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 .
Remarks
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/897,699 filed on 09/06/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are illegible and unfit for examination or reproduction. An example is below.
PNG
media_image1.png
990
1522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." See MPEP 2181.I.A.
Such claim limitation(s) in the instant application is/are:
“wherein said connection component comprises a retractable component configured to attach at least one item to said accessory structure” in claim 20.
The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply to a claim limitation that does not use the term "means" is overcome when "the claim term fails to 'recite sufficiently definite structure' or else recites 'function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.' The following three prong analysis is used:
a) Does the claim limitation use the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function?
Yes. The term “component” is considered non-structural terms having no specific structural meaning = generic placeholder.
b) Is the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"?
Yes. The generic placeholder is modified by functional language “configured to attach at least one item to said accessory structure”.
c) Is the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function?
No. Claim 20 does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “wherein said connection component comprises a retractable component configured to attach at least one item to said accessory structure” in claim 20 is interpreted per the specification at [00182] FIGS. 18A and 18B are a closer view of the connection component 505 in accordance with some embodiments. As shown, the connection component is a central puck 505 and may include a retractable D-ring 507 or other similar component that faces the interior of the portable crib 100 and can be used, for example, to attach items (e.g., a mobile or other hanging item) to the accessory structure 500 so that they are accessible and/or visible to a child in the portable crib 100.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 8, the claim depends from itself and is thus indefinite.
Claim 9 is rejected via dependency.
As to claim 10, the claim recites “said bottom fabric piece” which lacks antecedent basis.
For the purpose of examination claim 8 is interpreted as depending from claim 7.
NOTE: any prior art rejection provided below is made as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2015/0007387 A1, hereinafter D1.
As to claim 1.
D1 discloses a portable crib comprising:
a collapsible frame (frame unit 1 in fig. 1; shown collapsed in fig. 13) with a top end (see annotated figure 1) and a bottom end (see annotated figure 1), and comprising a plurality of end rails (see annotated figure 1), side rails (see annotated figure 1), corner pieces (11) and legs (13), wherein said plurality of end rails (see annotated figure 1), side rails (see annotated figure 1), corner pieces (11), and legs (13) are configured to be removably coupled and, when coupled, said plurality of end rails (see annotated figure 1), side rails (see annotated figure 1), corner pieces (11), and legs (13) define a deployed frame (frame unit 1, fig. 1), and an interior and an exterior of said deployed frame (frame unit 1, fig. 1);
a plurality of feet (see annotated figure 1 at distal end of 13) configured to removably attach to said legs (13) at said bottom end of said deployed frame (frame unit 1, fig. 1); and
fabric (cloth enclosure 31 of covering unit 3, fig.1) configured to removably attach (via 34 in fig. 1 and [0043]) to said feet from said interior of said deployed frame (frame unit 1, fig. 1) and to said exterior of said deployed frame (frame unit 1, fig. 1) through said interior and over said top end (fig. 1).
As to claim 10.
D1 discloses wherein said bottom fabric piece (interpreted as the bottom end) comprises a plurality of straps (34 in fig. 1) configured to connect said bottom fabric piece to said feet (fig. 1).
As to claim 13.
D1 discloses wherein said feet are capable of being removably connected to the ground (by virtue of the frame unit 1 being portable).
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0075670 A1, hereinafter D2.
PNG
media_image2.png
938
1164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1.
D2 discloses a portable crib comprising:
a collapsible frame (collapsible device 100 in fig. 1) with a top end (see annotated figure 1) and a bottom end (see annotated figure 1), and comprising a plurality of end rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), side rails (the other one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), corner pieces (corner 114) and legs (see annotated figure 1 and ends of legs are shown in figs. 7A-7B and 8), wherein said plurality of end rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), side rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), corner pieces (corner 114), and legs (see annotated figure 1) are configured to be removably coupled and, when coupled, said plurality of end rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), side rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), corner pieces (corner 114), and legs (see annotated figure 1) define a deployed frame (as in fig. 1), and an interior and an exterior of said deployed frame (fig. 4);
a plurality of feet (fig. 8, 825 and [0065]) configured to removably attach to said legs at said bottom end of said deployed frame ([0065] For example, as shown in FIG. 8, the adaptable feature 825 can have an angled foot configuration. The angled foot configuration of the adaptable feature 825 can have, for example, a variety of different bottom surfaces for providing a variety of traction and engagement with various surfaces and terrains); and
fabric (fig. 4 a flexible material component 303) configured to removably attach to said feet ([0055]) from said interior of said deployed frame and to said exterior of said deployed frame through said interior and over said top end (fig. 4).
D2 does not explicitly disclose wherein said plurality of end rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), side rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), corner pieces (corner 114), and legs (see annotated figure 1) are configured to be removably coupled.
However, MPEP 2144.04.V provides it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make something removable it were considered desirable for any reason to do so. Here it would be desirable to provide the ability to remove components for replacement in the event of damage during use or transportation of the portable device of D2.
As to claim 6.
D2 does not explicitly disclose wherein said legs are 21 inches or less and said feet are 2.5 inches or greater.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having wherein said legs are 21 inches or less and said feet are 2.5 inches or greater solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device.
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 device of D2 to have the claimed dimensions, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
As to claim 7.
D2 further discloses wherein said fabric (fig. 4 a flexible material component 303) comprises a top fabric piece (perimeter portion generally indicated by 304) and a bottom fabric piece (bottom portion 305) with a side fabric piece (generally indicated by 303) situated between and attached to said top fabric piece and said bottom fabric piece (as in fig. 4).
As to claim 11.
D2 discloses wherein said feet (shown as 825 in fig. 8) are removably connected to said legs through a detent mechanism (826, fig. 8).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0075670 A1, hereinafter D2, in view of US 2022/0218120, hereinafter D3.
PNG
media_image3.png
1119
1251
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8.
D2 does not explicitly wherein said side fabric piece is removably attached in between said top fabric piece and said bottom fabric piece.
D3 is in a related field of portable cribs (abstract) and teaches a fabric portions which are removable coupled (see annotated figure 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D3 to provide the claimed limitation for the purpose of providing access to the interior of the crib from the side. An invention created through a substitution of one known element (a side with no access door) for another (a side with a door) to obtain predictable results (the ability to access the interior through the side) is obvious.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0075670 A1, hereinafter D2, in view of US 2022/0218120, hereinafter D3, and further in view of US 2010/0319122, hereinafter D4.
As to claim 9.
D1 does not explicitly disclose further comprising a self-inflating mattress configured to removably attach to said bottom fabric piece.
D4 is in a related field (abstract) and teaches a portable crib with a self-inflating mattress (210 in fig. 11; [0045]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D4 to provide the claimed limitation for the purpose of providing supportive but comfortable base layer for the child ([0045]). An invention created through a substitution of one known element (a mattress) for another (a self-inflating mattress) to obtain predictable results (a comfortable surface) is obvious.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0075670 A1, hereinafter D2, in view of US 10,463,170, hereinafter D5.
As to claim 12.
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein said bottom fabric piece is configured with a plurality of loops and said feet are configured with attachment points for said loops.
D5 teaches a collapsible play yard (abstract) and teaches bottom fabric piece (40 in fig. 6) is configured with a plurality of loops (one loop 52) and said feet are configured with attachment points (50) for said loops.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D5 to provide the claim limitation for the purpose of providing a secure mounting point for the liner. An invention created through a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0075670 A1, hereinafter D2, in view of US 7,376,993, hereinafter D6.
As to claim 14.
D2 discloses a portable crib system ([0003]) comprising:
a collapsible frame (collapsible device 100 in fig. 1) with a top end (see annotated figure 1) and a bottom end (see annotated figure 1), and comprising a plurality of end rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), side rails (the other one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), corner pieces (corner 114) and legs (see annotated figure 1 and ends of legs are shown in figs. 7A-7B and 8), wherein said plurality of end rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), side rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), corner pieces (corner 114), and legs (see annotated figure 1) are configured to be removably coupled and, when coupled, said plurality of end rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), side rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), corner pieces (corner 114), and legs (see annotated figure 1) define a deployed frame (as in fig. 1), and an interior and an exterior of said deployed frame (fig. 4);
a plurality of feet (fig. 8, 825 and [0065]) configured to removably attach to said legs at said bottom end of said deployed frame ([0065] For example, as shown in FIG. 8, the adaptable feature 825 can have an angled foot configuration. The angled foot configuration of the adaptable feature 825 can have, for example, a variety of different bottom surfaces for providing a variety of traction and engagement with various surfaces and terrains); and
fabric (fig. 4 a flexible material component 303) configured to removably attach to said feet ([0055]) from said interior of said deployed frame and to said exterior of said deployed frame through said interior and over said top end (fig. 4).
D2 does not explicitly disclose wherein said plurality of end rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), side rails (one of opposing first rails 110 or opposing second rails 112), corner pieces (corner 114), and legs (see annotated figure 1) are configured to be removably coupled.
However, MPEP 2144.04.V provides it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make something removable it were considered desirable for any reason to do so. Here it would be desirable to provide the ability to remove components for replacement in the event of damage during use or transportation of the portable device of D2.
D2 does not explicitly disclose a collapsible accessory structure that removably attaches to said top end of said portable crib.
D5 is in a related field and teaches a play gym 10 is structured to suspend an object such as a toy above a play yard 14 (fig. 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D5 to provide a collapsible accessory structure (figs. 3-4) that removably attaches (fig. 1) to said top end of a portable crib (14 in fig. 1) as recited in claim 14 for the purpose of providing and enhanced experience for a child within the crib. An invention created through combining known elements obtain predictable results is obvious.
As to claim 15.
D2 as modified teaches wherein said collapsible accessory structure (fig. 1) comprises a plurality of ribs (legs 22 in fig. 7) that emanate from a connection component (20 in fig. 4), each of said ribs (22) having a crib end (68) configured to removably attach to said top end of said collapsible frame of said portable crib (fig. 1) and a connection component end configured to removably attach to said connection component (col. 5, ln. 54+ describes connection).
As to claim 20.
D2 as modified teaches wherein said connection component comprises a retractable component configured to attach at least one item to said accessory structure (interpreted per 36 U.S.C. 112(f), supra, as retractable D-ring 507 or other similar component …, this encompasses the split rings 82 of D2).
Claim(s) 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0075670 A1, hereinafter D2 in view of US 7,376,993, hereinafter D6, and further in view of US 6,357,462 B1, hereinafter D7.
As to claim 16-17 and 19.
D2 does not explicitly disclose further comprising at least one accessory configured to be supported by said accessory structure and connect to said portable crib.
D7 teaches a portable playpen including at least one accessory (40 in fig. 7) configured to be supported by an accessory structure (30 in fig. 2) and connect to a portable crib (represented by base 20); wherein said at least one accessory is configured to be removably connect to said feet of said portable crib (fig. 7); and the accessory is a shade (col. 5, ln. 25+).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D5 to provide the limitations recited in claims 16-17 and 19 for the purpose of providing and enhanced experience for a child within the crib. An invention created through combining known elements obtain predictable results is obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as each further discloses a state of the art.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or pointed out by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. T. Newton, Esq. whose telephone number is (313)446-4899. The examiner can normally be reached 0700-1500 M-F.
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, SPE 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.
/J. T. Newton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673 27 February 2026