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 .
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 have been examined.
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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11819141. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-19 of 11819141 include all of the limitations of claims 1-18 of the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drake (US 2006/0249994). Drake discloses an infant highchair comprising: a standing frame (fig. 1A: 120) including a support platform (fig. 1A: top flat surface of 120); a seat (fig. 1A: 110) pivotally connected with the standing frame and having a seating surface (fig. 1A: 114), the seat being rotatable between a first (fig. 1B) and a second position (fig. 1A), the first position allowing a child to sit in contact with the seating surface (the child may sit in 114 in the orientation of fig. 1B), and the second position being suitable to receive installation of a removable child seat over the seat while disabling seating of a child on the seating surface (the flat “adult” seating surface created in fig. 1A is capable of receiving a removable child seat over the seat), the seating surface moving around the support platform as the seat rotates relative to the standing frame (the seating surface 114 rotates around the support platform with the seat 110 when moved from figs. 1B to 1A), and the second position of the seat uncovering the support platform so that a removable child seat is installable over the seat at least partially supported in contact with the support platform (the removable child seat may contact the front flat surface of 120 when placed thereon) and a locking mechanism operable to lock the seat in the first and second position (figs. 1A, 1B; paragraph 0015) (an annotated figure is shown below in an effort to provide additional clarity to the rejection).
PNG
media_image1.png
503
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 2, Drake discloses wherein the seating surface is located above the support platform in the first position (fig. 1B) and below the support platform in the second position (fig. 1A).
As concerns claim 7, Drake discloses a latch that is assembled with the seat, the latch being engaged with the standing frame to lock the seat in the first and second position and disengaged from the standing frame to unlock the seat for rotation of the seat between the first and second position (fig. 1A; paragraph 0015).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 8-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art reference of Drake fails to teach wherein the support platform has an upper surface configured to restrictedly position a removable child seat, wherein the standing frame has a calf support portion fixedly connected with the support platform, wherein the standing frame includes a bar segment pivotally connected to the seat or engageable with the latch, wherein the latch is pivotally connected with the seat about a pivot axis that extends substantially vertically when the infant highchair stands on a floor surface, wherein the latching mechanism includes a spring and release biasing the latch toward a locking state, or wherein the highchair further includes an impeding part configured to engage with the seat for forcing the seat to stop at an intermediate position during rotation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights