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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (the positioning swaddle), Species A (Figs. 1-4, 7-8 and 10-11), and Sub-species A1a (Fig. 31) in the reply filed on December 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-9, 13, 18, and 24 are withdrawn by Applicant from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 12, 19-23, 25, and 27 are withdrawn by Examiner from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim 12 recites, “further comprising a pocket secured to a back surface of the swaddling blanket and configured to receive a temperature regulating pad.” However, a pocket for temperature regulating pad (pocket 210) is only shown and disclosed in Figs. 32-33 and paras. 0066-0067, 00138-00145, 00171-00172 and thus is part of non-elected sub-species A1b (Fig. 32) and Species C (Fig. 33) and therefore withdrawn;
Claims 19-20 are drawn to a positioning swaddle kit and claim 19 was amended to depend from claim 1; however, this is simply a shorthand method of writing the claim with the exact same limitations it had before and was found to lack unity as no there is no special technical feature among the groups (see Requirement for Unity dated November 7, 2025) and therefore claims 19-20 are therefore withdrawn;
Claims 21-23, 25, and 27 are drawn to methods. While they have been amended to include the limitations of one of the product claims (i.e. written in shorthand), they are nonetheless claiming a different statutory category of invention and lack unity with the product claims as no there is no special technical feature among the groups (see Requirement for Unity dated November 7, 2025) and are therefore withdrawn. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant where Applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims will be considered for rejoinder.
As directed by the amendment and the election, claims 1 and 14 have been amended; claim 26 is canceled; claims 8-9, 12-13, 18-25, and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration; and claim 28 has been added. Accordingly, claims 1-25 and 27-28 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-7, 10-11, 14-17, and 28.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 1, center 156 is pointing to the edge of the blanket 110, but instead should be pointing to the center of the center section 112 where the fixed end 178 of the securing straps 176 are disposed as disclosed in para. 00107 of the specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “126” has been used to designate both the upper portion (para. 0094) and a juncture (para. 00101).
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.
Specification
The use of the term “Velcro” (paras. 0090, 0094, 00122, 00127, 00136, 00141, 00151, 00152, 00162, 00171, and 00191) which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term, for example, “VELCRO ®”.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 14-15, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3 should recite, “blanket”;
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the feet or legs" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-2 should recite, “the at least one wing”;
Claim 3 should recite, “and the at least one wing”;
Claim 3 should recite, “the at least one flap”;
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the torso" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the torso" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the torso" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the feet or legs" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the torso" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the feet or legs" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, 14-17, and 28 (and claim 11 at least for depending from a rejected claim) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it recites, “a substantially rectangular fabric swaddling blanket”. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain what shapes can deviate beyond rectangular and still be considered substantially rectangular, and therefore unclear what shapes can be included or excluded as “substantially” rectangular.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it recites, “and a cylindrically shaped, compression-resistant positioning roll attached to each lateral end of the swaddling blanket”. First it is unclear if each lateral end is referring to the “two lateral ends” previously claimed or different lateral ends. Further, it is unclear how the roll is attached to “each lateral end” as in Fig. 1, the roll 102 is attached to the wing 120. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite a first lateral end and a second lateral end referring to the specific end throughout the claims. Further, for purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the positioning roll to be attached to the first lateral end of the swaddling blanket.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the swaddling blanket comprises a center section secured at a juncture to an at least one flap and to an at least one wing, wherein the wing is secured to the positioning roll.” First, it is unclear how the center section is secured at a juncture to a flap and a wing as the juncture 108 is at the lateral ends 118a, 118b of the swaddling blanket 110 (see Fig. 1) and not the center section 112 and therefore it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the center section are. Further, as the claim previously recites, “a cylindrically shaped, compression-resistant positioning roll attached to each lateral end of the swaddling blanket”, but then the blanket is attached to a flap and a wing. However, shown in Fig. 1, the blanket is attached to a flap 140 and a wing 120 and the wing is attached to the roll 102. Therefore it is unclear if the blanket comprises the wing or if the wing is a separate structure.
Claim 2 recites both the apparatus and the method of using the apparatus. Such recitations renders the claims indefinite as they attempt to bridge two separate statutory classes of invention. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). In other words, a manufacturer or seller of the claimed apparatus would not know from the claims whether it might also be liable for contributory infringement because a buyer or user of the apparatus later performs the claimed method of using the apparatus. Therefore, such claims are not sufficiently precise to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the meet and bounds of protection involved and are ambiguous. It is unclear whether infringement of claim 2 occurs when one creates an apparatus that allows the user to practice the recited steps, or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the wing and the roll to perform the steps of wrapping. Because the claim recites both a system/apparatus and the method for using that system/apparatus, it does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under 35 USC 112(b). Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “wherein the wing is configured to wrap[[s]] around the positioning roll in a rolled configuration”.
Claim 3 recites both the apparatus and the method of using the apparatus. Such recitations renders the claims indefinite as they attempt to bridge two separate statutory classes of invention. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). In other words, a manufacturer or seller of the claimed apparatus would not know from the claims whether it might also be liable for contributory infringement because a buyer or user of the apparatus later performs the claimed method of using the apparatus. Therefore, such claims are not sufficiently precise to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the meet and bounds of protection involved and are ambiguous. It is unclear whether infringement of claim 3 occurs when one creates an apparatus that allows the user to practice the recited steps, or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the fastener to perform the steps of securing. Because the claim recites both a system/apparatus and the method for using that system/apparatus, it does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under 35 USC 112(b). Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “wherein the flap comprises a fastener, and the fastener is configured to secure[[s]] the positioning roll and wing in the rolled configuration.”
Claim 4 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the positioning rolls support the torso of an infant in a supine or side-lying position when the positioning rolls are in the rolled configuration.” As best as claim 1 can be understood, one positioning roll is claimed and further claim 2 only recites “the positioning roll” having a “rolled condition”, it is unclear what is meant by “positioning rolls” (plural) and how many rolls are needed to meet the claim. Further, as claim 1 already recites, “an infant”, it is unclear if claim 4 is referring to a different or additional infant or the same infant from claim 1. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the claim mean “wherein the positioning roll[[s]] support [[the]] a torso of [[an]] the infant in a supine or side-lying position when the positioning roll[[s]] [[are]] is in the rolled configuration.”
Claim 5 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the positioning rolls in the rolled configuration define an adjustable gap between them for sizing to accommodate the torso of an infant.” As best as claim 1 can be understood, one positioning roll is claimed and further claim 2 only recites “the positioning roll” having a “rolled condition”, it is unclear if claim 5 is claiming a second/additional roll also having a rolled condition and what such a condition would mean as only one wing has been claimed. Further it is unclear what “them” is referring to as it can be any of the previously claimed structures or conditions. Finally, as claim 1 already recites, “an infant”, it is unclear if claim 5 is referring to a different or additional infant or the same infant from claim 1. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the claim mean the swaddle further comprises a second positioning roll and when the first roll is in the rolled condition, there is an adjustable gap between the first roll and the second roll to accommodate a torso of the same infant previously referred to.
Claim 6 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the positioning rolls are configured to provide access to the torso for placement, removal, or monitoring of a medical device attached to the torso of the infant when the positioning rolls are in the rolled configuration.” As best as claim 1 can be understood, one positioning roll is claimed and further claim 2 only recites “the positioning roll” having a “rolled condition”, it is unclear if claim 5 is claiming a second/additional roll also having a rolled condition and what such a condition would mean as only one wing has been claimed. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the claim mean the swaddle further comprises a second positioning roll and when the first roll is in the rolled condition, the rolled condition is configured to provide the claimed access.
Claim 7 is indefinite as it recites, “further comprising at least one securing strap capable of securing the positioning swaddle to an infant.” As claim 1 already recites, “an infant”, it is unclear if claim 7 is referring to a different or additional infant or the same infant from claim 1.
Claim 10 is indefinite as it recites, “further comprising a support roll configured for releasable attachment to the swaddle blanket near a midpoint between the positioning rolls, wherein the support roll supports the neck of an infant.” As best as claim 1 can be understood, one positioning roll is claimed, and therefore it is unclear what is meant by “positioning rolls” (plural) and how many rolls are needed to meet the claim. Further, as claim 1 already recites, “an infant”, it is unclear if claim 10 is referring to a different or additional infant or the same infant from claim 1.
Claim 14 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein each lateral end of the center section is secured to the proximal end of a respective flap at a juncture, and to the proximal end of a respective wing at the juncture; and wherein a respective cylindrically shaped positioning roll is secured to the distal end of each wing.” First, it is unclear if “each lateral end” is referring to the “two lateral ends” previously claimed or additional lateral ends. Further, it is unclear what “a respective flap” is referring to as it may be one of the “two flaps” or an additional flap. It is unclear what “a respective wing” is referring to as it may be one of the “two wings” or an additional wing. Further, it is unclear how a flap (i.e. one flap) and a wing (i.e. one wing) are secured to each lateral end, i.e. secured to both lateral ends simultaneously. Further, it is unclear if “each wing” is referring to the “two wings” or additional wings, and it is unclear if a first roll is secured to the distal end of both wings or if a first roll is secured to a distal end of the first wing and a second roll is secured to the distal end of the second wing. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitations to mean, and respectfully suggests amending claim 14 to recite, “A positioning swaddle comprising a swaddle blanket comprising a center section comprising a first lateral end and a second lateral end, a pouch secured to the center section and configured to receive [[the]] feet or legs of an infant, a first flap and a second flap, the first flap and the second flap each comprising a proximal end and a distal end, and a first wing and a second wing, the first wing and the second wing each comprising a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the first lateral end of the center section is secured to the proximal end of the first flap at a first juncture, and to the proximal end of the first wing at the first juncture, the second lateral end of the center section is secured to the proximal end of the second flap at a second juncture, and to the proximal end of the second wing at the second juncture; and wherein afirst cylindrically shaped positioning roll is secured to the distal end of [[each]] the first wing and a second cylindrically shaped positioning roll is secured to the distal end of the second wing.” Examiner respectfully suggests amending the dependent claims to match accordingly.
Claim 15 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the positioning rolls define an adjustable gap between them for sizing to accommodate the torso of an infant.” It is unclear what “them” is referring to as it can be any of the previously claimed structures or conditions. Finally, as claim 14 already recites, “an infant”, it is unclear if claim 15 is referring to a different or additional infant or the same infant from claim 14. Examiner respectfully suggests avoiding personal pronouns and replace “them” with the exact structure being referred to.
Claim 16 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the distal end of one flap wraps around the positioning roll on the distal end of the opposing wing when the swaddle blanket is wrapped around an infant.” As two flaps were previously claimed, it is unclear if “one flap” is referring to one of the two flaps or an additional flap. It is unclear which of the positioning roll is being referred to as claim 14 appears to claim two. Further, “the opposing wing” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if it is referring to one of the two wings or an additional wing. Finally, as claim 14 already recites, “an infant”, it is unclear if claim 16 is referring to a different or additional infant or the same infant from claim 14. Examiner respectfully suggests following the suggested language for claim 14 above to amend claim 16 to clarify what structures are being referred to.
Claim 17 is indefinite as it recites, “further comprising at least one securing strap capable of securing the positioning swaddle to an infant.” As claim 14 already recites, “an infant”, it is unclear if claim 17 is referring to a different or additional infant or the same infant from claim 14.
Claim 28 is indefinite as it recites, “a substantially rectangular fabric swaddling blanket”. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain what shapes can deviate beyond rectangular and still be considered substantially rectangular, and therefore unclear what shapes can be included or excluded as “substantially” rectangular.
Claim 28 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein each wing is adjacent to one flap, and wherein each lateral end of the center section is secured at a juncture to the adjacent flap and the adjacent wing”. It is unclear if “each wing” is referring to the “two wings” previously claimed or additional/different wings. It is unclear if “one flap” is referring to one of the “two flaps” previously claimed or an addition flap. It is unclear if both wings are adjected to one flap or if a first wing is adjacent to a first flap and a second wing is adjacent to a second flap. It is unclear if “each lateral end” is referring to the “two lateral ends” previously claimed or different/additional lateral ends. Further, it is unclear if both lateral ends are secured to the same juncture. The limitations “the adjacent flap” and “the adjacent wing” both lack antecedent basis and it is unclear if they are referring to one of the two flaps and one of the two wings respectively or to and additional flap and an additional wing. Examiner respectfully suggests reviewing Examiner’s suggested language for claim 14 above and modelling accordingly.
Claim 28 is indefinite as it recites, “and a cylindrically shaped, compression-resistant positioning roll attached to each wing at an end distal from the juncture at which the wing is attached to the center section and the respective flap.” It is unclear if “each wing” is referring to the “two wings” previously claimed or additional/different wings. It is unclear which wing “the wing” is referring to as it could be the two wings, one of the two wings, the adjacent wing, or an additional wing. Further, it is unclear if a roll is secured to each of the wings or if a first roll is secured to the first wing and a second roll is secured to the second wing. It is unclear what structure comprises “an end distal from the juncture” as it could be the roll, a wing, a flap, or otherwise. Examiner respectfully suggests reviewing Examiner’s suggested language for claim 14 above and modelling accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
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.
Claim 4 and 10-11 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).
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the positioning rolls support the torso of an infant in a supine or side-lying position when the positioning rolls are in the rolled configuration.” As such, Applicant has positively recited and claimed a human body part, because the torso of an infant is actively being recited as being supported within a product claim. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to add functional language such as "adapted to” or “configured to” preceding any reference to a human or human body part. For example, Applicant could recite, “wherein the positioning rolls are configured to support the torso of an infant in a supine or side-lying position when the positioning rolls are in the rolled configuration.”
Claim 10 recites, “wherein the support roll supports the neck of an infant.” As such, Applicant has positively recited and claimed a human body part, because the neck of an infant is actively being recited as being supported within a product claim. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to add functional language such as "adapted to” or “configured to” preceding any reference to a human or human body part. For example, Applicant could recite, “wherein the support roll is configured to support[[s]] the neck of an infant.”
Claim 11 recites, “wherein the support roll comprises a depression and is configured such that the neck of the infant rests on the depression.” As such, Applicant has positively recited and claimed a human body part, because the neck of an infant is actively being recited as resting within a product claim. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to add functional language such as "adapted to” or “configured to” preceding any reference to a human or human body part. For example, Applicant could recite, “wherein the support roll comprises a depression and is configured such that the neck of the infant is configured to rest[[s]] on the depression.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogone (US 6381787) in view of Leckband (US 2008/0307577).
Regarding claim 1, Rogone discloses a positioning swaddle (see Figs. 4E and 6A-6C and note any blanket type product can be used as a swaddle) comprising a substantially rectangular fabric swaddling blanket (12, disclosed as substantially rectangular in col. 3, lines 40-45) comprising two lateral ends portions (end portions where 54 is attached, see Fig. 4E); and a cylindrically shaped, compression-resistant positioning roll (18/50, considered compression-resistant as it would resistant to at least one compressive force) attached to each lateral end portion of the swaddling blanket (via 54), wherein the swaddling blanket comprises a center section (26) secured at a juncture (at the lateral end portions) to an at least one flap (54) and to an at least one wing portion (portion of 12 from the juncture at 54 to the terminal edges, see annotated Fig. 4E), wherein the wing is secured to the positioning roll (via 54).
Rogone does not expressly disclose wherein the lateral end portions are lateral ends of the blanket; a pouch secured to a bottom edge of the swaddling blanket and configured to receive the feet or legs of an infant; and the at least one wing portion being a wing (i.e., not part of the blanket, but a separate structure).
Leckband teaches a safety blanket for infants wherein the lateral end portions are lateral ends of the blanket (as 14 is/are the lateral ends of blanket 11); a pouch (31) secured to a bottom edge of the swaddling blanket (as 12/13 is secured to the bottom edge 19 forming a pouch 31) and configured to receive the feet or legs of an infant (as seen in Figs. 3-5, the pouch is capable of receiving legs or feet); and the at least one wing portion being a wing (16, as 16 extends from lateral ends 14 of blanket 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a pouch to the blanket and to make the wings a separate part of the swaddle than the blanket of Rogone, as taught by Leckband, so that the wings can be made of a different material that that can better maintain a rolled up configuration and the pouch may be added for “adjusting the warmth of the baby” (see para. 0015 of Leckband).
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the prior art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform and/or function. As the prior art discloses the structure of the swaddle, there would be a reasonable expectation for the swaddle to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the modified swaddle of Rogone discloses wherein the wing (see annotated Fig. 4E) wraps around the positioning roll (18/20) in a rolled configuration (as shown in Figs. 6A-6C).
Regarding claim 4, the modified swaddle of Rogone discloses wherein the positioning rolls support the torso of an infant in a supine or side-lying position when the positioning rolls are in the rolled configuration (as shown in Fig. 6A and col. 6, lines 7-30).
Regarding claim 5, the modified swaddle of Rogone discloses wherein the positioning rolls in the rolled configuration define an adjustable gap between them for sizing to accommodate the torso of an infant (as seen in Figs. 6A-6B and col. 6, lines 7-30, the wing can be adjustable wrapped around the rolls creating an adjustable effective width between the rolls therefore accommodating the torso of the infant).
Regarding claim 6, the modified swaddle of Rogone discloses wherein the positioning rolls are configured to provide access to the torso for placement, removal, or monitoring of a medical device attached to the torso of the infant when the positioning rolls are in the rolled configuration (as shown in Figs. 6A-6C, the rolls are on the outer lateral sides of the infant even when in the rolled configuration, thereby allowing the torso of the infant to be accessed).
Regarding claim 14, Rogone discloses a positioning swaddle (see Figs. 4E and 6A-6C and note any blanket type product can be used as a swaddle) comprising a swaddle blanket (12) comprising a center section (26) comprising two lateral ends (see second annotated Fig. 4E and note the opposite side would mirror this), two flap portions (portion of 12 from the juncture at 54 to the terminal edges, see second annotated Fig. 4E and note the opposite side would mirror this) each comprising a proximal end (see second annotated Fig. 4E) and a distal end (terminal edge of the blanket, see approximation in second annotated 4E) and two wings (54 and note the opposite side would mirror this) each comprising a proximal end and a distal end (see second annotated Fig. 4E), wherein each lateral end of the center section is secured to the proximal end of a respective flap at a juncture (see second annotated Fig. 4E), and to the proximal end of a respective wing portion at the juncture (see second annotated 4E); and wherein a respective cylindrically shaped positioning roll (18/50 and 20/50) is secured to the distal end of each wing portion (see second annotated Fig. 4E).
Rogone does not expressly disclose a pouch secured to a bottom edge of the swaddling blanket and configured to receive the feet or legs of an infant; and the flap portions portion being flaps (i.e., not part of the blanket, but a separate structure).
Leckband teaches a safety blanket for infants comprising a pouch (31) secured to the center section of the swaddling blanket (as 12/13 is secured to the bottom edge 19 forming a pouch 31) and configured to receive the feet or legs of an infant (as seen in Figs. 3-5, the pouch is capable of receiving legs or feet); and the flap portions being a flaps (16, as 16 extends from lateral ends 14 of blanket 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a pouch to the blanket and to make the flaps a separate part of the swaddle than the blanket of Rogone, as taught by Leckband, so that the flaps can be made of a different material that that can better maintain a rolled up configuration and the pouch may be added for “adjusting the warmth of the baby” (see para. 0015 of Leckband).
Regarding claim 15, the modified swaddle of Rogone discloses wherein the positioning rolls define an adjustable gap between them for sizing to accommodate the torso of an infant (as seen in Figs. 6A-6B and col. 6, lines 7-30, the wing can be adjustable wrapped around the rolls creating an adjustable effective width between the rolls therefore accommodating the torso of the infant).
Regarding claim 16, the modified swaddle of Rogone discloses wherein the distal end of one flap wraps around the positioning roll on the distal end of the opposing wing when the swaddle blanket is wrapped around an infant (as when in a rolled configuration, such as seen in Figs. 6A-B, and therefore wrapped around the infant, the distal end of the flap is wrapped around the roll 18/50 which is on the distal end of the wing).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Rogone and Leckband, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Bader (US 11517488).
Regarding claim 7, the modified swaddle of Rogone discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising at least one securing strap capable of securing the positioning swaddle to an infant.
Bader teaches an infant positioning system comprising at least one securing strap (50A and 50B) capable of securing the positioning swaddle to an infant (see col. 4, lines 25-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add at least one securing strap to the modified swaddle of Rogone as taught by Bader on order “to secure the tubular pillows in position around the infant” (see col. 4, lines 25-30 of Bader) thus ensuring proper positioning of the infant for calming the infant and/or for correcting or preventing infant head deformities (see col. 1, lines 16-20 of Bader).
Regarding claim 17, the modified swaddle of Rogone teaches all the limitations of claim 14, but does not expressly disclose further comprising at least one securing strap capable of securing the positioning swaddle to an infant.
Bader teaches an infant positioning system comprising at least one securing strap (50A and 50B) capable of securing the positioning swaddle to an infant (see col. 4, lines 25-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add at least one securing strap to the modified swaddle of Rogone as taught by Bader on order “to secure the tubular pillows in position around the infant” (see col. 4, lines 25-30 of Bader) thus ensuring proper positioning of the infant for calming the infant and/or for correcting or preventing infant head deformities (see col. 1, lines 16-20 of Bader).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Rogone and Leckband, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kassai (US 2009/0007336).
Regarding claim 10, the modified swaddle of Rogone teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising a support roll configured for releasable attachment to the swaddle blanket near a midpoint between the positioning rolls, wherein the support roll supports the neck of an infant.
Kassai teaches a baby positioning structure comprising a support roll (10) configured for releasable attachment to the swaddle blanket (61, via hook and loop, see para. 0089) near a midpoint between the positioning rolls (62/62, as the support roll is centered on the top edge of the blanket and the rolls are at the lateral edges), wherein the support roll supports the neck of an infant (as shown in Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a detachable support roll to the blanket of the modified swaddle of Rogone as taught by Kassai “to provide a baby pillow on which a baby can have good sleep” (see para. 0016).
Regarding claim 11, the modified swaddle of Rogone discloses wherein the support roll (10 of Kassai) comprises a depression (15) and is configured such that the neck of the infant rests on the depression (as shown in Fig. 3, with at least one infant, at least a portion of the neck of the infant would rest on the depression).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogone, in view of Leckband, and in view of Bader.
Regarding claim 28, Rogone discloses a positioning swaddle (see Figs. 4E and 6A-6C and note any blanket type product can be used as a swaddle) comprising a substantially rectangular fabric swaddling blanket (12, disclosed as substantially rectangular in col. 3, lines 40-45) comprising a swaddle blanket (12) comprising a center section (26) comprising two lateral ends (see second annotated Fig. 4E and note the opposite side would mirror this), two flap portions (portion of 12 from the juncture at 54 to the terminal edges, see second annotated Fig. 4E and note the opposite side would mirror this), two wings (54 and note the opposite side would mirror this), wherein each wing is adjacent to one flap (as seen in second annotated Fig. 4E), and wherein each lateral end of the center section is secured at a juncture to the adjacent flap and the adjacent wing (as seen in second annotated Fig. 4E); and a cylindrically shaped, compression-resistant positioning roll (18/50 and 20/50, considered compression-resistant as it would resistant to at least one compressive force) attached to each wing at an end distal from the juncture at which the wing is attached to the center section and the respective flap (as seen in second annotated Fig. 4E).
Rogone does not expressly disclose a pouch secured to a bottom edge of the center section and configured to receive the feet or legs of an infant, and at least one securing strap.
Leckband teaches a safety blanket for infants comprising a pouch (31) secured to a bottom edge of the center section of the swaddling blanket (as 12/13 is secured to the bottom edge 19 forming a pouch 31) and configured to receive the feet or legs of an infant (as seen in Figs. 3-5, the pouch is capable of receiving legs or feet); and the flap portions being a flaps (16, as 16 extends from lateral ends 14 of blanket 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a pouch to the blanket and to make the flaps a separate part of the swaddle than the blanket of Rogone, as taught by Leckband, so that the flaps can be made of a different material that that can better maintain a rolled up configuration and the pouch may be added for “adjusting the warmth of the baby” (see para. 0015 of Leckband).
The modified swaddle of Rogone does not expressly disclose at least one securing strap.
Bader teaches an infant positioning system comprising at least one securing strap (50A and 50B) capable of securing the positioning swaddle to an infant (see col. 4, lines 25-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add at least one securing strap to the modified swaddle of Rogone as taught by Bader on order “to secure the tubular pillows in position around the infant” (see col. 4, lines 25-30 of Bader) thus ensuring proper positioning of the infant for calming the infant and/or for correcting or preventing infant head deformities (see col. 1, lines 16-20 of Bader).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4E (Rogone)
Reference for claims 1-2, 4-7, and 10-11
PNG
media_image2.png
532
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Second Annotated Fig. 4E (Rogone)
Reference for claims 14-17 and 28
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim 3 is allowable over the prior art of record as none of them, alone or in combination, disclose a swaddle with a rectangular blanket, a flap secured to the blanket at a juncture, a positioning roll attached to a lateral end of the blanket, and a wing secure to the blanket at the juncture and secured to the positioning roll, where the wing is configured to wrap around the position roll, and where the flap comprises a fastener that secures the position roll and the wing when the wing is wrapped around the positioning roll, and a pouch secured to the bottom edge of the blanket. The closest prior art is Rogone and Leckband. Rogone and Leckband, in combination, teach all the limitation except where the flap comprises a fastener that secures the position roll and the wing when the wing is wrapped around the positioning roll, and a pouch secured to the bottom edge of the blanket. Modifying Rogone or Leckband to have the claimed structure would be hindsight reconstruction based on Applicant’s own disclosure, therefore the claim is allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, McLusky (US 2019/0216233) teaches a blanket with removable positioning rolls, Carangelo (US 2009/0249526) teaches an infant vest with pillow and detachable positioning rolls, and Ive (US 5916089 teaches an infant support with a support roll and positioning rolls securable to the blanket portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732