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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4 and 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11219317. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11219317 teach the limitations of claims 1-4 and 6 of the present application.
Claims 8-9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11219317. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 7-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11219317 teach the limitations of claims 8-9 of the present application.
Claims 10-11, 13-14, 16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11219317. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11219317 teach the limitations of claims 10-11, 13-14, 16, and 18 of the present application.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11219317 in view of Lui (CN 204363531 U).
Regarding claim 5, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11219317 does not specifically disclose the first shoulder strap and the second shoulder strap comprise a slit for creating an expandable width.
Liu demonstrates the ability to have a baby carrier including a pair of shoulder straps including a slit for creating an expandable width (Figs. 4 and 5) for dispersing pressure (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11219317 and use the teaching of Liu and include a slit for expanding the shoulder strap in order to increase the width of the shoulder strap thereby dispersing the pressure to a larger area of the wearer thereby increasing overall comfort of the device.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-6, 8-9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104 teach the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-9 and 10 of the present application.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104 teach the limitations of claim 11 of the present application.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104 teach the limitations of claim 12 of the present application.
Claims 13-14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104 teach the limitations of claims 13-14 of the present application.
Claims 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104 teach the limitations of claims 17-18 of the present application.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104 teach the limitations of claim 19 of the present application.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104 teach the limitations of claim 20 of the present application.
Claims 15 and 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104 in view of Lui (CN 204363531 U).
Regarding claims 15 and 21, Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104 does not specifically disclose the first shoulder strap and the second shoulder strap comprise a slit for creating an expandable width.
Liu demonstrates the ability to have a baby carrier including a pair of shoulder straps including a slit for creating an expandable width (Figs. 4 and 5) for dispersing pressure (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104 and use the teaching of Liu and include a slit for expanding the shoulder strap in order to increase the width of the shoulder strap thereby dispersing the pressure to a larger area of the wearer thereby increasing overall comfort of the device.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104 in view of Bergkvist (WO 2010123445 A1).
Regarding claim 16, claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104 does not specifically disclose the first flap and the second flap pull away from the body panel when the first free end is attached to the first flap and the second free end is attached to the second flap to thereby reduce tension at the first side edge and the second side edge.
Bergkvist demonstrates a baby carrier including a body panel and a first flap and a second flap that pull away from the body panel when the first free end is attached to the first flap and the second free end is attached to the second flap to thereby reduce tension at the first side edge and the second side edge thereby concentrating at fixing point (25) and form a smooth contact surface for contact with the child.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,104 and allow the first and second flaps to pull away from the body panel to help form a smooth contact surface with the baby as suggested by Bergkvist.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. No arguments nor terminal disclaimer was filed and therefore the nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been maintained.
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 MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734