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 limitations of claim 8 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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tackaberry (20200383490) in view of Chapman (20110148155). The reference to Tackaberry teaches structure substantially as claimed including a base having a first pair of legs hingeably connected to a second pair of legs(100, 100), a child support platform(200, 300, 500) extending between the first and second pairs of legs, step platform (at least fig 1), guard rails (400), slider rail (at /around 42a, b) the only difference being that there is not a panel extending between the first and second pair of legs. However, the reference to Chapman (see annotated fig below)
PNG
media_image1.png
715
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
teaches the use of a panel to provide for better support to be old. It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Tackaberry with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a panel/soft goods panel, as taught by Chapman since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed. The use of different materials are matters of desirability and design parameters and would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result. Note the hinge and slide components of Tackaberry and knockdown capability of the support structures.
Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tackaberry in view of Chapman as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Quinn (20100207429). The reference to Tackaberry in view of Chapman teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including panels the only difference being that that the panels do not include integrated pockets. However, the reference to Quinn (at 55, 56) teaches the use of providing integrated pockets to a panel for storage convenience to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Tackaberry in view of Chapman with a reasonable expectation of success, to include integrated pockets at the side panels, as taught by Quinn since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited teach structure similar to applicant’s including knockdown foldable child seats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571 270 3742. 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.
/JOSE V CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights