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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12070135 (the ‘135 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present Application claim 1 is broader than claim 1 of the ‘135 Patent (see table below).
Present Application
‘135 Patent
Comments
Claim 1.
A child bassinet comprising:
a standing frame including a first leg and a second leg, the first leg having a first side segment, the second leg having a second side segment;
a top rail portion including a first rail and a second rail connected with each other via an articulation, an end of the first side segment being pivotally connected with the first rail at a first location spaced apart from the articulation, and
an end of the second side segment being pivotally connected with the second rail at a second location spaced apart from the articulation; and
a linkage assembly coupling each of the first side segment and the second side segment to the articulation, the linking assembly being connected with the articulation in a region between the first location and the second location.
Claim 1.
A child bassinet comprising:
a standing frame including a first leg and a second leg, the first leg having two first side segments, the second leg having two second side segments;
a top rail portion including a first rail and a second rail connected with each other via two articulations, two ends of the two first side segments being pivotally connected with the first rail at two first locations spaced apart from the two articulations, and
two ends of the two second side segments being pivotally connected with the second rail at two second locations spaced apart from the two articulations; and
a linkage assembly including two first linking parts and two second linking parts, each of the two first linking parts having two opposite ends respectively connected pivotally with one of the two first side segments and one of the two articulations corresponding thereto, and each of the two second linking parts having two opposite ends respectively connected pivotally with one of the two second side segments and one of the two articulations corresponding thereto.
Claim 1 of the ‘135 Patent teaches all of the limitations of the present Application, particularly two side segments and their associated articulations because the Present Application requires only one side segment and associated articulations, and the two side segments and their associated articulations include one. Further, claim 1 of the ‘135 Patent teaches the Present Application first and second locations because the two opposite ends of the ‘135 Patent are two locations. Thus, while claim 1 of the ‘135 Patent is not exactly the same as claim 1 of the Present Application, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the child bassinet of claim 1 of the Present Application with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. This is because claim 1 of the Present Application falls within an overlapping range taught by claim 1 of the ‘135 Patent (one falls within two), and it has been held that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter. Claims 2-20 are objected to.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner notes that US 20180360230 A1 to Tuckey, US 9138070 B1 to Shamie, and US 5193234 to Joaquin are particularly relevant, and the prior art does not teach the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, Examiner notes that US 20180360230 A1 to Tuckey, US 9138070 B1 to Shamie, and US 5193234 to Joaquin are particularly relevant. The primary reference Tuckey teaches a child bassinet comprising a standing frame including a first and second leg each with two side segments, a top rail portion pivotally connected with the side segments, and a support frame portion including bar segments. Tuckey does not teach Applicant’s claimed limitation “a top rail portion including a first rail and a second rail connected with each other via an articulation, an end of the first side segment being pivotally connected with the first rail at a first location spaced apart from the articulation, and an end of the second side segment being pivotally connected with the second rail at a second location spaced apart from the articulation”. In other words, the legs are not connected to the top rail at the same location as the top rail pivoting articulation mechanism (see at least Fig. 9, which shows the top end of the leg side segments connecting to the top rail at locations 121A and 122A, which is spaced apart from the top rail pivoting articulation 123. It is noted that even though the linking mechanism 131 and 132 join at the articulation 123, it is separate from the leg side segments 111A and 112A, which are themselves connected to the top rail.). Tuckey teaches that the legs are joined at the articulation 20 (see Fig. 2). Shamie does not teach the claimed limitation either because the legs are also joined at the articulation (see at least Fig. 2A). Joaquin also does not teach the claimed limitation because while the linkages 6 and 7 are spaced apart from the articulation 3, the legs themselves are still connected at the articulation (see at least Fig. 1).
There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to result in Applicant’s claimed structure. The dependent claims contain allowable subject matter for similar reasons due to their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights