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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the following in the reply filed on 3/25/26 is acknowledged:
Species A-I: two base panels
Species B-I: two side panels per side
Species C-I: magnets present with the base panels and hinge to maintain the base panels in open position
Species D-I: including retractable legs
Species E-I: including middle legs
Species F-I: including cutouts / voids on the underside of the base panels and the header and footer panels
Species G-I: including magnets to hold the side panels in a closed position against the base panel
Species H-I: including cutouts/voids on the underside of the header and footer panels to accommodate cross braces when folded
Species I-I: including a closing assist mechanism comprising a closing strap and a cable along with a connection between the underside of the header panel at one end and the footer panel at the other end
Species J-I: including a shallow void on the underside of each portion of the base panels which accommodates the header and footer panels when folded
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. The claim recites “an baby change table” instead of –a baby change table--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation “wherein the at least two base panels are hinged to each and movable between…” The recitation renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear as to what structure the panels are hinged. It appears that the claim may be missing a word or multiple words after “each.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation that there are “at least two panels” and “each having a first side edge and a second side edge.” The claim continues to recite “first side panels and second side panels hingedly attached to the first side edge and the second side edge respectively of the base panels.” The italicized portion above lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the side edge of each of the base panels.” The recitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Each panel has multiple side edges.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein each leg comprises two legs…” It is not clear how a leg can comprise two legs. The claim is therefore indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the leg.” The recitation lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “sized as an baby change table.” It is unclear what previously recited element is being sized as a baby change table or whether applicant intends for the entirety of the apparatus to be sized as a baby change table.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “sized as an baby change table.” The recitation is beyond broad and renders the claim indefinite. Baby change tables come in a wide array of sizes and therefore it is not possible to determine the scope of the claim.
The claims rejected above are rejected below as best understood.
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) 1-3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block (US Patent No. US 2903313 A) in view of Emerson (US Patent No. US 7735170 B1).
Re Claim 1
Block discloses:
A portable folding table (see all figures) comprising:
a) a planar base comprised of at least two panels (36 and 38), one having a header edge (e.g. 36 edge toward the left side panel in fig. 1), another having a footer edge (e.g. 38 edge toward the right side panel in fig 1), and each having a first side edge and a second side edge (fig. 1), wherein the at least two base panels are hinged to each and moveable between a folded position and an open position (figs. 1 and 4);
…
c) a header panel and a footer panel (32 and 34) hingedly attached to the header edge and footer edge respectively (fig. 1), and each moveable between a folded position and an open position (figs. 1 and 4).
Block does not explicitly disclose:
b) first side panels and second side panels hingedly attached to the first side edge and the second side edge respectively of the base panels, wherein each side panel is moveable between a folded position and an open position.
Emerson teaches the above in fig. 1 and in the disclosure further states “In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, stabilizing platform (10) includes two stabilizing sections (30), however, in alternative embodiments more or fewer stabilizing sections (30) are included along the right and/or left edges along length (l) of center section (20).” The teachings of Emerson improve safety and stability, preventing / inhibiting / limiting child movement during use. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Block with the teachings of Emerson, see above, for the purpose(s) as articulated above.
Re Claim 2
Block as modified above discloses:
wherein the side panels fold against an upper side of the base panels (see Emerson Figs. 1-3 and the modification above) and the header and footer panels fold against an underside of the base panels (see Block figs. 1-4, in particular fig. 2), and the two base panels fold such that the footer panel and header panel are adjacent each other in an interior of the folded assembly (see figs. 2 and/or 3).
Re Claim 3
Block as modified above discloses:
further comprising a plurality of folding legs (fig. 1, legs 138, 140, 142, 144).
Re Claim 12
Block as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
sized as an baby change table.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have the size be sized as a baby change table, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block (US Patent No. US 2903313 A) in view of Emerson (US Patent No. US 7735170 B1) and further in view of Teichner (US Patent No. US 4887536 A).
Re Claim 4
Block as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
further comprising an opening strap attached to one of the header panel or the footer panel.
Teichner teaches an opening strap attached to one of the header panel or the footer panel (fig. 1) for securing panels / opening the table. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Block as modified above to include the teachings of Teichner for the purpose(s) as identified above.
Re Claim 5
Block as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
further comprising opening tabs positioned on the side edge of each of the base panels, such that they are opposite each other when the base panels are folded.
Teichner teaches opening tabs on base panels that are opposite each other when the panels are folded (see figs. 1-2) to facilitate opening, closing, and transport of the apparatus. In Teichner, however, they are not located on the side edge of the panels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Block as modified above to include the teachings of Teichner as articulated above for the purpose(s) as articulated above and it would further have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have them positioned on the side edge of each of the base panels, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Such a modification would have permitted easier opening from the side rather than or in addition to the end.
Re Claim 6
Block as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the opening tabs are opposite and staggered when the base panels are folded, permitting manipulation by a one-handed thumb and forefinger operation.
it would further have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the opening tabs opposite and staggered when the base panels are folded, permitting manipulation by a one-handed thumb and forefinger operation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Such a modification would make it easier to open/close without pinching fingers.
Re Claim 10
Block as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the side panels comprise corner finger holds accessible when the side panels are in their folded position, for opening the side panel.
Teichner teaches panels with finger holds on a side of the panel which are accessible when in the folded position, for opening of the panel (see figs. 1-2) and to make it easier for a user to grip the element. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Block as modified above to include the limitations above as taught by Teichner for the purpose(s) as articulated above.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block (US Patent No. US 2903313 A) in view of Emerson (US Patent No. US 7735170 B1) and further in view of Official Notice.
Re Claim 7
Block as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
comprising repelling magnets positioned on the header and footer panels to repel each other during an unfolding movement.
Examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to use repelling magnets to repel each other during an unfolding movement and that the placement of magnets at positions which contact each other or are close to each other, i.e. in this instance the header and footer panels, is old and well known to facilitate the desired movement, e.g. opening. It is additionally noted that the opposite, using attracting magnets is similarly old and well known to facilitate closures. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Block as modified above to include repelling magnets positioned on the header and footer panels to repel each other during an unfolding movement to facilitate opening / unfolding for ease of use of the user.
Re Claim 8
Block as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein each leg comprises two legs pivotally connected to each other at one end and adjacent panels at another end, such that the leg folds and unfolds automatically by folding or unfolding the adjacent panels.
The above is old and well known in the art in which is it is common to have legs connected to each other at one end and the panels at another with the legs configured, arranged, and structured so as to fold / unfold automatically with the folding / unfolding of adjacent panels for the purpose of facilitating assembly / disassembly. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Block as modified above to include the limitations above for the purpose of facilitating assembly / disassembly.
Re Claim 9
Block as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
further comprising a closing strap mounted to the base panels, and attached to a cord or cable strung between the footer panel and the header panel, such that pulling on the closing strap urges the footer and header panel towards their folded position.
It is old and well known in the art to use closing straps (or cords or other similar types of pull mechanisms) mounted to base panels and attached to a cord or cable strung between the footer panel and the header panel, such that pulling on the closing strap urges the footer and header panel towards their folded position for the purpose of facilitating closing of the apparatus, i.e. the foldable table. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include modify Block as modified above to include the limitations above for the purpose of facilitating closing of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block (US Patent No. US 2903313 A) in view of Emerson (US Patent No. US 7735170 B1) and further in view of Teichner (US Patent No. US 4887536 A) and Official Notice.
Re Claim 11
Block as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein each side panel comprises a magnet for maintaining the side panel in the folded position.
Examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to use magnets for maintaining structures in a folded configuration and that the placement of magnets at positions which contact each other or are close to each other, i.e. in this instance the side panels, is old and well known to facilitate the desired movement, e.g. folding / closing / securing for the purpose(s) of to secure the element and prevent damage or harm to the product or the user and/or to facilitate portability. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Block as modified above such that each side panel comprises a magnet for maintaining the side panel in the folded position to secure the element and prevent damage or harm to the product or the user and/or to facilitate portability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional infant supports, changing tables, folding tables, and combinations thereof are provided. Most are hinged / collapsible / foldable and several provide additional safety supports such as side panels. Tables with automatically folding/unfolding legs are also provided. Tables with folding configurations enabled by pulling a cord or strap are also provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights