DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final 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 1-3, 5-8, and 10-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12239242 (the ‘242 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the mapping in the table below.
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 12239242 (the ‘242 Patent)
Explanation
Claim 1
A bassinet comprising: an upper bassinet frame;
a pair of leg structures, each leg structure having an upper tower portion, the upper bassinet frame being disposed into the upper tower portion of each leg structure; and
a latch release slidably disposed within the upper tower portion,
and an engagement latch linked to the latch release, the engagement latch being retractably disposed within a receiving area formed on a bottom of the upper tower portion, the engagement latch arranged to engage with a top rail of a playard to lock the leg structure on the playard,
wherein when the latch release is operated, the latch release moves translationally to retract the engagement latch into the upper tower portion to release engagement between the engagement latch and the top rail to make the leg structure detachable from the playard.
Claim 17
A foldable bassinet comprising: an upper bassinet frame;
a pair of leg structures, each leg structure having an upper tower portion, the upper bassinet frame being disposed into the upper tower portion of each leg structure to make each leg structure rotatable relative to the upper bassinet frame between a supporting position and a folding position; and
a latch release slidably disposed within the upper tower portion,
and an engagement latch linked to the latch release via a vertically extending link, the engagement latch being retractably disposed within a receiving area formed on a bottom of the upper tower portion, the engagement latch arranged to engage with a top rail of a playard to lock the leg structure on the playard,
wherein when the latch release is operated, the latch release moves translationally to retract the engagement latch into the upper tower portion to release engagement between the engagement latch and the top rail to make the leg structure detachable from the playard.
Claim 1 of the present Application is broader than claim 17 of the ‘242 Patent. Claim 1 of the current application differs from claim 17 of the ‘242 Patent in the areas of the leg structures having additional rotatable functional language and the engagement latch having a vertically extending link. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the structure taught by the ‘242 Patent to remove some components while still being operable and result in the structure of the present Application. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it reduces mechanical complexity of the structure.
Claim 2
The bassinet of claim 1, wherein a carrying handle cavity is defined on the leg structure corresponding to the latch release for exposing the latch release.
Claim 3
The bassinet of claim 2,
wherein the carrying handle cavity is sized to necessitate finger actuation of the latch release.
Claim 18
The foldable bassinet of claim 17, wherein a carrying handle cavity is formed on the upper tower portion corresponding to the latch release for exposing the latch release,
wherein the handle defines a handle cavity sized to necessitate finger actuation of the latch release.
Claims 2 and 3 of the present Application are further taught by claim 18 of the ‘242 Patent. Due to dependency, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to result in claims 2 and 3 of the present Application for similar reasons as given for claim 1.
Claim 5
The bassinet of claim 1, wherein the leg structures are rotatable relative to the upper bassinet frame, and
further comprising a locking device secured to a portion of the upper bassinet frame that is disposed within an upper portion of each leg structure, the locking device arranged for movement from a locked position to prevent rotation of each leg structure relative to the upper bassinet frame to an unlocked position to enable rotation of each leg structure relative to the upper bassinet frame.
Claim 19
The foldable bassinet of claim 17,
further comprising a locking device secured to a portion of the upper bassinet frame that is disposed within the upper tower portion of each leg structure, the locking device arranged for movement from a locked position to prevent rotation of each leg structure relative to the upper bassinet frame to an unlocked position to enable rotation of each leg structure relative to the upper bassinet frame.
Claim 5 of the present Application is taught by Claim 19 of the ‘242 Patent. The first clause of claim 5 regarding the leg structures being rotatable is taught by independent claim 17 of the ‘242 Patent. The remaining clause of claim 5 differs slightly and would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given claim 19 of the ‘242 Patent for similar reasons detailed above.
Claim 6
A bassinet comprising: an upper bassinet frame;
a plurality of leg structures connected to the upper bassinet frame; and
a latch release movably disposed within each leg structure,
and an engagement latch linked to the latch release, the engagement latch being retractably disposed within a receiving area formed on a bottom of each leg structure,
the engagement latch arranged to engage with a top rail of a playard to lock the leg structure on the playard,
wherein movement of the latch release retracts the engagement latch into the leg structure to release engagement between the engagement latch and the top rail to make the leg structure detachable from the playard.
Claim 17
A foldable bassinet comprising: an upper bassinet frame;
a pair of leg structures, each leg structure having an upper tower portion, the upper bassinet frame being disposed into the upper tower portion of each leg structure to make each leg structure rotatable relative to the upper bassinet frame between a supporting position and a folding position; and
a latch release slidably disposed within the upper tower portion,
and an engagement latch linked to the latch release via a vertically extending link, the engagement latch being retractably disposed within a receiving area formed on a bottom of the upper tower portion,
the engagement latch arranged to engage with a top rail of a playard to lock the leg structure on the playard,
wherein when the latch release is operated, the latch release moves translationally to retract the engagement latch into the upper tower portion to release engagement between the engagement latch and the top rail to make the leg structure detachable from the playard.
Claim 6 of the present Application is broader than claim 17 of the ‘242 Patent. Claim 6 of the current application differs from claim 17 of the ‘242 Patent in the areas of the leg structures having additional rotatable functional language and the engagement latch having a vertically extending link. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the structure taught by the ‘242 Patent to remove some components while still being operable and result in the structure of the present Application. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it reduces mechanical complexity of the structure.
Claim 7
The bassinet of claim 6, wherein a carrying handle cavity is defined on the leg structure corresponding to the latch release for exposing the latch release.
Claim 8
The bassinet of claim 7,
wherein the carrying handle cavity is sized to necessitate finger actuation of the latch release.
Claim 18
The foldable bassinet of claim 17, wherein a carrying handle cavity is formed on the upper tower portion corresponding to the latch release for exposing the latch release,
wherein the handle defines a handle cavity sized to necessitate finger actuation of the latch release.
Claims 7 and 8 of the present Application are further taught by claim 18 of the ‘242 Patent. Due to dependency, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to result in claims 2 and 3 of the present Application for similar reasons as given for claim 6.
Claim 10
The bassinet of claim 6, wherein the leg structures are rotatable relative to the upper bassinet frame, and
further comprising a locking device secured to a portion of the upper bassinet frame that is disposed within an upper portion of each leg structure,
the locking device arranged for movement from a locked position to prevent rotation of each leg structure relative to the upper bassinet frame to an unlocked position to enable rotation of each leg structure relative to the upper bassinet frame
Claim 19
The foldable bassinet of claim 17,
further comprising a locking device secured to a portion of the upper bassinet frame that is disposed within the upper tower portion of each leg structure,
the locking device arranged for movement from a locked position to prevent rotation of each leg structure relative to the upper bassinet frame to an unlocked position to enable rotation of each leg structure relative to the upper bassinet frame.
Claim 10 of the present Application is taught by Claim 19 of the ‘242 Patent. The first clause of claim 5 regarding the leg structures being rotatable is taught by independent claim 17 of the ‘242 Patent. The remaining clause of claim 10 differs slightly and would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given claim 19 of the ‘242 Patent for similar reasons detailed above.
Claim 11
The bassinet of claim 6, wherein the engagement latch is linked to the latch release via a vertically extending link.
Claim 17
[…]
and an engagement latch linked to the latch release via a vertically extending link,
Claim 11 of the present Application, which depends on claim 6 of the present Application, is taught by claim 17 of the ‘242 Patent, which also teaches claim 6 of the present Application, and thus is obvious for similar reasons detailed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 contain allowable subject matter. Claims 12-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Examiner notes that US 20150216322 A1 to Longenecker, US 20150047122 A2 to Ingram, and US 20130326808 A1 to Saint are particularly relevant.
Regarding independent claims 1, 6, and 12, the primary reference Longenecker teaches a foldable bassinet comprising an upper bassinet frame, pair of leg structures, and locking device. However, Longenecker does not explicitly teach Applicant’s claimed “a latch release slidably disposed within the upper tower portion, and an engagement latch linked to the latch release, the engagement latch being retractably disposed within a receiving area formed on a bottom of the upper tower portion, the engagement latch arranged to engage with a top rail of a playard to lock the leg structure on the playard, wherein when the latch release is operated, the latch release moves translationally to retract the engagement latch into the upper tower portion to release engagement between the engagement latch and the top rail to make the leg structure detachable from the playard”. Although Ingram teaches a latch, Ingram does not teach that the locking part retracts into the upper tower portion to release engagement with the upper playard rail as recited in claims 1 and 6. As shown in Figs. 12-13 of Ingram, locking part 176 is secured via engagement of retaining rib 184 and flange 176B. Upon actuation of release button 190, this engagement is released and the locking part can rotate to release engagement with the playard rail. However, Ingram does not teach that the locking part retracts into the upper tower portion to release engagement with the upper playard rail as recited in independent claims 1 and 6. Saint also fails to teach this claimed limitation. Claim 12 is a method claim but contains similar structure as claims 1 and 6 and thus contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to result in Applicant’s claimed structure. The dependent claims are contain allowable subject matter for similar reasons due to their dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GEORGE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights