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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 30 June 2026, with respect to the previously cited references and the interpretation of the notch and cover door as claimed have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-14 has been withdrawn. The Examiner agrees that the double patenting rejection is no longer valid in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s argument that “This is distinguishable from the configuration recited in claim 15, which prevents rotation of the legs until the bottom plate is separated therefore” is unclear. The Applicant is arguing a difference between the teachings of Zhang and the claimed invention of claim 15. However, there does not appear to be any limitation in claim 15 which prevents rotation of the legs until the bottom plate is separated therefrom.
The Examiner suggests adding a limitation similar to “the bottom plate configured to be moved towards the frame unit in order to detach from the legs and enable pivoting of the legs” in order to more positively claim the function that the Applicant has argued above. Additionally, the Examiner does note that currently as claim 15 is presented, there would likely be other art which could be used to reject the plate with a groove and notch configuration. The claim does not require the first lower limiting member be located at a bottom of the leg or that the bassinet be attachable to a play yard. These missing features help to differentiate the bassinet from the structure of a crib or play yard. For example, a crib with removable base plate that has a notch and groove for holding the edge of the base plate could likely read on the claim as presented as there are many folding cribs with detachable base plates that rest on a lip or groove.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 11-12 of claim 1, the phrase “to toward” should be changed to read - -toward --. Claims 15-20 spell bassinet as “bassinett.” The Examiner requests correction of the spelling. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 7 includes the limitation “first upper limiting members……respectively abut against said second upper limiting members to limit pivotal movement of said legs.” The limitation includes a generic placeholder of “member” modified by the functional language “limit pivotal movement of said legs” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function. Based on the specification the Examiner considers the first upper limiting members to include walls and pins or rivets (paragraph [0034]).
Claim 10 includes the limitation “locking mechanism configured to transition between an engaged…and disengaged position. ” The limitation includes a generic placeholder of “mechanism” modified by the functional language “configured to transition between an engaged…and disengaged position” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function. Based on the specification the Examiner considers the locking mechanism to include pushbuttons (paragraph [0029]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 15 includes the limitation “the first lower limiting member including at least one of a groove and a notch and the second lower limiting member includes a portion of a peripheral edge of the bottom plate, the portion of the peripheral edge of the bottom plate being receivable within the at least one of the groove and the notch.” However, based on the originally filed specification and drawings (see paragraph [0036]) “when the bottom plate 70 is connected to the legs 40, the portions of peripheral edge of the bottom plate 70 are respectively received in the grooves 612 formed in the legs 70.” The Applicant never refers to the protruding blocks as forming part of the peripheral edges of the plate and it does not appear that a portion of the peripheral edge of the plate could extend into the notch based on the figures. Should the applicant amend claim 15 to include all of the limitations of claim 19 and all preceding claims, and amend claim 15 to read - - the portion of the peripheral edge of the bottom plate being receivable within the at least one of the groove
Claims 1-14 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 recites the limitation "second lower limiting mechanism.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner believes this should be changed to read - - second lower limiting member - -.
Claims 2-14 depend on claim 1 and are therefore rejected under 112(b) accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 203633849).
Regarding Claim 15: Zhang discloses a bassinet (Figs. 1-7 of Zhang) comprising: a frame unit (fence 2 of Zhang); two legs (support assembly 3 of Zhang) that are pivotally connected to said frame unit (shown in the comparison between Figs. 7-8 of Zhang); a bottom plate (bed plate of Zhang) that is disposed between said legs (see at least Fig. 1 of Zhang); and a lower limiting mechanism (bent part 31 of Zhang) that is disposed on at least one of said legs (See Fig. 1 of Zhang); wherein said bottom plate is detachably connected to said legs via said lower limiting mechanism (see Figs. 1-7 of Zhang), the lower limiting mechanism comprising a first lower limiting member (bent part 31 including the flat portion annotated in the copy of Fig. 1 of Zhang provided below) disposed on a respective leg (see Fig. 1 of Zhang) and a second lower limiting member disposed on the bottom plate (mounting 9 seat 4 of Zhang), the first lower limiting member including at least one of a groove (formed by the upper surface of bent part 31 of Zhang) and a notch (space between the flat portion shown in annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Zhang and the upper surface of the bent part 31) and the second lower limiting member includes a portion of a peripheral edge of the bottom plate (mounting seat 4 of Zhang), the portion of the peripheral edge of the bottom plate being receivable within the at least one of the groove and the notch such that the bottom plate is positioned on top of the legs (see the Examiner’s Note).
Examiner’s Note - see the description and figures of Zhang which explains that the bent part 31 is positioned within a slot within the mounting base 4. It is clear from Figure 1 of Zhang that there is a flat portion attached to the leg which sits on top of the mounting seat 4 when attached. Therefore, the space between the annotated flat portion and the upper surface of bent part 31 is considered the notch. Additionally, since the bent part 31 is positioned with the slot in the mounting seat 4, the bed plate of Zhang is therefore considered on top of the legs.
PNG
media_image1.png
705
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16: Zhang discloses the bassinett of claim 15, wherein the first lower limiting member includes the groove, the groove extending from a bottom of the respective leg toward an opposite leg of the two legs (see the upper surface of the bent part 31 shown in Fig. 6 of Zhang).
Regarding Claim 17: Zhang discloses the bassinett of claim 16, wherein the groove spans an entire width of the respective leg (see the upper surface of the bent part 31 shown in Figs. 1-8 of Zhang).
Regarding Claim 18: Zhang discloses the bassinett of claim 15, wherein the first lower limiting member includes the notch, the notch being formed into an inner surface of the respective leg near a bottom end of the leg (see annotated copy of Fig. 7 of Zhang).
PNG
media_image2.png
736
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19: Zhang discloses the bassinett of claim 18, wherein the second lower limiting member protrudes beyond a peripheral edge of the bottom plate, the second lower limiting member being removably positionable within the notch (Figs. 1-8 of Zhang).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. The examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments regarding the teachings of Zhang as applied to claim 1 to be persuasive and agrees that modifying Zhang with the teachings of KR 20-0473720 as previously presented would not lead to a notch receiving a second limiting member and the notch being covered by the biased cover door. For these reasons, claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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 as well as the objections presented above.
Claim 20 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:
Regarding Claim 20: Zhang, which is considered the closest prior art of record, discloses the bassinett of claim 19 but does not disclose wherein the first lower limiting member includes a protrusion arranged within the notch and the second lower limiting member includes an engagement hole, the engagement hole being detachably engagable with said protrusion.
The arrangement of Zhang currently includes ribs which extend from the bent part 31 and extend into a hole in portion 4 of Zhang to keep the bent portion in engagement with the mounting seat 4. Moving the positioning of the ribs to extend upward from the bent part could be a reasonable modification in a different type of apparatus but since the mounting seat 4 will be positioned underneath the baby one having ordinary skill would not reasonably switch the ribs to extend into an upper surface of mounting seat 4. Doing so could add discomfort or enable inadvertent disconnection of the rib and hole. Additionally. Since the Examiner considers the space between the top flat portion and the top surface of the bent part to be the notch, there would be no reasonable modification to place a protrusion in the notch which would engage the hole in the mounting seat 4. Adding a latch with a protrusion as taught by KR 20-0473720 as previously relied upon would not be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because the latch release mechanism would again need to at least partially be provided on an upper surface of the flat portion which would disturb the baby and/or enable inadvertent release of the latch. Since Zhang is considered the closest prior art of record, claim 20 would be allowed if rewritten in independent form including 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).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 0,277,501 to Menuez is cited for teaching a folding crib with protrusions for connecting a baseboard.
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 AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 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 Mikowski can be reached at (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.
/AMANDA L BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
