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 .
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 1-10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Publication #2014/0319189 to Telford (Telford), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0196374 to Chen (Chen).
With Respect to Claim 1
For clarity, it is noted that Telford discloses multiple embodiments and some drawings (e.g. FIGS. 4A-B) show subparts that are disclosed as also being used/usable with any or all other embodiments, and this rejection will reference the drawings that show a particular subpart which is relevant to that limitation of the claim, and the rejection is considered to include any of the embodiments which have corresponding parts meeting the limitations of the claim.
Telford discloses an adjustable child carrier comprising: one or more adjustable shoulder straps (e.g. 150, 350); a main body (e.g. 120 and 200, or 320, 330, and related structure) configured to support a child against a torso of a user, the main body comprising: a seat portion (e.g. 120, 325); and one or more thigh supports (e.g. 140 or 340), wherein each of the one or more thigh supports defines a first end portion and a second end portion, wherein the one or more thigh supports cooperate with the seat portion to form a bucket seat (see, e.g. FIG. 1A and description); a waist belt (310); wherein the second end portion of each of the one or more thigh supports (noting e.g. 214 or the end with 408, FIGS. 2A, 3 and 4A-B) is configured to selectively couple to a first attachment point or a second attachment point (noting 410, FIGS. 4A-B) defined by the main body to thereby adjust a top width of the bucket seat (capable of this use which is also the intended use); but does not explicitly state that the waist belt defines a first position, a second position, and a third position, and one or more base adjusters, each of the one or more base adjusters coupled to the first end portion of the one or more thigh supports, wherein the one or more base adjusters are configured to selectively attach the one or more thigh supports to the waist belt at the first position, the second position, or the third position to thereby adjust a base width of the bucket seat.
However, Telford discloses with respect to another, similar embodiment that “at least one of the end portions of each thigh support strap 140 may be selectively coupled” and that the carrier can include a securing mechanism to secure first end portions (212) at multiple locations ([0041]), and that the first end portions (212) can be coupled to the waist belt.
It is Examiner’s position that the disclosure of securement mechanisms at multiple locations to attach the first end portions to the waist belt inherently discloses/encompasses using three such securement mechanism locations, and therefore meets the limitation of the waist belt defining a first position, a second position, and a third position, and one or more base adjusters, each of the one or more base adjusters coupled to the first end portion of the one or more thigh supports, wherein the one or more base adjusters are configured to selectively attach the one or more thigh supports to the waist belt at the first position, the second position, or the third position to thereby adjust a base width of the bucket seat.
Alternately, to the degree that some other interpretation might be possible, the disclosure of multiple attachment locations for the end (212) and the disclosure of adjusting the seat width using similar adjusters on the other end (214 corresponding to the end with 408 in FIGS. 4A-4B) clearly renders obvious the use of attachment points to adjust the base width and the use of three such points is obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate number of adjustment locations and/or as using three instead of only two as is shown in the example drawing of FIGS. 4A-B constitutes at most a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Alternately, Chen discloses forming a similar child carrier with adjustable thigh supports and a waist belt, wherein the waist belt defines a first position and a second position, and one or more base adjusters, each of the one or more base adjusters coupled to the first end portion of the one or more thigh supports, wherein the one or more base adjusters are configured to selectively attach the one or more thigh supports to the waist belt at the first position or the second position to thereby adjust a base width of the bucket seat, which provides additional evidence of the obviousness of and/or motivation to form the multiple adjusters and positions of Telford to do so.
With Respect to Claim 2
The adjustable child carrier of claim 1, wherein selectively attaching the one or more thigh supports to the waist belt at the first position adjusts the base width of the bucket seat to a first base width, wherein selectively attaching the one or more thigh supports to the waist belt at the second position adjusts the base width of the bucket seat to a second base width greater than the first base width, wherein selectively attaching the one or more thigh supports to the waist belt at the third position adjusts the base width of the bucket seat to a third base width greater than the second base width and the first base width.
With Respect to Claim 3
The adjustable child carrier of claim 2, wherein the adjustable child carrier is configured to support a toddler when the base width is adjusted to the third base width, wherein the adjustable child carrier is configured to support an infant when the base width is adjusted to the first base width (it is Examiner’s position that it will do so with an appropriately sized toddler and infant, or alternately sizing it so as to do so constitutes at most a mere selection of an art appropriate size or a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)), or mere routine optimization to size the carrier to hold children of a desired size at each width).
Alternately, Chen discloses forming a similar child carrier to hold an infant or a toddler (see, e.g. [0031]) which provides additional motivation to have the carrier hold an infant at one size and a toddler at another size in order to provide maximum comfort to a child of each of these sizes when carried.
With Respect to Claim 4
The adjustable child carrier of claim 1, wherein selectively attaching the one or more thigh supports to the waist belt at the first position, the second position, or the third position adjusts a depth of the bucket seat (it is Examiner’s position that this is inherent as the depth of the bucket seat will change depending on the tension on the material when attached at each location).
With Respect to Claim 5
The adjustable child carrier of claim 4, wherein selectively attaching the one or more thigh supports to the waist belt at the first position adjusts the depth to a first depth, wherein selectively attaching the one or more thigh supports to the waist belt at the second position adjusts the depth to a second depth less than the first depth, wherein selectively attaching the one or more thigh supports to the waist belt at the third position adjusts the depth to a third depth less than the first depth and the second depth.
With Respect to Claim 6
The adjustable child carrier of claim 1, further comprising: one or more gussets (390) located between the seat portion and the one or more thigh supports, wherein selectively attaching the one or more thigh supports to the waist belt at the first position closes the one or more gussets, wherein selectively attaching the one or more thigh supports to the waist belt at the third position opens the one or more gussets ([0066] discloses the gussets act as a biasing mechanism and prevent gaps in the seat, it is Examiner’s position that it would be obvious to locate the base width adjusters so as to open the gussets when located further out and close them when further in as a mere selection of an art appropriate location for the adjusters, as the particular gusset size at each position is a matter of obvious design choice and/or routine optimization and/or constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)).
With Respect to Claim 7
For clarity, it is noted that Telford discloses multiple embodiments and some drawings (e.g. FIGS. 4A-B) show subparts that are disclosed as also being used/usable with any or all other embodiments, and this rejection will reference the drawings that show a particular subpart which is relevant to that limitation of the claim, and the rejection is considered to include any of the embodiments which have corresponding parts meeting the limitations of the claim.
An adjustable child carrier comprising: one or more adjustable shoulder straps (e.g. 150, 350); a neck support (e.g. 170, 370); a first set of neck support fasteners (e.g. 172 or the same structure disclosed but not shown with respect to the FIG. 3 embodiment); a second set of neck support fasteners (e.g. 174), wherein the neck support is configured to selectively attach to the first set of neck support fasteners or the second set of neck support fasteners to adjust the neck support ([0035]); a main body (e.g. 120 and 200, or 320, 330, and related structure) configured to support a child against a torso of a user, the main body comprising: a torso support portion (e.g. 200, 332); a seat portion (e.g. 120, 325); and one or more thigh supports (e.g. 140, 340), wherein the one or more thigh supports cooperate with the seat portion to form a bucket seat; a waist belt (e.g. 110, 310) defining a first position, a second position, and a third position (per [0041] and/or obvious duplication of parts and/or Chen); and one or more base adjusters (e.g. [0041] discloses the use of various securing mechanisms such as buttons or hook and loop material on the end of the strap attached to the waist belt, which are base adjusters as claimed, or snaps per [0041] and Chen) coupled to the one or more thigh supports, wherein the one or more base adjusters selectively attach the one or more thigh supports to the waist belt at the first position, the second position, or the third position to thereby adjust a base width of the bucket seat (inherent or obvious, see the rejection of claim 1 above for details), wherein selectively coupling the one or more thigh supports to a first attachment point or a second attachment point (noting attachment points defined by 410, FIGS. 4A-B) adjusts a top width of the bucket seat, wherein the torso support portion defines the first attachment point and the second attachment point (FIGS. 4A-4B and description).
With Respect to Claim 8
The adjustable child carrier of claim 7, wherein each of the one or more thigh supports defines a first end portion and a second end portion, wherein selectively coupling the second end portion of each of the one or more thigh supports to the first attachment point adjusts the top width to a first top width, wherein selectively coupling the second end portion of each of the one or more thigh supports to the second attachment point adjusts the top width to a second top width greater than the first top width ([0041], FIGS. 4A-B).
With Respect to Claim 9
The adjustable child carrier of claim 8, wherein, when the top width is adjusted to the first top width, the adjustable child carrier is configured to support a child in an outward facing orientation, wherein, when the top width is adjusted to the second top width, the adjustable child carrier is configured to support a child in an inward facing orientation (FIGS. 5A-5C show both orientations, it is Examiner’s position that either position can be used in either orientation, or alternately forming each position to support a particular orientation as claimed would be obvious as it constitutes mere routine optimization, i.e. merely locating the adjustment locations to maximize comfort in a given orientation).
With Respect to Claim 10
The adjustable child carrier of claim 8, wherein the first attachment point and the second attachment point each comprises a button (e.g. [0006, 0021, 0041, 0044] disclose the use of buttons to attach each end), wherein the second end portion of each of the one or more thigh supports defines a hole, wherein the hole of each of the one or more thigh supports receives the button at the first attachment point or the second attachment point to thereby adjust the top width of the bucket seat.
With Respect to Claim 15
For clarity, it is noted that Telford discloses multiple embodiments and some drawings (e.g. FIGS. 4A-B) show subparts that are disclosed as also being used/usable with any or all other embodiments, and this rejection will reference the drawings that show a particular subpart which is relevant to that limitation of the claim, and the rejection is considered to include any of the embodiments which have corresponding parts meeting the limitations of the claim.
An adjustable child carrier comprising: one or more adjustable shoulder straps (e.g. 150, 350); a main body configured to support a child against a torso of a user, the main body comprising: a seat portion (e.g. 120, 325; a first thigh support (e.g. 140, 340); and a second thigh support (e.g. the other 140, 340), wherein each of the first thigh support and the second thigh support defines a first end portion and a second end portion, wherein the first thigh support and the second thigh support cooperate with the seat portion to form a bucket seat; a waist belt (e.g. 110, 310) defining a first set of positions, a second set of positions, and a third set of positions (per disclosure of multiple positions or obvious duplication of parts); a first base adjuster (per [0041]) coupled to the first thigh support; and a second base adjuster (per [0041]) coupled to the second thigh support, wherein the first base adjuster and the second base adjuster are configured to selectively attach the first end portion of the first thigh support and the first end portion of the second thigh support to the waist belt at any of the first set of positions, the second set of positions, or the third set of positions to thereby adjust a base width of the bucket seat, wherein the second end portion of the first thigh support and the second end portion of the second thigh support are configured to selectively couple to a first set of attachment points or a second set of attachment points (noting 410, FIGS. 4A-B) to thereby adjust a top width of the bucket seat, wherein the first set of attachment points and the second set of attachment points are located on the main body (FIGS. 4A-B).
With Respect to Claim 16
The adjustable child carrier of claim 15, wherein selectively attaching the first end portion of the first thigh support and the first end portion of the second thigh support to the waist belt at the first set of positions adjusts the base width to a first base width, wherein selectively attaching the first end portion of the first thigh support and the first end portion of the second thigh support to the waist belt at the second set of positions adjusts the base width to a second base width greater than the first base width, and wherein selectively attaching the first end portion of the first thigh support and the first end portion of the second thigh support to the waist belt at the third set of positions adjusts the base width to a third base width greater than the first base width and the second base width (inherent in the differing locations and FIGS. 4A-B showing the different locations adjusting width and/or clearly obvious in view of this disclosure).
With Respect to Claim 17
The adjustable child carrier of claim 15, wherein selectively attaching the first end portion of the first thigh support and the first end portion of the second thigh support to the waist belt at any of the first set of positions, the second set of positions, or the third set of positions adjusts the base width and a depth of the bucket seat (inherent or obvious, for clarity it is Examiner’s position that adjusting the width will also inherently adjust the depth as the thigh supports will have different tension/slack depending on the location which will result in different depths for the seat, or to the degree some other construction might be possible, using locations that do so is an obvious selection of an appropriate location for the positions).
With Respect to Claim 18
The adjustable child carrier of claim 17, wherein selectively attaching the first end portion of the first thigh support and the first end portion of the second thigh support to the waist belt at the first set of positions adjusts the depth to a first depth, wherein selectively attaching the first end portion of the first thigh support and the first end portion of the second thigh support to the waist belt at the second set of positions adjusts the depth to a second depth less than the first depth, wherein selectively attaching the first end portion of the first thigh support and the first end portion of the second thigh support to the waist belt at the third set of positions adjusts the depth to a third depth less than the first depth and the second depth.
With Respect to Claim 19
The adjustable child carrier of claim 15, further comprising: a first gusset (390) located between the seat portion and the first thigh support; a second gusset (390) located between the seat portion and the second thigh support, wherein selectively attaching the first end portion of the first thigh support and the first end portion of the second thigh support to the waist belt at the first set of positions closes the first gusset and the second gusset to thereby deepen the bucket seat, wherein selectively attaching the first end portion of the first thigh support and the first end portion of the second thigh support to the waist belt at the third set of positions opens the first gusset and the second gusset such that the bucket seat is shallower ([0066] discloses the gussets act as a biasing mechanism and prevent gaps in the seat, it is Examiner’s position that it would be obvious to locate the base width adjusters so as to open the gussets when located further out and close them when further in as a mere selection of an art appropriate location for the adjusters, as the particular gusset size at each position is a matter of obvious design choice and/or routine optimization and/or constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)).
With Respect to Claim 20
The adjustable child carrier of claim 15, wherein the one or more adjustable shoulder straps are adjustable to configure the adjustable child carrier in a front carry position, a back carry position, or a side carry position (see, e.g. the shoulder straps shown as having common adjustment buckles, and e.g. [0068] disclosing the harness taking on any of these three configurations as well as e.g. FIGS. 5A-B and 6-7 showing the harness shoulder straps adjusted to different positions for the side carry position than the other positions).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Publication #2014/0319189 to Telford (Telford), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0196374 to Chen (Chen).
With Respect to Claim 11
The adjustable child carrier of claim 7, but Telford does not detail the particular locations of the first, second, and third positions, and so does not disclose wherein the first position, the second position, and the third position are located on an interior side of the waist belt.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to locate the first, second, and third positions on the interior side of the waist belt, as a mere selection of an art appropriate location for them or at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 214404).
Alternately, Chen discloses similar attachment positions for thigh support straps on the interior side of a waist belt, which provides additional evidence of the obviousness of and/or sufficient motivation to locate that first, second, and third positions in this location.
Claims 12- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Publication #2014/0319189 to Telford (Telford), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0196374 to Chen (Chen) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #4,139,131 to Hathaway (Hathaway).
With Respect to Claim 12
The adjustable child carrier of claim 7, wherein selectively attaching the neck support to the first set of neck support fasteners adjusts the neck support to a folded down configuration, wherein selectively attaching the neck support to the second set of neck support fasteners adjusts the neck support to an extended configuration, but does not disclose that attaching the neck support to the first set of neck support fasteners adjusts the neck support to an inward folded down configuration.
However, Hathaway discloses forming a similar head/neck support that is configurable in an extended configuration (Fig. 1) or an inwardly folded down configuration (inherent in folding down into that area for storage, see FIG. 2 and description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Hathawy, to locate the first set of neck support fasteners on the interior to secure the neck support in an inwardly folded down configuration in order to improve aesthetic appeal by hiding the support when not in use and/or to provide additional interior cushioning to a child in the carrier when not in use as an extended head/neck support and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04) or alternately to add an additional set of neck support fasteners in this location for those benefits and/or as a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 13
The adjustable child carrier of claim 12, wherein, in the inside folded down configuration, the neck support is configured to fill an inside portion of the adjustable child carrier to provide support for a head of an infant (inherent in it being in this location).
With Respect to Claim 14
The adjustable child carrier of claim 12, wherein, in the extended configuration, the neck support is configured to extend upward to provide additional back support for a toddler in the adjustable child carrier (inherently capable of this use with an appropriately sized toddler).
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.
Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 13-14, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,736,436 or claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 13-14, 16 of U.S. Patent #11,297,957 or claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent #11,684,175. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 3 of the ‘275 patent or claim 1 of the ‘957 patent or claims 1 and 6 of the ‘175 patent or claim 1 of the ‘818 patent disclose/render obvious all of the limitations of claims 1, 4-5, and 15 of this application, noting they disclose a main body having a seat and torso support and thigh supports that cooperate with a seat portion to form a bucket seat, and base adjusters attachable to a waist belt at first, second, and third positions to thereby adjust a base width of the bucket seat (noting e.g. ‘436 claim 1 “the upper end portion of the first thigh support strap and the upper end portion of the second thigh support strap adapted to selectively fasten to the torso support portion at multiple locations on the torso support portion to adjust the adjustable top width of the adjustable bucket seat” and that this adjusts the adjustable bucket seat depth and the ‘436 or ‘957 disclosure in claim 3 that there are three different bucket seat depths or base widths inherently discloses or clearly renders obvious having at least three such positions, as to the patents that don’t explicitly disclose three positions, having at least three would be obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate number of positions and/or a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)), wherein the second end portion of each of the one or more thigh supports is configured to selectively couple to a first attachment point or a second attachment point defined by the main body to thereby adjust a top width of the bucket seat (noting e.g. as to the ‘436 patent “the upper end portion of the first thigh support strap and the upper end portion of the second thigh support strap adapted to selectively fasten to the torso support portion at multiple locations on the torso support portion to adjust the adjustable top width of the adjustable bucket seat”), claim 1 of the ‘436 or ‘957 patent recites that selectively attaching the thigh supports adjusts the depth of the bucket seat as recited in claims 4-5 of this application, or as to the ‘175 patent claim 6’s disclosed different upper attachment locations will inherently will adjust the depth or alternately claim 1’s disclosure of adjusting the location of the lower portion of the thigh support adjusting the depth renders obvious having the upper attachment locations also do so, as to the ‘818 patent the different attachment locations will inherently modify the depth as they will result in different tensions/slack on the thigh supports or to the degree it might be possible to have the locations maintain the same depth it would be obvious to have the attachment locations modify the depth as claimed as a mere selection of an art appropriate location for these attachment locations or at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04); and all of the limitations of the other claims are the same as or similar to (and therefore disclosed by or obvious over) the limitations of the ‘436 or ‘957 or ‘175 or ‘818 patent (e.g. claim 2 of the ‘436 patent is similar to claim 2 of this application or claim 2’s limitation of three base widths from different adjustment locations of the thigh supports is inherent or obvious in view of the ‘957 or ‘175 or ‘818 claims as adjusting the thigh support locations will change the tension of the thigh support straps and thus adjust the seat depth, claims 5, 13, and 16 of the ‘436 or ‘957 disclose a configuration for holding an infant and claim 14 discloses a configuration for holding a toddler which renders obvious a first base width for supporting an infant at a first base width and a toddler at a third base width as recited in claim 3 of this application or as to the ‘175 or ‘818 application sizing it as claimed is obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate sizing to hold children of the desired size or a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)); claim 8 of the ‘436 or ‘957 or claim 1 of the ‘175 patent discloses gussets as recited in claims 6 or 19 of this application; as to claims 16-18 and 20, all of their limitations are similarly taught by/obvious over the ‘436 or ‘957 or ‘175 claims noting claim 1’s disclosure of different attachment locations adjusting bucket seat depth which will inherently result in adjusted configurations as recited in claims 16-18 or clearly render such obvious, and claims 8-10 of the ‘436 or ‘957 or claim 1 of the ‘175 patent’s disclosed gussets are located as claimed and will inherently affect seat depth as recited in claim 19 or having them do so is clearly obvious.
Claims 1-5, 15-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent #12,137,818. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the ‘818 patent discloses/render obvious all of the limitations of claims 1-5, 15-18 and 20 of this application, noting that claim 1 discloses a main body for supporting a child having a seat portion, a waist belt, and thigh supports largely as claimed, including upper adjusters for adjusting the first end of the thigh supports and lower adjusters on the waist belt for selectively attaching and adjusting the second ends of the thigh supports, although it does not disclose three positions, having at least three would be obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate number of positions and/or a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)); claim 2’s limitations are inherent or obvious in view of ‘818 claims as adjusting the thigh support locations will change the tension of the thigh support straps and thus adjust the seat depth, as to claim 3, sizing it as claimed is obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate sizing to hold children of the desired size or a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)); as to claims 4-5, the different attachment locations will inherently modify the depth as they will result in different tensions/slack on the thigh supports or to the degree it might be possible to have the locations maintain the same depth it would be obvious to have the attachment locations modify the depth as claimed as a mere selection of an art appropriate location for these attachment locations or at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04); as to claims 16-18 and 20, all of their limitations are similarly taught by/obvious over claim 1’s disclosure of different attachment locations which will inherently result in adjusted configurations as recited in claims 16-18 or clearly render such obvious.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent #12,137,818 in view of Telford. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although the ‘818 patent does not disclose gussets as recited in claims 6 and 19, however Telford discloses the use of gussets as claimed on a similar adjustable child carrier, and so it would have been obvious to add gussets to the child carrier of the ‘818 patent in order to provide additional adjustable support to the child and/or for the other benefits disclosed by Telford for its gussets (e.g. as a biasing mechanism).
Claims 7-10, 12-14, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 11-12 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,736,436 or claims 1-3, 11-12 and 19 of U.S. Patent #11,297,957 or claims 1, 7-8, 11, and 16 of U.S. Patent #11,684,175 in view of Telford. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as to claims 7 and 12, Claims 1 and 3 of the ‘436 patent (and similar corresponding claims of the ‘957 and 175 patent) disclose the shoulder straps, main body, waist belt, and thigh supports adjustable via base adjusters and first or second attachment points on the torso support portion as claimed, and claims 11-12 of the ‘436 or ‘957 or claim 8, 11, or 16 of the ‘175 patent discloses a neck support configurable in an inside folded down or extended folded up position, but does not disclose neck support fasteners; however, Telford discloses the use of different sets of neck support fasteners to secure a neck support in a folded down or extended folded up position, which renders obvious the use of neck support fasteners on the structure of the ‘436 patent for this purpose; claim 1 of the ’436 or ‘957 or claim 6 of the ‘175 patent disclose the top end portions of the thigh supports selectively coupling to first/second attachment points to adjust the top width as recited in claim 8 of this application; claims 2-3 of the ‘436 or ‘957 or claim 7 of the ‘175 patent disclose different configurations holding a child in outward or inward facing configurations which renders obvious having the different top width adjustment for each of these configurations as mere routine optimization to maximize comfort in each configuration, rendering obvious claim 9 of this application; Telford discloses the use of buttons and holes as fasteners for similar attachment points which renders obvious claim 10 of this application which recites buttons and holes for the attachment points; as to claim 13, claim 11 of Telford discloses the inside folded down position is to support a child’s neck which will inherently also support the head of an appropriately sized infant as recited in claim 13; as to claim 14, the structure is capable of this use with an appropriate sized toddler and/or constitutes at most a mere change in size/proportion (i.e. making the neck support sized to support a toddler’s back and an infant’s head is a mere selection of an art appropriate sizing or merely making it smaller/larger in order to fit in this fashion) which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)), particularly in view of claim 14 of the ‘436 or ‘957 patent disclosing supporting a toddler which renders obvious using the neck support to support a toddler’s back. As to claim 20, the ‘436 or ‘957 patent’s claim 19 discloses the three carry positions, but the ‘436 patent’s claims do not detail shoulder straps, however Telford’s disclosure of adjustable shoulder straps on a similar child carrier capable of taking on these three positions renders obvious the use of adjustable shoulder straps as part of the ‘436 carrier for this purpose; as to the ‘175 patent, Telford discloses the three carry positions and adjustable shoulder straps, which renders obvious forming the ‘175 structure to also have adjustable shoulder straps to take on those positions.
Claims 7-10, 12-14, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-7 of U.S. Patent #12,137,818. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the ‘818 patent discloses or renders obvious a child carrier having a main body portion and thigh supports as recited in claims 7-10, and claims 5-7 of the ‘818 patent disclose/render obvious a neck support and first and second set of neck support fasteners as recited in claims 7 and 12-14, noting claim 6 recites neck support fasteners securing the neck support in an upward position and claim 7 recites neck support fasteners securing the neck support in a downward position, and as to claims 13-14 sizing the neck support to support the infant’s head in the inward folded configuration and/or a toddler’s back in the extended position is inherent as it will do so with an appropriate sized infant/toddler or constitutes a mere selection of an art appropriate size/routine optimization to size it appropriately for that type of child or at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,736,436 in view of Telford or in view of Telford and Chen. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3, and 11-12 of the ‘436 patent render obvious the structure of claim 7, but does not detail the particular locations of the first, second, and third positions, and so does not disclose wherein the first position, the second position, and the third position are located on an interior side of the waist belt; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to locate the first, second, and third positions on the interior side of the waist belt, as a mere selection of an art appropriate location for them or at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 214404); or alternately, Chen discloses similar attachment positions for thigh support straps on the interior side of a waist belt, which provides additional evidence of the obviousness of and/or sufficient motivation to locate that first, second, and third positions in this location.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 11-12 of U.S. Patent #11,297,957 or claims 1 and 6 of the ‘175 patent or claim 1 of U.S. Patent #12,137,818. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the ‘957 patent discloses the thigh support straps selectively fastening to the innermost side of the waist belt, which discloses or renders obvious locating the first, second, and third attachment points on an interior side (i.e. the innermost side) of the waist belt; claim 1 of the ‘175 or the ‘818 patent discloses fastening mechanisms on the inner side of the waist belt which is the interior side.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights