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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below. With regard to applicant’s arguments as to the new claim amendment, see figures 1-2. Note that the mechanism is capable of being locked in either position. Regardless, in either configuration / position, applicant is only claiming an extending direction of the first longitudinal portion being parallel to the second longitudinal portion. In either option there exists a direction as claimed of the first longitudinal portion which is parallel simply by drawing a parallel line. The claim does not in any way require that the extending direction is from a first end of the first longitudinal portion to the other, extends along the length of the first longitudinal portion, or is in any other way structurally and positionally limited by the first longitudinal portion. The claim does not provide any reference point or vector which would limit the claimed direction either. Applicant may wish to consider amendments along the lines of the suggestions above in order to structurally distinguish the claim from the prior art of record as applied. Applicant’s interpretation of the scope of the claim is not commensurate with the BRI of the claim.
With regard to applicant’s argument regarding Cheng on applicant’s numbered page 12, examiner disagrees. Applicant’s interpretation of the scope of the claim is not commensurate with the BRI of the claim. The second longitudinal portion being pivotally connected to the second transverse portion through the second pivoting portion is shown in the figures. The connection is at least indirectly present. The connection is a pivotal connection. The claim, however, does not require that the second longitudinal portion and the second transverse portion pivot with respect to each other via the second pivoting portion. Applicant may wish to consider amending the claim language along the lines of the above in order to distinguish from the prior art of record as applied.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng US PG Pub No. 20140047639.
Re Claim 1
Cheng discloses:
A baby bed (see fig. 1) comprising:
a frame body comprising:
an upper frame (11, 12) comprising a first transverse portion (12), a first longitudinal portion (11) and a first pivoting portion (14, which necessarily includes 141 and 142), the first longitudinal portion (11) being pivotally connected to the first transverse portion (12) through the first pivoting portion (14; at least indirectly) and comprising a first pipe section (portion of 11) and a second pipe section (another portion of 11);
a lower frame (5) comprising a second transverse portion (e.g. one side of 51 in fig. 1), a second longitudinal portion (another side of 51 in fig. 1) and a second pivoting portion (511 and/or 512), the second longitudinal portion being pivotally connected to the second transverse portion through the second pivoting portion (fig. 1, at least indirectly) and comprising a third pipe section (portion of 51) and a fourth pipe section (another portion of 51), and the third pipe section and the fourth pipe section being pivotally connected with each other (via 52); and
a side rod (13) connected to the first pivoting portion and the second pivoting portion (fig. 1; at least indirectly);
a locking mechanism (2) connected between the first pipe section and the second pipe section (fig. 1), the first pipe section and the second pipe section being fixed relative to the locking mechanism when the locking mechanism is in a locking state (figs 1-3, 8-10, paragraphs 30-31), and the first pipe section and the second pipe section being rotatable relative to the locking mechanism when the locking mechanism is in an unlocking state (figs. 1-3, 8-10, paragraphs 30-31); and
an unlocking mechanism (3) arranged on the first transverse portion and comprising an operating element (33) and a driving element (4), and the operating element being connected to the locking mechanism through the driving element (see claim 1, figs. 1-3, 8-10 see paragraphs 33-34)
wherein when the locking mechanism is in a locking state, an extending direction of the first longitudinal portion (11) is parallel to the second longitudinal portion (another side of 51 in fig. 1; see figs. 1-2. Note that the mechanism is capable of being locked in either position. Regardless, in either configuration / position, applicant is only claiming an extending direction of the first longitudinal portion being parallel to the second longitudinal portion. In either option there exists a direction as claimed of the first longitudinal portion which is parallel simply by drawing a parallel line. The claim does not in any way require that the extending direction is from a first end of the first longitudinal portion to the other, extends along the length of the first longitudinal portion, or is in any other way structurally and positionally limited by the first longitudinal portion. The claim does not provide any reference point or vector which would limit the claimed direction either.).
Re Claim 2
Cheng discloses:
wherein the locking mechanism (2) includes a locking housing (211), a limit element (212) and a connecting element (24), wherein the limit element is fixed relative to the locking housing (fig. 8), and the connecting element is slidably disposed on the limit element and selectively clamped to one of the first pipe section and the second pipe section (fig. 8 when assembled; see also fig. 1).
Re Claim 3
Cheng discloses:
wherein another one of the first pipe section and the second pipe section comprises an actuating element (22 or 229 or 228 or 242), a positioning portion (e.g. end portion of the selected pipe section) and a reset resilient element (23), the driving element is connected to the operating element and the actuating element (figs. 8-9 and paragraphs 0031 – 0035), and the reset resilient element is connected between an end of the actuating element and the positioning portion (fig. 8).
Re Claim 4
Cheng discloses:
wherein the locking mechanism further comprises a linkage resilient element (226, for example, however there are numerous other structures in fig. 8 which would qualify as the claimed linkage resilient element with the positioning requirement; see fig. 8 for details, e.g. 223, 222, etc.), and the linkage resilient element is arranged between another end of the actuating element and the connecting element (see fig. 8).
Re Claim 8
Cheng discloses:
wherein the unlocking mechanism (3) further comprises an unlocking housing (see annotated fig. 9 below) and at least one positioning element (either or both of 32), at least one limit portion is formed on the unlocking housing (limit portion being the section in which the positioning element is slidably disposed, for example the opening within which 33 and 32 reside; see also paragraphs 0032 - 0034), at least one sliding groove is formed on the operating element (33 and see annotated fig. 9 below; see also paragraphs 0032 - 0034), the positioning element is slidably disposed in the limit portion and the sliding groove (fig. 9; see also paragraphs 0032 - 0034), and the driving element is connected to the positioning element (fig. 9; see also paragraphs 0032 - 0034).
PNG
media_image1.png
613
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 25
Cheng discloses:
wherein a length of the first pipe section is equal to a length of the second pipe section, and a length of the third pipe section is equal to a length of the fourth pipe section (see figs. 1-3).
Re Claim 26
Cheng discloses:
wherein a length of the first transverse portion is smaller than a length of the first longitudinal portion, and a length of the second transverse portion is smaller than a length of the second longitudinal portion (see figs. 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-28 are allowed.
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 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