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 .
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 discloses the support foot includes a “retention clip” secured to “the children’s accessory” but depends from claim 4 which discloses having “an attachment feature” that connects to a “play mat” making it unclear if the retention clip and children’s accessory are additional different components or are intending to reference addition structure of the previously disclosed features with different terminology. For the purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as the attachment feature formed as a retention clip for attaching to a play mat.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (6640985), Bae (2006/0016467) and Schildknecht Hoe (10065128). Cheng discloses a segmented toy bar assembly for a children’s accessory such as a bed or mat (Figs. 7-8) having a first bar segment (1) with a first end and a second end to define an end bar segment since the first end is located at a distal end of the toy bar assembly and a second bar segment (1) with a first end and a second end to define a center bar segment since the first end is located at a central portion of the toy bar assembly (Fig. 1). The toy bar assembly is configured such that the first distal end of the first bar segment is coupled to a support foot (3), the second end of the first toy bar segment is connected to the first end of the second bar segment by a hinged coupling component (2) and the second end of the second bar segment forms another distal end of the bar assembly and is coupled to a support foot (3). The toy bar assembly support feet are configured with a retention clip for securing to the children’s accessory (Figs. 5-6 & 8). The toy bar assembly further includes a padding sleeve covering (42) that extends over both bar segments and the coupling component (Fig. 7, column 3 lines 7-11). Cheng discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the configuration of the hinged coupling component and the support feet being removably coupled to the bar segments. Bae discloses a hinged coupling component (Fig. 9) for spacing first (41B) and second (41C) bar segments that is further configured for providing 180 degree folding range between the bar segments (Fig. 10). The second bar segment (41B) has a second end with a male coupling (62) and the first bar segment (41B) has a first end with a female coupling (61), wherein the female coupling has retaining flanges defining a channel for receiving a portion of the male coupling and a locking catch (612) provided on the retaining flanges (Fig. 9) for selectively retaining a locking protrusion (622) of the male coupling (Fig. 9). A hinge axis (63) of the coupling component is laterally offset from longitudinal axes of the bar segments (Fig. 10). Since both Cheng and Bae disclose hinged coupling components for use in segmented bar assemblies to make the assemblies foldable, it would have been obvious to substitute one hinged coupling for another for the predictable result of enabling the bar segments to be folded relative to each other to create more compact configurations as desired. Schildknecht Hoe discloses a hinged connection (abstract) having a female coupling with flanges (Fig. 1) defining a channel for receiving a male coupling (Fig. 2), wherein the female coupling is configured such that the flanges are resiliently deformable (column 3 line 60 – column 4 line 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the female coupling retaining flanges to be resiliently deformable for the predictable result of enabling more secure connections between the hinge elements and since using known materials suitable for the intended purpose has been held to be an obvious modification. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In regard to the limitation of the support feet being removably coupled to the bar segments, the examiner notes that making elements separable has been held to be an obvious modification. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, Bae and Schildknecht Hoe as applied above and further in view of Samlaska (2015/0321111). Cheng, Bae and Schildknecht Hoe disclose the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the bar segment connecting to the support foot by means of an adapter. Samlaska discloses an adapter (103) for connecting between a rod (101) and a support (102), wherein the adapter can be oriented vertically (Fig. 1) to include a vertically oriented locking pin (701) at a first end for connecting to a snap lock pin receiver (602) of the support and a buckle portion (705) in the form of a deflectable locking tab at a second end for engaging a catch (303) in the rod (Figs. 2-3 & 6-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng, Bae and Schildknecht Hoe to include an adapter as taught by Samlaska to connect between the bar segment and support feet for the predictable result of providing enhanced functionality and utility by enabling easier reconfiguration and disassembly. In regard to the deflectable locking tab being on the bar segment and the buckle portion catch being on the adapter the examiner notes that such modifications would have involved a mere rearrangement of parts, which has been held to be obvious modifications. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) .
Claim(s) 11-13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, Perez (7926500), Bae and Schildknecht Hoe. Cheng discloses a children’s accessory segmented toy bar assembly (Figs. 7-8) having a first bar segment (1) with a first end and a second end and a second bar segment (1) with a first end and a second end (Fig. 1). The toy bar assembly is configured such that the first end of the first bar segment defines a distal end of the bar assembly and is coupled to a support foot (3), the second end of the first toy bar segment is connected to the first end of the second bar segment by a hinged coupling component (2) and the second end of the second bar segment forms another distal end of the bar assembly and is coupled to another support foot (3). The support feet are configured as attachment means for affixing the opposing distal ends of the toy bar assembly to a play mat or bed (Fig. 8). The toy bar assembly can be reconfigured by pivoting between an expanded configuration where the toy bar segments are extended to define an expanded length (Fig. 2) and a compact configuration with a compact length that is less than the expanded length (Fig. 3). The toy bar assembly further includes a padding sleeve covering (42) that extends over both bar segments and the coupling component (Fig. 7, column 3 lines 7-11). Cheng discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the bar segments being flexible such that the expanded length results in axial alignment of the bar segments and the configuration of the hinged coupling component. Perez discloses a segmented bar assembly with a pair of flexible bars (18a,c) hingedly coupled together such that the pair of flexible bars can be pivoted between an expanded configuration in which the bars are in axial alignment to define a first length between the pairs of bars and a compact configuration with a compact length less than the expanded length (Figs. 1, 3-5 & 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Perez to use flexible material for the bars of Cheng for the predictable result of providing enhanced functionality and utility by enabling more versatility in the configuration and arrangement of the bars relative to each other. Bae discloses a hinged coupling component (Fig. 9) for spacing first (41B) and second (41C) bar segments that is further configured for providing 180 degree folding range between the bar segments (Fig. 10). The second bar segment (41B) has a second end with a male coupling (62) and the first bar segment (41B) has a first end with a female coupling (61), wherein the female coupling has retaining flanges defining a channel for receiving a portion of the male coupling and a locking catch (612) provided on the retaining flanges (Fig. 9) for selectively retaining a locking protrusion (622) of the male coupling (Fig. 9). A hinge axis (63) of the coupling component is laterally offset from longitudinal axes of the bar segments (Fig. 10). Since both Cheng and Bae disclose hinged coupling components for use in segmented bar assemblies to make the assemblies foldable, it would have been obvious to substitute one hinged coupling for another for the predictable result of enabling the bar segments to be folded relative to each other to create more compact configurations as desired. Schildknecht Hoe discloses a hinged connection (abstract) having a female coupling with flanges (Fig. 1) defining a channel for receiving a male coupling (Fig. 2), wherein the female coupling is configured such that the flanges are resiliently deformable (column 3 line 60 – column 4 line 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the female coupling retaining flanges to be resiliently deformable for the predictable result of enabling more secure connections between the hinge elements and since using known materials suitable for the intended purpose has been held to be an obvious modification. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, Perez, Bae and Schildknecht Hoe as applied above and further in view of Chininis (2011/0065353). Cheng, Perez, Bae and Schildknecht Hoe disclose the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the flexible segments having a cross sectional profile where the width is at least two times the thickness. Chininis discloses a toy bar formed of flexible material (22) to enable bending of the bar, wherein the bar is positioned within a sleeve (54) and can have a rectangular cross-sectional profile which would configure the bar so as to have a width greater than a thickness (Fig. 3, paragraphs 27-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to shape the bar segments of Cheng, Perez, Bae and Schildknecht Hoe so as to have a rectangular shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In regard to the width being two times the thickness, the examiner notes that a difference in relative dimensions that would not perform differently than the prior art device are not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, Perez, Bae and Schildknecht Hoe as applied above for claim 11 and further in view of Solomon (7302724). Cheng, Perez, Bae and Schildknecht Hoe disclose the basic inventive concept, with the exception of configuring the bar assembly to have three bar segments with a coupling between both the first and second toy bar segments and between the second and third toy bar segments. Solomon discloses a toy bar assembly having three bar segments with a hinged coupling between first and second bar segments and between second and third bar segments (Figs. 2A-B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng, Perez, Bae and Schildknecht Hoe to include three bar segments with a coupling between the first and second bar segments and the second and third bar segments as taught by Solomon since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts which has been held to be obvious absent a new or unexpected result. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, Perez and Jin (8910648). Cheng discloses a children’s accessory segmented toy bar assembly (Figs. 7-8) having a first bar segment (1) with a first end and a second end and a second bar segment (1) with a first end and a second end (Fig. 1). The toy bar assembly is configured such that the first end of the first bar segment defines a distal end of the bar assembly and is coupled to a support foot (3), the second end of the first toy bar segment is connected to the first end of the second bar segment by a hinged coupling component (2) and the second end of the second bar segment forms another distal end of the bar assembly and is coupled to another support foot (3). The support feet are configured as attachment means for affixing the opposing distal ends of the toy bar assembly to a play mat or bed (Fig. 8). The toy bar assembly can be reconfigured by pivoting between an expanded configuration where the toy bar segments are extended to define an expanded length (Fig. 2) and a compact configuration with a compact length that is less than the expanded length (Fig. 3). The toy bar assembly further includes a padding sleeve covering (42) that extends over both bar segments and the coupling component (Fig. 7, column 3 lines 7-11). Cheng discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the bar segments being flexible such that the expanded length results in axial alignment of the bar segments and the configuration of the hinged coupling component. Perez discloses a segmented bar assembly with a pair of flexible bars (18a,c) hingedly coupled together such that the pair of flexible bars can be pivoted between an expanded configuration in which the bars are in axial alignment to define a first length between the pairs of bars and a compact configuration with a compact length less than the expanded length (Figs. 1, 3-5 & 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Perez to use flexible material for the bars of Cheng for the predictable result of providing enhanced functionality and utility by enabling more versatility in the configuration and arrangement of the bars relative to each other. Jin discloses a hinged coupling component for spacing first and second bar segments that is further configured for providing 180 degree folding range between the bar segments (Figs. 38A-C). The first bar segment (202) has a second end (Fig. 28A) with a male coupling (210) and the second bar segment (204) has a first end with a female coupling (230), wherein the female coupling (Figs. 30A-B) has retaining flanges (238) defining a channel for receiving a portion of the male coupling and a locking catch (244) provided on the retaining flanges (Fig. 30B) for selectively retaining a locking protrusion (220) of the male coupling (Figs. 29A-B). A hinge axis (216, 240) of the coupling component is laterally offset from longitudinal axes of the bar segments (Figs. 28A-30B). Since both Cheng and Jin disclose hinged coupling components for use in segmented bar assemblies to make the assemblies foldable, it would have been obvious to substitute one hinged coupling for another for the predictable result of enabling the bar segments to be folded relative to each other to create more compact configurations as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument for claim 20 that the references fail to disclose the hinged coupling configured to allow 180 degree folding with sufficient spacing to accommodate the padding sleeve and covering, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 ALYSSA HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2684. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/A.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights