners are sufficient, to the extent necessary, changing the shape would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the shape to have more clearly defined corners because there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1956). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the claimed shape, because applicant has not disclosed that having such a shape itself solves any stated problem, the claimed shape does not provide any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where the shape is another shape, such as a one involving more rounded corners or even one such as an oval. Overall, applicant has not established any criticality of the claimed shape, and thus selecting the claimed shape would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Re Claim 9
Schmid as modified above discloses:
the releasably attachable connection further comprising:
a mating fastener patch attached to the back face (34, see figs. 1-3, see 0023); and
a fastener patch attached to the inside (46, see fig. 3, see 0027).
Re Claim 10
Schmid as modified above discloses:
the swaddling piece further comprising a centerline (fig. 3; CL); and
the fastener patch extending along and laterally from said centerline (fig. 3).
Re Claim 11
Schmid as modified above discloses:
a pair of releasably attachable connections between the back face and the inside (see figs. 3-4 at patches for 34 and patches for 46); and
said pair of releasably attachable connections comprising two fastener patches extending along and laterally from said centerline (see figs. 3-4 at patches for 34 and patches for 46).
Re Claim 12
Schmid as modified above discloses:
each of the releasably attachable connections further comprising:
a positioning contact area between a fastener patch and a mating fastener patch (see the area between as shown in figs. 1-4 and note the dotted lines); and
a vertical adjustment area (see figs. 1-4; note that the configuration of 34 and 46 patches allow for different height positioning relative to 10; see 0028 as well).
Re Claim 13
Schmid as modified above discloses:
the vertical adjustment areas composed of an area in which one of said fastener patch and said mating fastener patch is not in contact with the other (see figs. 1-4 and note that there is a vertical area of non-contact on fasteners 34 where height could be adjusted; note the height differences between the 34, 46 patches).
Re Claim 14
Schmid as modified above discloses:
the swaddling piece further comprising:
the pair of wrap fastener patches being fully vertically separated (48a, 48b, see figs. 1-3); and
the pair of wrap mating fastener patches being vertically separated (see above, see 0030).
See the modification above which explains that the positioning would be complementary to mate with the other fastener patches. Nevertheless, to the extent necessary, having the pair of wrap mating fastener patches being vertically separated would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al. (US Patent No. 20070056098 and hereinafter “Schmid”) in view of Shekhani et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20200093189 and hereinafter “Shekhani”).
Re Claim 2
Schmid as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
further comprising one of said pair of mating wrap fastener patches attached to both the left wrap and the right wrap.
Shekhani teaches a wrap fastener patch which is attached to both the left wrap and the right wrap (20, figs. 1A and 2A) to provide an adjustable coupling that may accommodate infants in a wide size range / to accommodate a desired fit or tightness. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Schmid to include the teachings of Shekhani, see above, for the purpose(s) as articulated above.
Re Claim 3 (alternative rejection; see above)
Schmid as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
further comprising said one of said pair of mating wrap fastener patches extending farther on one of the wraps than on the other wrap.
Shekhani teaches one of said pair of mating wrap fastener patches extending farther on one of the wraps than on the other wrap (see figs. 1A and 2A) for the purpose of accommodating infants in a wide size range / to accommodate a desired fit or tightness. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Schmid to include the teachings of Shekhani, see above, for the purpose(s) as articulated above.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al. (US Patent No. 20070056098 and hereinafter “Schmid”) in view of Zeidman (US PG Pub No. 20170049158).
Re Claim 2
Schmid as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
the swaddling piece further comprising a middle wrap fastener patch located between the pair of wrap fastener patches.
Zeidman teaches a middle wrap fastener patch located between the pair of wrap fastener patches (middle attachment patch 909; see fig. 12A which shows top and bottom patches and the middle patch) for providing additional securement to prevent loosening by the infant and for the purpose of providing additional adjustment options. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Schmid to include the teachings of Zeidman as described above for the purpose(s) as articulated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional swaddling type inventions are provided which include various attachment mechanisms and arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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 at (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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673