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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 “four upright legs”
Applicant argues that Sclare shows only two upright legs 108 and describes element 105 as casters/wheels/rollers coupled to base portion 106, such that Sclare does not teach four upright legs and in fact teaches away. This is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on upright portion 108, nor on the wheels themselves as the claimed legs. As cited, element 105 designates the caster assemblies coupled to the base portion but also includes a stem member (visible in FIG. 2) These upright stem members support the base frame above the support surface and are reasonably read as “four upright legs”.
Claim 1 reconfigurablity and “bedside sleeper” recitation
Applicant argues that Sclare is a bassinet only, that a bedside sleeper requires a side rail portion lower than the other three, that a play yard requires a selectively postioning containment floor, and that these are not mere intended use. The examiner does not find this argument persauisve. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The limitations directed to the detachable front rail portion and the openable bedside-sleeper flap are not relied upon to Sclare; they are taught by Tharalson. Tharalson is convertible among bassinet, changing-table, and bedside co-sleeper configurations (Tharalson, Title; Abstract) and discloses a front wall portion reversibly movable to a position lower than the remaining walls. Applicant’s argument addresses Sclare alone and thus attacks the references individually, whereas the rejection is based on the combination of Sclare and Tharalson.
Claim 1 – motivation/ “complete redesign”
Applicant argues that incorporating Tharalson’s flap into Sclare would require a lower horizontal rail that Sclare lacks, would compromise stability if top rail 116 or side rails 122 were detached, would require detaching adjustable rail 124, and would amount to a complete redesign, such that there is no motivation to combine. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the rejection relies on Tharalson for its teaching of a lowerable/openable front wall portion enabling bedside-sleeper access, applied to the children’s accessory of the combination – not for bodily transplantation of Tharalson’s rail 322 into Scalre’s frame. Additionally, Sclare itself contemplates modifying the front-wall region for bed-facing access: Sclare discloses a downwardly recessed front segment 218a provided “to provide increased lateral visibility into the infant receptacle and to thereby assist in enhancing parent-child bonding” (Sclare: [0059]). Sclare thus invites front-wall access features, supplying further motivation, and the combination yields the predictable result of a children’s accessory usable in a bedside-sleeper configuration.
D. Claim 2 -support sleeves from a central point of a lateral crossmember
The amendment overcomes the prior art. Claim 2 is now objected as being dependent on rejected claim 1.
Claims 8-11 securing device with independently adjustable second portion secured around the frame
Applicant argues that none of Scalare, Tharalson, Tharalson (2), Flannery, Renno, or Hashiba teaches the amended claim 8, contending that in the disclosed device the second portion 156 wraps around the base frame and is independently adjustable from the first portion, the first portion being adjustable to the width of the adult mattress while the second portion is adjusted independently to pull the device closer to the adult bed without adjusting the mattress strap, and that no cited reference permits adjusting the frame distance even when the straps are under the adult mattress. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., adjusting frame distance while the straps remain under the mattress) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) 8. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Tharalson (2) discloses the limitation of amended claim 8 refer to the rejection below.
Claims 7 and 12-17 Renno and the externally positioned hinged wheel assembly
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 and 12-15 under Renno have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of European Publication No. 0570194 issued to Sadow.
Double Patenting
Applicant requests that the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 12-15 be held in abeyance. The examiner notes that the addition of Sadow adds obviousness over the 117 patent and supplies the missing limitations. The rejection is maintained.
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 and 12-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12285117. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-5 of the 117 patent are obvious in view of European Publication EP0570194 issued to Sadow over claims 1 and 12-15 of the current application.
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 7 and 12 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 7 recites “the lower frame assembly” which lacks antecedent basis with claim 1. The examiner will interpret this limitation as the base frame assembly.
Claim 12 recites “is biased configured to at an oblique offset angle” which is unclear to the examiner what is meant by this limitation. The examiner will interpret as “in the neutral position the flange is biased to an oblique offset angle”
Claims 13-17 are also rejected under 112 (b).
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20160286979 issued to Sclare in view of U.S. Patent No. 6877173 issued to Tharalson.
Regarding claim 1,
Sclare discloses a children's accessory for supporting a child over a support surface, (Sclare: FIG. 1 (100)) the children's accessory comprising a frame (Sclare: FIG. 1 (102)) and a child containment portion supported by the frame, (Sclare: FIG. 1 (104) see also [0040] “The infant-receiving receptacle 104 includes a bottom/floor panel 112 and one or more peripheral sidewalls 114 that together define an enclosure with a depth within which a child can be received/supported and with an open side (e.g., the top) through which the child can be accessed.”) wherein the frame comprises a base frame assembly comprising four upright legs (Sclare: FIG. 1 (105)) and an upper frame assembly adjustable between a first height and a second height relative to the base frame assembly, (Sclare: FIG. 6 (122) may be interpreted as an upright assembly) … wherein the children's accessory is reconfigurable between a bassinet configuration, a bedside sleeper configuration, and a play yard configuration. (Sclare: [0035] “It will be understood that any or all of these innovative features can be implemented in other (than bassinets) apparatuses for supporting and containing a sleeping child, for example cradles, cribs, and play yards.” The examiner notes that the device may be used as any of the above configurations and that it is merely intended use.)
Sclare does not appear to disclose wherein the upper frame comprises a detachable front rail portion, wherein the child containment portion comprises a beside sleeper flap comprising a top edge aligned with the detachable front rail portion,wherein the flap is configured to be opened or closed for side access to the child containment portion.
However, Tharalson discloses wherein the upper frame comprises a detachable front rail portion, wherein the child containment portion comprises a beside sleeper flap comprising a top edge aligned with the detachable front rail portion, wherein the flap is configured to be opened or closed for side access to the child containment portion. (Tharalson: FIG. 14 (502) see also col. 24 lines 8-10 “A flexible panel 502 is provided. The flexible panel 502 has upper 506 and lower 510 edges, first 514 and second 518 side edges and extends from the first front vertical rail 142 to the second front vertical rail 146 and the flexible panel 502 extends downwardly from the upper ends 158 of the front vertical rails 142, 146 for a second predetermined distance 286. The flexible panel 502 is hingedly attached to the intermediate front horizontal rail 322 at its lower edge 510. Means 522 are provided for removably securing the upper edge 506 of the flexible panel 502 to either of the upper ends 158 of the vertical rails 142, 146 and the first 34 and second 38 side walls.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sclare directed to a reconfigurable bassinet by adding a flap in the sidewall as taught in Tharalson directed to a bedside bassinet since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing easy access to an infant who is sleeping in a bassinet alongside an adult bed.
Regarding claim 2,
Sclare in view of Tharalson discloses the children's accessory of Claim 1, wherein the frame is adjustable between a first, lowered height and a second, higher height relative to the support surface. (Sclare: FIG. 4 (112) is adjustable between two separate heights relative to a support surface. See also [0041] “The receptacle 104 can further include a bed pad such as a mattress or other cushioning member (not shown) positioned over the floor panel 112 for supporting the child thereon, for example as described in detail below.” And [0042] “In typical embodiments, the depth-adjustment mechanism includes an adjustable frame member 124 and at least one releasable-lock mechanism 125 that releasably locks the adjustable frame to the receptacle-frame assembly 116.”)
Regarding claim 3,
Sclare in view of Tharalson discloses the children's accessory of Claim 1, wherein the child containment portion is adjustable between a first, shallower depth and a second, deeper depth. (Sclare: FIG. 4 (112) is adjustable between two separate heights relative to a support surface. See also [0042] “In typical embodiments, the depth-adjustment mechanism includes an adjustable frame member 124 and at least one releasable-lock mechanism 125 that releasably locks the adjustable frame to the receptacle-frame assembly 116.”)
Regarding claim 4,
Sclare in view of Tharalson discloses the children's accessory of claim 3, wherein, when the child containment portion is adjusted to the second, deeper depth, the child containment portion is in contact with the support surface. (Sclare: [0045] “Depending on the height and thickness of the bed 180, often times the infant receptacle 104 can be positioned at least partially over the bed, with the base portion 106 of the support-frame assembly 102 positioned at least partially under the bed, and with the bed received within the empty space between the infant receptacle and the support frame base (see FIG. 12).” Wherein the support surface may be interpreted as an adult mattress and the deeper position is when it is in contact with the bed and the shallower position is when it is supported “higher than the upper surface of an adult bed 180.” [0045])
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sclare and Tharalson in view of U.S. Patent No. 11202519 issued to Flannery further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160135608 issued to Hashiba.
Regarding claim 5,
Sclare in view of Tharalson discloses the children's accessory of Claim 1.
Sclare in view of Tharalson does not appear to disclose further comprising one or more bedside securing straps for securing the children's accessory adjacent to a bed, wherein the one or more bedside securing straps comprise a first strap portion for facilitating first adjustments and a second strap portion for facilitating second adjustments.
However, Flannery discloses further comprising one or more bedside securing straps for securing the children's accessory adjacent to a bed, (Flannery: FIG. 2 (28, 30) see also col. 6 lines 47-50 “The base 14 further includes first and second flexible and adjustable straps 28, 30 and first and second distal counter members 32, 34.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sclare in view of Tharalson directed to a bassinet by adding straps that connect via adjustment buckles as taught in Flannery directed to a bassinet since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of holding the bassinet as close as possible to the bed without creating any gaps between the bed and bassinet
Sclare in view of Tharalson in view of Flannery does not appear to disclose a first strap portion for facilitating first adjustments and a second strap portion for facilitating second adjustments.
Hashiba discloses a first strap portion for facilitating first adjustments and a second strap portion for facilitating second adjustments. (Hashiba: FIG. 1 (30) has a first strap portion that originates from (31) near (40) and a second strap portion that originates from (40) to (31) see also [0042] “Further, an adjuster 31 intermediates in the belt member 30 to allow the length of the belt member adjustable according to the width of a mattress.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sclare in view of Tharalson in view of Flannery directed to a bassinet by having two portions of the straps that connect via adjustment buckles as taught in Hashiba directed to a cushion for co-sleeping. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the length of the belt member adjustable according to the width of a mattress. (Hashiba: [0042])
Regarding claim 6,
Sclare in view of Tharalson in view of Flannery in view of Hashiba discloses the children's accessory of Claim 6, wherein at least one of the one or more bedside securing straps comprises two distinct portions for making two separate adjustments (Flannery: FIG. 9 (58) and (54)) FIG. 1 (30)) and a L-shaped anchor. (Flannery Col. 6 lines 63-67 and col. 7 lines 1-5 “Each of the counter members 32, 34 includes a vertical piece 54 that confronts distal side 44 of mattress support 36 and that further confronts distal side 55 of a mattress 56 that is shown in FIG. 2. Each of the counter members 32, 34 further includes a horizontal piece 58 that is engaged to a distal end 60 of each of the flexible straps 28, 30. Horizontal piece or portion 58 is disposed at a right angle relative to vertical piece or portion 54 of the counter members 32, 34. Horizontal piece 58 is disposed between the upper surface of the mattress support 36 and the lower surface of the mattress 56.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sclare in view of Flannery in view of Hashiba directed to co-sleeping devices by adding counter members for the straps that are L-shaped as taught in Flannery directed to a co-sleeping bassinet since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of acting as a counter member for the mattress so that it maintains the bassinet as close as possible to the bed.
Claim(s) 7, 12-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sclare in view Tharalson in view of of European Publication No. EP0570194 issued to Sadow.
Regarding claim 7,
Sclare in view Tharalson discloses the children's accessory of Claim 1, further comprising at least one wheel assembly, (Sclare: [0038] “In addition, one or more conventional wheels (e.g., casters or rollers) 105 can be coupled to the base portion 106 to allow a caregiver to roll the bassinet 100 across the support surface.”)
Sclare in view Tharalson does not appear to disclose the at least one wheel assembly positioned externally from the frame, comprising a spring-biased hinged flange assembly connected to the base frame and a wheel pivotally secured to the spring-biased hinged flange, wherein the spring-biased hinged flange assembly is configured to hinge relative to the lower frame assembly.
However, related to the same issue, Sadow discloses the at least one wheel assembly positioned externally from the frame, (Sadow: FIG. 6 (28) can rotate about (30) see col. 6 lines 29-45) comprising a spring-biased hinged flange assembly connected to the base frame assembly (Sadow: FIG. 6 (28) is attached to (52) by hinge pin 30 and is biased by spring 32) or the outrigger 110 is held by springs 126/128 or torsion spring 150 or leaf springs 142/144 in FIGS. 18-26) and a wheel pivotally secured to the spring-biased hinged flange, (Sadow: FIG. 1 (34) has a pivot pin (36) ) wherein the spring-biased hinged flange assembly is configured to hinge relative to the lower frame assembly. (Sadow: FIG. 1, (34) is free to rotate relative to the lower frame assembly)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheel assembly of Sclare in view Tharalson directed to a bassinet as taught in Sadow directed to a children’s furniture since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result: a widened wheel footpring resisting tip-over when extended, and inward retraction of the wheels to clear obstructions and permit the base portion to be positioned beneath the adult bed, directly serving Sclare’s over-bed positioning functionality (Sclare: [0045]).
Regarding claim 12,
Sclare in view Tharalson discloses the children's accessory of Claim 1 further comprising a wheel assembly, (Sclare: [0038] “In addition, one or more conventional wheels (e.g., casters or rollers) 105 can be coupled to the base portion 106 to allow a caregiver to roll the bassinet 100 across the support surface.”)
Sclare in view Tharalson does not appear to disclose the wheel assembly comprising a hinged outrigger flange coupled to a frame member of the accessory and at least one wheel coupled to the hinged outrigger flange, wherein, in a neutral position, the hinged outrigger flange is biased configured to at an oblique offset angle from a longitudinal axis of a frame element to which the hinged outrigger flange is attached, and wherein, in a retracted postion, a portion of the hinged outrigger flange is rotated inwardly toward the frame.
However, Saddow discloses the wheel assembly comprising a hinged outrigger flange coupled to a frame member of the accessory (Sadow: FIG. 6 (28) can rotate about (30) see col. 6 lines 29-45) and at least one wheel coupled to the hinged outrigger flange, (Sadow: FIG. 1 (34) has a pivot pin (36) ) wherein, in a neutral position, the hinged outrigger flange is biased configured to at an oblique offset angle from a longitudinal axis of a frame element to which the hinged outrigger flange is attached, (Sadow: FIG. 14 (28) is curved or arcuate from a longitudinal axis with the channels (21) and (22) also curved) and wherein, in a retracted position, a portion of the hinged outrigger flange is rotated inwardly toward the frame. (Sadow: FIG. 6 (28) can rotate about hinge pin (30) from the extended position to a first position located entirely within the confines of the base, in channel (22))
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheel assembly of Sclare in view Tharalson directed to a bassinet as taught in Sadow directed to a children’s furniture since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result: a widened wheel footpring resisting tip-over when extended, and inward retraction of the wheels to clear obstructions and permit the base portion to be positioned beneath the adult bed, directly serving Sclare’s over-bed positioning functionality (Sclare: [0045]).
Regarding claim 13,
Sclare in view of Tharalson in view of Sadow discloses the wheel assembly of Claim 12, wherein the hinged outrigger flange is spring biased toward and oblique angular offset orientation relative to the frame member. (Sadow: FIG. 14 spring (32) acting through hinge pin (30) biases the arcuate bar 28 into seated engagement in the curved channel holding the castor-carrying portions in the trailing, obliquely offset orientation relative to the base)
Regarding claim 14,
Sclare in view of Tharalson in view of Sadow discloses the wheel assembly of Claim 12, wherein the at least one wheel is a caster wheel pivotally mounted to the hinged outrigger flange. (Sadow: FIG. 1 castor (34) has a pivot pin (36) to which arm (38) is mounted for free swinging movement, i.e. freely rotate around the wheel (40))
Regarding claim 16,
Sclare in view of Tharalson in view of Sadow discloses the wheel assembly of claim 7, wherein the wheel assembly further comprises a spring-loaded lock and relase actuator configured for user actuation to selectively allow or prevent hinging of the spring-biased flange assembly. (Saddow: FIG. 1 (30) has a head 31 engaged with (28) biased by spring (32) operative to bias the bar into seated engagement within the associated channel and retain it in that position, whereupon the bar can be rotated about the hinge pin, and upon release, is biased back into locked seating engagement; see also leaf spring 132 )
Regarding claim 17,
Sclare in view of Tharalson in view of Sadow discloses the wheel assembly of claim 12, wherein the wheel assembly further comprises a spring-loaded lock and relase actuator configured for user actuation to selectively allow or prevent hinging of the spring-biased flange assembly. (Saddow: FIG. 1 (30) has a head 31 engaged with (28) biased by spring (32) operative to bias the bar into seated engagement within the associated channel and retain it in that position, whereupon the bar can be rotated about the hinge pin, and upon release, is biased back into locked seating engagement; see also leaf spring 132 )
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sclare in view Tharalson in view of of European Publication No. EP0570194 issued to Sadow further in view of Renno.
Regarding claim 15,
Sclare in view of Tharalson in view of Sadow discloses the wheel assembly of Claim 12.
Sclare in view of Tharalson in view of Sadow does not appear to disclose wherein the at least one wheel comprises a releasable locking mechanism configured for user actuation to selectively allow or prevent rolling of the wheel.
However, Renno discloses wherein the at least one wheel comprises a releasable locking mechanism configured for user actuation to selectively allow or prevent rolling of the wheel. (Renno: FIG. 2A (154))
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the caster wheels of the combination with Renno’s releasable braking/locking mechanism so that a caregiver can freely reposition the accessory and then lock the wheels to prevent unintended movement away from the desired position including on uneven or sloped floors (Renno: background).
Claim(s) 8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sclare in view Tharalson in view of of U.S. Publication No. 20020152550 issued to Tharalson (2).
Regarding claim 8,
Sclare in view of Tharalson discloses the children's accessory of Claim 1.
Sclare in view of Tharalson does not appear to disclose further comprising a securing device for securing an the children's accessory to a parental bed in the bedside sleeper configuration, the securing device comprising a first portion for making first adjustments and a second portion for making second adjustments separate from the first adjustments.
However, Tharalson (2) discloses further comprising a securing device for securing an the children's accessory to a parental bed in the bedside sleeper configuration, the securing device comprising a first portion for making first adjustments and a second portion secured around the frame for making second adjustments in the length of the second portion separate from the first adjustments. (Tharalson: see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image1.png
375
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown, Tharalson (2) discloses a securing device for making first adjustments, and a second portion (second strap) secured around the frame. The second portion is secured around a frame member by the securing strap attachment means 598 and the cooperating attachment means 602 which connect the second strap to the front or rear vertical rails of the frame 14.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sclare in view of Tharalson directed to a bassinet by providing two portions of the straps that connect via adjustment buckles as taught in Tharalson (2) directed to a co-sleeping bassinet. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the length of the belt member adjustable according to the width of a mattress.
Regarding claim 10,
Sclare in view of Tharalson in view of Tharalson (2) discloses the children's accessory securing device of Claim 8, wherein the second portion comprises a second strap and a side-release clip. (Tharalson (2): See annotated figure in claim 8)
Regarding claim 11,
Sclare in view of Tharalson in view of Tharalson (2) discloses the children's accessory securing device of Claim 8, wherein the first and second portions are separable from one another. (Tharalson (2): See annotated figure in claim 9, the clip/buckle allows for separation of the straps.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sclare in view of U.S. Patent No. 6877173 issued to Tharalson in view of U.S. Publication No. 20020152550 issued to Tharlson (2) further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11202519 issued to Flannery.
Regarding claim 9,
Sclare in view of Tharalson in view of Tharalson (2) discloses the children's accessory securing device of Claim 8, wherein the first portion comprises a first strap. (Tharalson (2): See annotated figure in claim 8)
Sclare in view of Tharalson does not appear to disclose and a L-bracket at a first end of the first strap.
However, Flannery discloses a L-bracket at a first end of the first strap. (Flannery Col. 6 lines 63-67 and col. 7 lines 1-5 “Each of the counter members 32, 34 includes a vertical piece 54 that confronts distal side 44 of mattress support 36 and that further confronts distal side 55 of a mattress 56 that is shown in FIG. 2. Each of the counter members 32, 34 further includes a horizontal piece 58 that is engaged to a distal end 60 of each of the flexible straps 28, 30. Horizontal piece or portion 58 is disposed at a right angle relative to vertical piece or portion 54 of the counter members 32, 34. Horizontal piece 58 is disposed between the upper surface of the mattress support 36 and the lower surface of the mattress 56.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sclare in view of Tharalson in view of Tharalson (2) directed to co-sleeping devices by adding counter members for the straps that are L-shaped as taught in Flannery directed to a co-sleeping bassinet since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of acting as a counter member for the mattress so that it maintains the bassinet as close as possible to the bed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
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 C. Mikowski can be reached on 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights