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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they do not disclose how, in the third embodiment, “the push rod 26 is slidably mounted on the base 3 or the baffle plate 31” and how “the clamping piece 27 is snapped into the first groove 24, and the position adjustment between the support rod 2 and the base 3 is completed”, as described in paragraphs [0047] and [0048] of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to in lieu of a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, which requires a written description of the invention in full, clear, concise, and exact terms, because of the following informalities:
Typographical errors include:
In [0002], “bracketof” should read “bracket of”;
In [0003], full capitalization is unnecessary for the phrase: ‘THE United States INVENTION PATENT NO. 20120119039 IS NOW DISCLOSED, AND A "DEVICE FOR AIDING IN INFANT CARE" HAS BEEN DISCLOSED’;
In [0004], “convenient for storage and storage” should read “convenient for storage”;
In [0006] and [0044], “unfolded and folding states” and “erection and folding states” should read “unfolded and folded states” or “erect and folded states”;
In [0006-0009, 0030, 0044, and 0050], “folding state” should read “folded state” and “erection state” should read “erect state”;
In [0019], “the three” should read “the third”;
In [0024], “termi-nology” should read “terminology”;
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11-12, and 17-19 are objected to in lieu of a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection which requires a written description of the invention in full, clear, concise, and exact terms, and are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
Unnecessary capitalization of the following words: “Rotatably”, “Between”, and “Wherein”.
Tense of the irregular verb “be” is incorrect: “be provided” should read as “are provided”.
The position of an object should be in either an “erect state” or a “folded state”.
Claim 2:
Unnecessary capitalization of the following words: “Rotatably”, “Between”, and “Wherein”;
The first reference to “the concave-convex structure” should read “a concave-convex structure”;
Claim 11:
Unnecessary capitalization of the following words: “Rotatably”, “Wherein”, and “When”.
The position of an object should be in an “erect state” or “folded state”.
Claims 4,12,17,18, and 19:
Unnecessary capitalization of the following words: “The”, “Wherein”, and “When”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1,2,11,12 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 1, inconsistent terminology is used for the “support” and the “described bracing rod”. It is unclear whether these are the same element in claim one or if the “bracing rod” may be referring to the “support rod” first identified in a later claim 2, which presents itself as an issue of improper antecedent basis.
Inconsistent terminology is also used in claim 1 for a “concave-convex locking structure” and a “concave-convex locking mechanism”. It is unclear whether these refer to the same or different elements.
The sentence structure of claim 1 does not clearly and concisely describe the invention. It is also not clear what structural element or elements the phrase "wherein: Rotatably connected" is clarifying/modifying: the protective member; the support; or the bracket.
Regarding claim 2,
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “baffle plate” in claim 2 is used by the claim to mean “pivot plate or bearing plate,” while the accepted meaning of baffle is “a device (such as a plate, wall, or screen) to deflect, check, or regulate flow or passage (as of a fluid, light, or sound)” (Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baffle). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Since the term “baffle” commonly refers to structures related to constraining fluid flows or interrupting noise sources and may make it unclear or misleading as to the purpose and structure of the “baffle plate”; consider using an alternative term, possibly “pivot plate” or “bearing plate” or other term to avoid confusion.
The first mention of “rotating shaft mechanism” should state “a rotating shaft mechanism” and the second, or any later, mention of the same should state “the rotating shaft mechanism”;
Regarding claim 11, inconsistent terminology is used for “a retractable support” and “the support” in the first line of the claim. It is unclear whether these are the same element in claim 1 or to different supports.
In claim 11, inconsistent terminology is also used for the “support” and the “described bracing rod”. It is unclear whether these are the same element in claim 1 or if the “bracing rod” may be referring to the “support rod” first identified in a later claim 2, in which case it presents itself as an issue of improper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the protective piece is an arm guard" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Inconsistent terminology is used for “protective piece” instead of previously used “protective member”.
Claim 19 contains grammatical errors that render an unclear description of the limitations of the claim. The statement “the locking groove is a first groove, and the first groove is at least two” is unclear and is being interpreted for the purposes of this investigation as in [0048] of the instant specification as “the first groove comprises a plurality of horizontal openings” .
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2013/0237381 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses an assembly within a treadmill which includes a folding structure that may be reasonably utilized in a bathing environment as a bath support in which the assembly comprises the following elements:
a base (Chen, Fig. 3, 10), a support (Chen, Fig. 3, 10);
a support (Chen, Fig. 3, 12) that is rotatably connected with the base and has a folding state and an erection state (Chen, paragraph [0021]);
a concave-convex locking structure arranged between the base and the rotating end of the support, and the concave-convex locking structure comprises a locking member and a locking groove (Chen, Fig. 5, positioning assembly 18 and arc-shaped guide slot 32).
Regarding claim 18, Chen further discloses the following elements:
the support is a support rod (Chen, Fig. 5, support frame 16);
a rotating shaft mechanism is arranged between the supporting rod and the base (Chen, paragraph [0021]);
and the concave-convex locking structure comprises a locking member and a locking groove (Chen, Fig. 5, positioning assembly 18 and arc-shaped guide slot 32).;
and the locking piece comprises a push rod (Chen, Fig. 9, 22 and 24) and a clamping piece (Chen, Fig. 9, neck portion 40),
and the push rod is an integrally formed structure (Chen, Fig. 5, fastener 22, 36, 40, 44).
Regarding claim 19, Chen further discloses in the art of human necessities the following elements:
“the locking groove is a first groove and the first groove is at least two” (Chen, Fig. 6, two positioning portions 50 & 52),
and is formed at the rotating end of the support rod (Chen, Fig. 5, 32);
a communicating groove for the clamping piece is formed between all the first grooves (Chen, Fig. 5, 32).
Regarding claim 20, Chen further discloses in the art of necessities the following elements:
opening direction of the first groove is parallel to the rotating shaft mechanism (Chen, Fig. 5, 32; Chen, Fig. 5, 18),
first groove is distributed at the end of the supporting rod and the position perpendicular to the rotating shaft structure (Chen, Fig. 5, 32),
and the opening direction of the first groove and the push rod are parallel to the rotating shaft mechanism respectively (Chen, Fig. 5, 32; Chen, Fig. 5, 18).
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (CN 118303778 A) in view of Guo (CN 209553285 U).
Gu discloses a base (Gu, Fig. 1, 10) and a support (Gu, Fig. 1, 20) , and the support is provided with an arm guard (Gu, Fig. 1, 40), and a limiting structure comprises:
a first limiting step and a second limiting step (Gu, Annotated Fig. 4, below),
and the second limiting step is used for being abutted against the first limiting step in the erection state of the support (Gu, Annotated Fig. 4, below).
As stated above, Gu discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including all of the elements of claim 1 of the current invention except for:
a supporting rod is rotatably connected with the base, and has a folding and an erection state;
a concave-convex locking structure for locking the support in the erect or folding state,
an elastic protrusion,
and a concave structure corresponding to the elastic protrusion,
on which Gu is silent.
PNG
media_image1.png
805
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gu, Annotated Fig. 4.
Guo teaches a locking joint for a folding child vehicle which comprises:
a concave-convex locking structure and the limiting structure for locking the support into a position either an erect or folded position;
a rotatable connection between two structural elements;
a concave-convex locking structure and limiting structure;
an elastic protrusion;
a concave structure corresponding to the elastic protrusion;
and has a folded state and an erect state (Guo, Annotated Fig. 1, below).
In claim 1, the combination of Gu through Guo does not disclose the device having two or multiple locking positions and limiting structures. However, MPEP §2144.04 recites that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this instance, Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to highlight or explain a new and unexpected result from the duplication of the locking mechanism and limiting structure. While considered, the duplication of the locking mechanism and limiting structure is not afforded patentable weight in a determination of allowability. The locking mechanism and limiting structure of Guo may be duplicated to provide a positive locking mechanism for both the folded and erect states of the modified invention of Gu through Guo.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of baby products before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the baby stand of Gu with the folding, locking and limiting structures of Guo to allow for the means of folding the baby bath support for minimizing storage space and for providing a means of locking the support in either a folded or erect position.
PNG
media_image2.png
392
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Guo, Annotated Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
410
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Guo, Annotated Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Gu through Guo as applied to claim 1 teaches in the art of baby products, the following elements:
a support rod (Guo, Annotated Fig. 1, above),
a baffle plate positioned at two sides of the support rod (Gu, Annotated Fig. 4, above),
and the rotating end of the support rod is rotatably connected with the baffle plates on both sides through a rotating shaft mechanism (Guo, Annotated Figs. 1 and 4, above).
Therefore, since the inclusion of rotating shaft mechanism would allow the invention to be folded and more convenient to store, the modified device of Gu through Guo, as applied to claim 1, through Guo teaches the invention of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the modified invention of Gu through Guo as applied to claim 2 teaches in the art of baby products, the following elements:
a limiting plate (Gu, Annotated Fig. 4, above),
the first limiting step is positioned at the upper end of the limiting plate (Gu, Annotated Fig. 4, above),
and the first limiting step is arranged at the rotating end of the support rod and is higher than the rotating shaft mechanism (Gu, Annotated Fig. 4, above),
In claim 3, the combination of Gu through Guo as applied to claim 2 does not disclose the device having the first limiting step as higher than the rotating shaft mechanism. However, MPEP §2144.04 recites that the rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
In this instance, Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to highlight or explain a new and unexpected result from the rearrangement of the limiting steps. While considered, the rearrangement of the first limiting step is not afforded patentable weight in a determination of allowability. Therefore, by rearrangement of the location of the limiting steps in allows for the position of the first limiting step to be higher than the rotating shaft mechanism.
Therefore, since the inclusion of the limiting structures would allow the invention to provide a path for transferring a load away from the locking mechanism, the modified device of Gu through Guo, as applied to claim 2, through Guo teaches the invention of claim 3.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu through Guo in view of Schroeder (US 1438336 A).
In claims 4-7, the combination of Gu through Guo in view of Schroeder does not disclose the device having the arrangement of the elastic protrusion analogous to the lock pin and spring of the pin-tumbler lock of Schroeder being present on same side as the center of rotation of the concave side of the concave-convex surface between the support rod and the base (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2, below), and similarly, the arrangement of the first button analogous to the key and tumbler of the pin-tumbler lock of Schroeder being present in the base on the opposing side of the concave-convex surface between them (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2). However, MPEP §2144.04 recites that the reversal of parts, in this case either reversing the center of rotation to be within the support rod instead of the base, or equivalently, reversing the elastic protrusion with the first button and first sliding hole, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
In this instance, Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to highlight or explain a new and unexpected result from the reversal of the elastic protrusion or the button. While considered, the reversal of the elastic protrusion is not afforded patentable weight in a determination of allowability.
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Gu through Guo as applied to claim 2 teaches in the art of baby products substantially all of the elements of claim 4, except for the following elements:
a first sliding hole and a second sliding hole,
a first button and a second button,
an elastic protrusion comprises a blind hole, an elastic part, and a first bump.
Schroeder teaches in the art of locks and latches
a first sliding hole (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2, hole for d1 in body a, below) and a second sliding hole by duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI, “REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS”, explained below) ,
a first button (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2, key c and lock pin d, below) and a second button, where the second button is merely a duplication of the key c and lock pin d of Schroeder, for which the duplication of a part imparts no patentability to a claim (MPEP 2144.04 VI, “REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS”, explained below), and
an elastic protrusion comprises a blind hole, an elastic part, and a first bump (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
511
542
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2
In claim 4, the combination of Gu through Guo in view of Schroeder does not disclose the device having two sliding buttons and sliding holes.
However, MPEP §2144.04 also recites that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
In this instance, Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to highlight or explain a new and unexpected result from the duplication of the sliding buttons and sliding holes. For both the erect and folded states of the instant invention, a sliding button and a sliding hole aligned with the elastic protrusion function to lock the support rod into a position. While considered, the duplication of the sliding holes and sliding buttons is not afforded patentable weight in a determination of allowability.
In this analogous and widely-known pin-tumbler lock mechanism, by reversal and duplication of parts, the spring and pin are relocated into the support rod of the instant invention which in this arrangement serves as the rotatable element and the lock cylinder becomes analogous to the base of the instant invention. In this orientation, the key and lock pin (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2, key c and lock pin d, above) are analogous to the button(s) described in later claims of the instant invention and are used to move the interface plane between the lock pin and the plunger to a position inline or coplanar with the concave-convex surfaces to allow the rotational motion to occur. This arrangement of parts allows the button to be placed in an accessible location on the bottom of the base. Therefore, since the inclusion of the locking mechanism would allow the invention to be folded and more convenient to store while maintaining a stable erect position during use and a locked folded position for ease of stowing the folded unit, the modified device of Gu, Guo and Schroeder through Schroeder, as applied to claim 2, teaches the invention of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Gu, Guo and Schroeder as applied to claim 4 through Schroeder teaches all of the elements of claim 5 including the following elements:
blind hole is formed at the rotating end of the support (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2, above),
a first sliding hole and a second sliding hole arranged on the base (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2, above),
the first sliding hole and second sliding hole are perpendicular to each other (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2, above),
and the first sliding hole is perpendicular to the base rod (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2, above).
Regarding claim 6, using the same duplication and rearrangement of the location of the second sliding hole and second button of the modified invention of Gu, Guo and Schroeder, as applied to claim 4 and shown in Schroeder (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2, above), through Schroeder teaches all of the elements of claim 6 including the following elements:
first button is retractably arranged in the first sliding hole, and
second button is retractably arranged in the second sliding hole (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2, above)
Regarding claim 7, using the same duplication and rearrangement of the location of the second sliding hole and second button of the modified invention of Gu, Guo and Schroeder, as applied to claim 4 and shown in Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2, through Schroeder teaches all of the elements of claim 7 including the following elements:
the blind hole is formed at the rotating end of the support rod,
the blind hole is located directly below the rotating shaft mechanism when the support rod is erected,
the elastic part is positioned at the bottom of the blind hole, the first bump is telescopic in the blind hole, and can enter the first sliding hole or the second sliding hole (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2, above).
Therefore, since the inclusion of the elements of the locking mechanism at the rotating end of the support rod would allow the invention to be locked in an erect position for use and to be locked into a folded position for ease of storage, the modified device of Gu, Guo, and Schroeder, as applied to claim 4, through Schroeder teaches the inventions of claims 5, 6, and 7.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Gu, Guo, and Schroeder as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Totally Handy (Totally Handy, “Amazing Secret Lock Mechanism Ideas You Can Try”, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZlftPitdG4,posted 06/14/2022, still taken from [03:50]), hereinafter HANDY.
Regarding claim 8, Guo teaches in the art locks and locking mechanisms a rotating shaft mechanism comprising:
a shaft hole arranged on the baffle plate (Guo, Annotated Fig. 1, above) and,
a rotating shaft body arranged on the supporting rod (Guo, Annotated Fig. 1, above).
Therefore, since the inclusion of a rotating shaft mechanism would allow for rotation of the support rod to either a folded or erect position, the modified device of Gu, Guo, and Schroeder, as applied to claim 2, through Guo teaches the invention of claim 8.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the modified device of Gu through Guo, as applied to claim 8, teaches that which is old and well known in the art of baby products the invention substantially as claimed, including all of the elements of claim 9 and 10 except for these elements of claim 9:
the rotating shaft body is provided with a second groove, and
the opening of the second groove is perpendicular to the axis of the supporting rod and the rotating shaft body;
and these elements of claim 10:
the rotating shaft body is provided with a second groove,
and the opening of the second groove is perpendicular to the axis of the supporting rod and the rotating shaft body.
the shaft hole is provided with a third groove, the opening of the third groove is vertically oriented towards the base,
a second bump is arranged in the third groove,
and the second bump can be contained into the second groove.
HANDY teaches in the art of locks and latching mechanisms the following elements of claim 9:
the rotating shaft body is provided with a second groove (Annotated still from HANDY [03:50]),
and the opening of the second groove is perpendicular to the axis of the supporting rod and the rotating shaft body (Annotated still from HANDY [03:50]).
the rotating shaft body is provided with a second groove (Annotated still from HANDY [03:50]),
and the opening of the second groove is perpendicular to the axis of the supporting rod and the rotating shaft body (Annotated still from HANDY [03:50]);
and HANDY also teaches in the art of locks and latching mechanisms the following elements of claim 10:
the shaft hole is provided with a third groove (Annotated still from HANDY [03:50]),the opening of the third groove is vertically oriented towards the base (Annotated still from HANDY [03:50]),
a second bump is arranged in the third groove (Annotated still from HANDY [03:50]),
and the second bump can be contained into the second groove (Annotated still from HANDY [03:50]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of baby products and lock and latch mechanisms before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified device of Gu through Guo, as applied to claim 8, and to have modified the modified device of Gu, Guo, Schroeder, and HANDY, as applied to claim 9, to incorporate the teachings of HANDY in the art of locks and latch mechanisms to enable the latching and releasing mechanism identified in paragraph [0050], where “only the equipment needs to be flipped over, so that the second bump 85 falls back into the third groove 84”.
PNG
media_image5.png
471
511
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated still from HANDY [03:50].
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu in view of Guo.
Regarding claim 11, Gu discloses the following elements:
a base;
a retractable support;
the support is provided with a protective member;
and a limiting structure that supports the support to remain in an erect state.
Gu discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including all of the elements of claim 11 of the current invention except for a concave-convex locking structure and the limiting structure for locking the support in the erect or folding state, rotatably connected between a support rod and the base, and has a folding state and an erection state.
Guo teaches in the art of locking and latching mechanisms a concave-convex locking structure (Guo, Annotated Fig. 1) and the limiting structure for locking the support in the erect or folding state (Guo, Annotated Fig. 1), rotatably connected between a support rod and base (Guo, Annotated Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), and has a folding state and an erection state (Guo, Annotated Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of baby products before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures of the baby stand and the limiting structures of Gu with the rotating and locking features in the related art of locking and latching mechanisms of Guo to provide for means of folding the baby bath support for minimizing storage space and for providing a means of locking the support in a folded or erect position.
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Gu, Guo and Schroeder as applied to claim 11 teaches through Gu that which is well-known and widely used in the art of baby products the invention substantially as claimed, including all of the elements of claim 11, wherein Gu further teaches the following elements of claim:
the support is a support rod (Gu, Annotated Fig. 4, above);
the protective piece is an arm guard and is arranged on the support rod (Gu, Annotated Fig. 4, above);
the support rod comprises a casing and a movable rod inserted into the casing and slidably connected with the casing (Gu, Annotated Fig. 4, above).
Therefore, since the inclusion of movable rod inserted into, and slidably connected with, the casing would allow for the adjustment of the bath stand to fit varying baby heights, the
modified device of Gu and Guo, as applied to claim 11, through Gu teaches the invention of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the modified invention of Gu, Guo, and Schroeder as applied to claim 12 through Gu teaches an assembly of elements, whereby these elements are being located in a reversed arrangement where the elements located on the casing are relocated to the movable rod and the elements on the moveable rod are relocated to the casing.
As such, Gu discloses the following elements:
the casing is provided with a cylindrical protrusion (Gu, Annotated Fig. 2, below),
the side wall of the movable rod is provided with a plurality of openings matched with the cylindrical protrusions(Gu, Annotated Fig. 2, below),
and the cylindrical protrusions are clamped with the openings (Gu, Annotated Fig. 2, below).
However, MPEP §2144.04 recites that the rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
In this instance, Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to highlight or explain a new and unexpected result from the rearrangement of the cylindrical protrusions and the openings between the movable rod and casing of the support rod. While the limitations of claim 13 are considered, the rearrangement of parts does not impart patentability to an invention.
Therefore, since the inclusion of a movable rod inserted into, and slidably connected with the casing along with the inclusion of the cylindrical protrusion and plurality of holes would allow for the adjustment of the bath stand to fit varying baby heights, the modified device of Gu, Guo, and Schroeder, as applied to claim 12, through Gu teaches in the art of baby products the invention of claim 13.
PNG
media_image6.png
953
854
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Gu, Annotated Fig. 2.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu, Guo, and Schroeder in view of Jameson, LLC (Jameson LLC, Professional Tree Care Tools - Operation and Safety Manual, rev. 11/2022), hereinafter JAMESON.
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Gu, Guo, and Schroeder, as applied to claim 13, teaches the invention substantially as claimed, including all of the elements of the claim 14 except for an elastic sheet and a first bump arranged below the casing, and the first bump is positioned on the elastic sheet.
JAMESON teaches that which is old and well-known in the art of locks and latching mechanisms the following elements:
an elastic sheet and a first bump are arranged below the casing,
and the first bump is positioned on the elastic sheet (JAMESON, Annotated image from Pg. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of baby products before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified invention of Gu, Guo, and Schroeder to utilize the elastic sheet and first bump elements (JAMESON, Annotated image from Pg. 4, below) in the teachings of JAMESON in the related art of locking and latching mechanisms to provide for a means of locking the support in a folded or erect position.
PNG
media_image7.png
810
782
media_image7.png
Greyscale
JAMESON, Annotated image from Pg. 4.
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Gu, Guo, Schroeder and JAMESON, as applied to claim 14, through Schroeder teaches the invention substantially as claimed, including all of the elements of the claim 15 except for:
the base comprises a first sliding hole,
a second sliding hole,
a first button and a second button,
and the first bump can enter the first sliding hole and the second sliding hole.
Schroeder teaches in the art of locking and latching mechanisms the first sliding hole and a first button (Schroeder, Annotated Fig. 2) and, by duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI, “REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS”), a second sliding hole and a second button, wherein the first bump can enter the first or second sliding hole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of baby products before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified invention of Gu, Guo, Schroeder and JAMESON through Schroeder to utilize the first and second sliding holes and first and second bumps in the teachings of Schroeder in the related art of locking and latching mechanisms to provide for a means of locking the support in a folded or erect position.
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Gu, Guo, and Schroeder, as applied to claim 11, teaches the invention substantially as claimed, including all of the elements of claim 16 of the current invention except for the following elements:
a rotating shaft mechanism is arranged between the supporting rod and the base,
and the supporting rod is rotatably connected with the base through a rotating shaft mechanism.
Guo teaches in the art of locking and latching mechanisms a rotating shaft mechanism is arranged between the supporting rod and the base (Guo, Annotated Fig. 4, above) and the supporting rod is rotatably connected with the base through a rotating shaft mechanism (Guo, Annotated Fig. 4, above).
Therefore, since the inclusion of a rotating shaft mechanism would allow for folding the support for stowing or erecting the support for use, the modified device of Gu, Guo, and Schroeder, as applied to claim 11, through Guo teaches the invention of claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ming (US 7156405 B1) discloses a folding scooter with a concave-convex locking mechanism for folding the steering column which shows similarities to embodiment #3 of the instant invention.
Isensee (US 6394005 B1) discloses articulated locking system or a folding table leg system for locking and unlocking a table leg in a folded or upright position and has a convex-concave locking mechanism.
Wezel, et al (US 2024/0123902 A) discloses a folding joint for a rear-view display with convex-concave hinge with multiple locking positions.
Spence, et al (US 20140008951A1) discloses a Pivotal Handle Lock/Release Mechanism for Child Car Seat which includes a convex-concave locking mechanism with a plurality of lock tracks or slots aligned with a slider (bum), a spring and a press button.
Zhu (CN 118062095 A) discloses a rotatable folding seat joint mechanism with a concave-convex locking mechanism with a plurality of locking positions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN RAYMOND ETZEL whose telephone number is (571)305-5217. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00a-5:00p Fri 7:00a-11:00p.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571- 272-4459. 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.
/ALAN RAYMOND ETZEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights