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 1-22 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. The expressions “the number and position of the connecting hole” (claim 6) have no definite antecedent basis in the claims. It is unclear if applicant intended to claim a combination including a folding mechanism and baby carrier since there is specific interconnection and interrelationship(at least a connecting element connected to a part of a baby carrier) (claims 1, 14), such baby carrier not being positively claimed. Clarification and correction are required. For the purposes of examination, the folding mechanism and carrier are claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kassai (4602395). The reference to Kassai teaches structure as claimed including a folding mechanism (1) suitable for a baby carrier, the baby carrier comprising a first part (2a) and a second part (2b), and the first part and the second part being arranged in a longitudinal direction, characterized in that wherein the folding mechanism comprises: a connecting element (10), the second part being movably connected to the first part through the connecting element, and an extending direction of the connecting element being parallel to the longitudinal direction, the folding mechanism further comprises a first limit element and a second limit element, the first limit element (3) and the second limit element (4) are respectively fixed, pivoted or clamped on the bottom plate of the first part and the bottom plate of the second part, and the connecting element(10) is sleeved on the first limit element and the second limit element.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al (CN204838811). The reference to Ma teaches structure as claimed including a folding mechanism (1) for a baby carrier, the baby carrier comprising a first part (31, 32, 33) and a second part (41, 42, 43), the first part comprising a base portion and a plurality of folding portions (31, 33), the plurality of folding portions being pivotally connected to the base portion (32) and the base portion, at least one of the folding portions and the second part being sequentially arranged in a longitudinal direction, the folding mechanism comprises: a connecting element (51, 52), the second part being slidably (at sections 7) connected to the base portion through the connecting element, and an extending direction of the connecting element being parallel to the longitudinal direction.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassai (4602395) in view of Goyal (WO2018150368). The reference to Kasai teaches structure substantially as claimed, as discussed above including bottom plates and connecting elements the only difference being that the connecting is not pivotally connected to the bottom plates. However, the reference to Goyal teaches the use of providing pivotally connected connecting elements (116 through living hinges). 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 structure of Kassai with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a connecting element pivotally connected to the plates, as taught by Goyal since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassai (4602395) in view of Berger (EP1481616). The reference to Kasai teaches structure substantially as claimed, as discussed above including a folding parts the only difference being that the folding parts do not include an operating and locking element. However, the reference to Berger teaches the use of providing an operating element (20, 21) and locking element (7, 8), the operating element arranged on one of the first part and the second part (2a) and formed with at least one limit groove (20), and the at least one locking element comprises a locking portion (7, 8) and a limit portion (16), the limit portion is slidably disposed in the at least one limit groove (15), the other of the first part and the second part is formed with a plurality of locking holes, and the locking portion (7, 8) is selectively clamped in the locking holes. 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 structure of Kassai with a reasonable expectation of success, to include operating and locking elements, as taught by Berger since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose of providing a connection and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited teach structure similar to applicant’s including compacting elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571 270 3742. 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.
/JOSE V CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637