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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the grid shape in claim 3, topstitching in claims 3, 18, and 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what “Y-X is greater than or equal to 2 centimeters” means. For purposes of examination, “Y-X is greater than or equal to 2 centimeters” is being interpreted to mean “the distance of X and Y are each greater than or equal to 2 cm”.
Regarding claims 5, 21 and 23, the direction of the seam allowance in relation to the “a baby’s head” or” the baby’s feet”, the baby can be held over or placed in more than one way in the carrycot and therefore it is unclear what direction the seam allowance is in. For purposes of examination, the seam allowance is in an direction.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 24 discloses the same cover that parent claim 1 discloses. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 5, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The applicant includes the seam allowance in relation a baby’s head or feet, but the baby’s head or feet are not a part of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and (a) (2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Publication 2021/0169236 by Smith (Here forth “Smith”).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a carrycot cover (Fig 1 of Smith, cover 30 includes a cover sheet ), comprising:
a cover sheet (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Smith); and
an upright sheet connected to the cover sheet (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Smith); wherein before connection, a virtual auxiliary line perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the upright sheet extends along a connecting side of the upright sheet (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Smith);
before connection, a size of the connecting side of the upright sheet is X centimeters inward relative to the auxiliary line from an outer end of the connecting side of the upright sheet to an opposite side of the connecting side of the upright sheet, where X is greater than or equal to zero (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Smith); and
before connection, a size of a connecting side of the cover sheet is Y centimeters inward from a center point of the connecting side of the cover sheet along a longitudinal axis of the cover sheet towards an opposite side of the connecting side of the cover sheet, where Y is greater than zero (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Smith), and Y-X is greater than or equal to 2 centimeters (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Smith, according to examiner interpretation the distance X inwards relative to the auxiliary line from an outer end and the distance Y of inward from a center point of the connecting side along the longitudinal axis each must be 2 cm minimum as the size of and length of the bassinet must exceed this to fit a baby).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Smith
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify carrier to have the dimensions of Y-X be greater than or equal to 2 centimeters. Such a modification involves only a difference in 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. Such modification would involve no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed dimensions.
Regarding claim 24, Smith further discloses a carrycot comprising the carrycot cover according to claim 1 (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Smith).
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.
Claims 2, 17-18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith in view of US Patent 5695067 issued to Harvey (Here forth “Harvey”).
Regarding claim 2, Harvey does not expressly disclose wherein the connecting side of the upright sheet and the connecting side of the cover sheet are sewn together to produce a seam allowance.
Harvey discloses similar connecting seams wherein the connecting side of the upright sheet and the connecting side of the cover sheet are sewn together to produce a seam allowance (Column 4 lines 10-28 of Harvey, Seams are the backbone of a finished manufactured product and are always stitched on a seam line away from the cut line which is called the seam allowance; Column 4 lines 10-28 of Harvey, the seam allowance is edge bound with under stitching; the seam allowance is folded over and then fixed by topstitching).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Smith and Harvey before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the carrycot cover of Smith to teach the concept of stitching the upright sheet and coversheet together and include a seam allowance, as taught by Harvey, to advantageously meet the industry standard to allow for seams that are stitched on a seam line rather than a cut line which is an industry standard (Column 4 lines 17-29 of Harvey).
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify upright sheet and cover sheet to be attached via a stitching instead of integrally. Such a modification involves only a difference in separability in the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative stitch would not perform differently than the prior art device. Such modification would involve no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04 VC). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed stitching.
Regarding claim 17, Smith as modified includes all of the limitation including wherein the seam allowance is edge bound (Column 4 lines 10-28 of Harvey).
Regarding claim 18, Smith as modified includes all of the limitation including wherein the seam allowance is fixed by topstitching after edge binding (Column 4 lines 10-28 of Harvey).
Regarding claim 21, Smith as modified further discloses wherein the seam allowance is tilted towards a direction of a baby's head on the carrycot cover (The seam allowance can be tilted in any direction as it is unclear where the baby is placed whether it is in the carrycot or on top of the carrycot cover and where on the cover the head is placed, therefore the modified smith teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 22, Smith as modified further discloses wherein the seam allowance is tilted towards a direction of a baby's feet on the carrycot cover (The seam allowance can be tilted in any direction as it is unclear where the baby is placed whether it is in the carrycot or on top of the carrycot cover and where on the cover the head is placed, therefore the modified smith teaches this limitation).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith in view of Foreign Publication GB2625259 by Chelsey (Here forth “Chelsey”) and Foreign Publication WO85/03431 by Petitet (Here forth “Petitet”).
Regarding claim 3, Smith does not expressly disclose wherein the upright sheet is topstitched with grid-shape.
Chelsey discloses wherein the upright sheet is topstitched with [Not taught: grid]-shape (Page 13, Para 2 of Chelsey, top stitch can be a V or X shape that provides extra strength to the material).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Smith and Chelsey before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the carrycot cover of Smith to teach the concept of a shaped top stitched, as taught by Chelsey, to advantageously provides extra strength to the material (Page 13, Para 2 of Chelsey).
Smith as modified does not expressly disclose that the topstitch is grid-shaped.
Petitet discloses similar stitching patterns that teach wherein the upright sheet is topstitched with grid-shape (Abstract of Petitet, stitching forms a grid).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Smith as modified and Petitet before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the carrycot cover of the modified Smith to teach the concept of grid pattern stitching to the top stitching, as taught by Petitet, to advantageously provides extra strength to the material as this pattern type provides strength preventing wear and tear more easily.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith in view of US Patent 5074616 issued to Smith (Here forth “Smith-2”).
Regarding claim 4, Smith does not expressly disclose wherein a tube rope is provided inside an edge of the upright sheet.
Smith-2 discloses a similar carrycot cover that teaches wherein a tube rope is provided inside an edge of the upright sheet (Column 3, Lines 26-29 of Smith-2; rods 56 are tube ropes within seam 42 on edge of cover 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Smith and Smith-2 before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the carrycot cover of Smith to include a tube rope within an edge portion of the upright sheet, as taught by Smith-2, to advantageously provides extra strength to the material (Page 13, Para 2 of Chelsey).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith in view of Harvey and Foreign Publication DE202005013203 by Lan (Here forth “Lan”).
Regarding claim 5, Smith further discloses wherein the cover sheet comprises a first part (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Smith) and[Not taught: a second part], the first part is used to connect with the upright sheet (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Smith), and [Not taught: the second part is connected with a skirt sheet used to cover a side of the cover sheet, and the skirt sheet has an extension section towards a baby's head, and a seam allowance of the upright sheet and the cover sheet after sewing is sewn to the extension section towards a baby's head, and a seam allowance of the upright sheet and the cover sheet after sewing is sewn to the extension section].
Smith does not expressly disclose a second part.
Lan discloses a similar carrycot cover that teaches a second part, the second part is connected with a skirt sheet used to cover a side of the cover sheet (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Lan), and the skirt sheet has an extension section towards a baby's head (Baby’s head can be located anywhere and therefor the skirt extension section that extends to attach to the skirt sheet).
PNG
media_image2.png
357
633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner annotated Fig 1 of Lan
Smith as modified does not expressly disclose and a seam allowance of the upright sheet and the cover sheet after sewing is sewn to the extension section.
Harvey discloses similar connecting seams wherein and a seam allowance of the upright sheet and the cover sheet after sewing is sewn to the extension section (Column 4 lines 17-28 of Harvey, Seams are the backbone of a finished manufactured product and are always stitched on a seam line away from the cut line which is called the seam allowance; portions of the cover can be sewn together).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Smith as modified and Harvey before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the carrycot cover of the modified Smith to teach the concept of stitching portions of the cover to each other, as taught by Harvey, to advantageously prevent the portions from detaching.
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify upright sheet and cover sheet to be attached via a stitching instead of integrally. Such a modification involves only a difference in separability in the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative stitch would not perform differently than the prior art device. Such modification would involve no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04 VC). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed stitching.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith and Harvey in view of US Patent 5136957 issued to Nielsen (Here forth “Nielsen”).
Regarding claim 19, Smith does not expressly disclose seam allowance being folded and fixed by top stitching.
Nielsen discloses the creation of a similar stitching style that teaches wherein the seam allowance is folded over and then fixed by topstitching (Column 2 lines 35-41 of Nielsen, Fig 2 of Nielsen; Seam allowance 28 folded along primary seamline 24, topstitch 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Smith as modified and Nielsen before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the carrycot cover to include a folded over seam allowance that is fixed by topstitching, as taught by Nielsen to advantageously create a sturdy reinforced edge to provide support.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith in view of US Publication 2022/0087451 by Morris (Here forth “Morris”).
Regarding claim 20, Smith does not expressly disclose the upright sheet having a lining
Morris discloses a similar carrycot cover that teaches wherein the upright sheet is provided with a lining inside (Para 37 of Morris, cover includes a liner).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Smith and Morris before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the carrycot cover to include the concept of including a liner added to a portion of the cover which includes the upright cover, as taught by Harvey, to advantageously provide an insulation layer that maintains warmth for the baby (Para 37 of Morris).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith in view of US Patent 5819341 issued to Simantob (Here forth “Simantob”).
Regarding claim 23, Smith does not expressly disclose zipper at connection between the cover sheet and upright sheet.
Simantob discloses a similar carrycot cover that teaches wherein a width of an opening located at a connection between the cover sheet and the upright sheet for accommodating a zipper is greater than or equal to a width of the zipper (Fig 1 of Simantob, Connecter zipper 34 connects portions of the cover together).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Smith and Simantob before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the carrycot cover to include the concept of including a zipper at the connection between the cover sheet and upright sheet, as taught by Simantob, to advantageously removably attach the different portions of the carrycot cover together so it is easy to replace damaged portions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055 2142. 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.
/JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 21 May 2026
Prosecution Insights