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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species I in the reply filed on 12/19/25 is acknowledged. The examiner agrees with applicant’s argument and withdraw the restriction requirement filed on 12/8/25.
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.
Claims 5-6 and 19-20 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first orientation" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6, line 3, “chain” should be changed to ---chair--- for clarification.
Claim 19, line 3, “chain” should be changed to ---chair--- for clarification.
Claim 20 is rejected as depending on rejected claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2010/0237666 to Buckavich et al.
Buckavich et al. teaches a convertible toddler chair and standing platform comprising a frame assembly/foldable frame (10) having a front leg (69( and a rear leg (68). The front and rear legs are being pivotally connected (70) and configured to enable movement of the legs between folded and unfolded arrangements. A platform panel (26) supported by the frame assembly and movable between a first and a second orientation as the frame assembly is moved. A seat assembly (22 and 25) disposed above the platform and movably connected to the frame assembly by an elevating frame (31). The seat assembly including a seating panel (25) and a pivotally coupled backrest panel (22). Wherein a movement of the elevating frame causing the pivoting movement of the seating panel between a seating configuration and a standing configuration (see figures 6-8). The seating panel being parallel to the platform panel when in the seating configuration. The toddler chair and standing platform includes a platform support link (61, 63), wherein the platform panel is pivotally connected to the front leg and the support link is pivotally connected at a first end thereof to the rear leg and at a second end thereof to the platform panel. Wherein the platform panel and the platform support link operably connect the front and rear legs to coordinate movement of the legs and the platform between folded and unfolded positions. Wherein the platform support link connection to the rear leg includes a stop (12) to limit movement of the support link as the frame is moved toward the unfolded arrangement. The seat assembly further comprises a seat link (45, 47) interconnecting the seating panel and the frame assembly. The seat link moving the seating panel toward the standing configuration as the elevating frame is moved in a first direction. The seat link moving the seating panel toward the seating configuration as the elevating frame is moved in a second direction opposite to the first direction. The seat link is pivotally connected at a first end thereof to the seating panel and a second end thereof to the frame assembly. Wherein the elevating frame further comprises a releasable lock (14) configured to retain the elevating frame in at least a first position corresponding to the standing configuration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckavich et al. in view of US Patent # 9,986,850 to Haut et al.
Buckavich et al. teaches the toddler chair and standing platform but fails to teach an infant seat selectively connectable to the elevating frame. Haut et al. teaches the infant seat (106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the infant seat to Buckavich et al.’s toddler chair and standing platform as taught by Haut et al. to provide “easy to operate, and can be converted to multiple configuration according to the child’s age and needs” (column 1, lines 43-45 in Haut et al.’s invention).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 19-20 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.
Claims 9-10 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 5, the prior arts fail to teach all of the limitations from claims 1-5 especially with “wherein the first and second end pivoting connections of the platform support link are positioned in an overcenter locking relationship when the platform is in the first orientation.”
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts fail to teach all of the limitations from claims 1-4 and 6 especially with “wherein the toddler chair and standing platform is supportable on a surface by the front leg and the rearward end when the frame assembly is in the folded arrangement”.
Regarding claim 9, the prior arts fail to teach all of the limitations from claims 1 and 7-9 especially with “wherein the first and second end pivoting connections of the seat link are positioned in an overcenter locking relationship when the seating panel is in the standing configuration.”
Regarding claim 10, the prior arts fail to teach all of the limitations from claims 1 and 10 especially with “wherein the elevating frame comprising a telescoping connection with the front leg”.
Regarding claim 16, the prior arts fails to teach all of the limitation from claims 13-16 especially with “wherein the first and second end pivoting connections of the seat link are positioned in an overcenter locking relationship when the seating panel is in the standing configuration.”
Regarding claim 17, the prior arts fail to teach all of the limitations from claims 1, 14 and 17 especially with “wherein the elevating frame comprising a telescoping connection with the front leg”.
Regarding claims 19-20, the prior arts fail to teach all of the limitations from claims 13 and 18-19 especially with “wherein the toddler chair and standing platform is supportable on a surface by the front leg and the rearward end when the frame assembly is in the folded arrangement”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent Application Publication # 2023/0146888 to Dziak et al.
US Patent # 1,738,339 to Whtting et al.
The cited references above teach the foldable toddler chair.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED J WUJCIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-6827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
ALFRED J. WUJCIAK
Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ALFRED J WUJCIAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636 3/5/26