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 § 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitlock (20100096890) in view of Birmingham (8342591). The reference to Whitlock teaches structure substantially as claimed including a shaded infant lounge device comprising: a frame being selectively positionable between an expanded position and a collapsed position (at least figs 3, 4), locking mechanisms (paragraph 29) for the frame, leg portions (30); a support panel (12, 14) attached to the frame to support an infant lying thereon when the frame is in the expanded position; a canopy (98) being removably mounted to the frame and being vertically spaced above the support panel when the frame is in the expanded position, the canopy being configured to create a shaded space over the support panel; and connection assemblies detachably connecting the canopy to the frame, the only difference being that the connection assemblies do not include a plurality of assemblies that magnetically and matingly engage. However, the reference to Birmingham (at least at figs 1a, 2, 3, 4, at 19,21) teaches the use of a plurality of matingly engaged connections (Paragraphs 12, 13, 14)to provide a detachable connection for a sunshade to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Whitlock with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a plurality of magnetic mating connectors, as taught by Birmingham 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. The particular shape of the canopy and the location of the connectors are matters of desirability and design parameters and would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that the structure of Whitlock can support a head, torso, and leg portion as claimed as a structure is entitled to all of it’s uses. Note the straps of Whitlock and canopy of Birmingham being plastic. The method would have been obvious in view if the structures
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 portable, foldable supporting structures with shade/weather protection structures.
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