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 in the reply filed on 4/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-16 are withdrawn.
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 mating portions and recess in 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) 1-4, 7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10149551 issued to Long in view of U.S. Patent No. 9962012 issued to Schmid.
Regarding claim 1,
Long discloses a system comprising: an infant tub (Long: FIG. 2 (50)) comprising a bottom portion, (Long: FIG. 2 sleeping platform) a front wall portion, (Long: FIG. 2 (62)) a back wall portion, (Long: FIG. 2 (56)) a first side wall portion, and a second side wall portion ((Long: FIG. 2 (58)) has a bottom portion i.e. sleeping platform, (62) front wall portion) each of the front wall portion, the back wall portion, the first side wall portion, and the second side wall portion extending upward relative to the bottom portion. (Long: FIG. 2 all walls extend upward) the back wall portion coupling a back edge of the first side wall portion to a back edge of the second side wall portion (Long: FIG. 2 (56) couples a back edge to side walls (58)) the infant tub defining a first opening between a first edge of the front wall portion and the first side wall portion such that an upper edge of the infant tub includes a first upper edge portion disposed lower than an uppermost edge of the front wall portion (Long: FIG. 2A shows a clear first opening extending between side walls (58) and front wall (68)), the infant tub defining a second opening between a second edge of the front wall portion and the second side wall portion such that the upper edge of the infant tub includes a second upper edge portion lower than the uppermost edge of the front wall portion, the second edge of the front wall portion disposed opposite the first edge of the front wall portion; (Long: FIG. 2A shows a clear second opening extending between side walls (58) and front wall (68) opposite the first opening) a base; (Long: FIG. 1 (48)) a column assembly coupled to the base; (Long: FIG. 1 ( 46))
Long does not appear to disclose and an arm rotatably coupled to the column assembly, the arm configured to support the infant tub.
However, Schmid discloses and an arm rotatably coupled to the column assembly, the arm configured to support the infant tub. (Schmid: FIG. 5 (7) see col. 3 lines 33-37 “With reference to FIG. 2, the infant sleep device 1 can be mounted on a rotating pivot 6 on the end of an articulating, rotating arm 7 of the tower 3 to give increased flexibility in positioning the infant sleep device 1 next to a sleeping parent.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify the device of Long by incorporating a rotating arm to support the infant tub as taught by Schmid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order “to give increased flexibility in positioning the infant sleep device 1 next to a sleeping parent.” (Schmid: col. 3 lines 33-37)
Regarding claim 5,
Long in view of Schmid discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the infant tub includes a blocking portion configured to be transitioned between a first configuration in which the blocking portion blocks the first opening and second configuration in which the blocking portion does not block the first opening. (Long: FIG. 2A (54) served as a blocking portion that blocks the first opening in a first configuration and does not block the first opening when it is attached.)
Regarding claim 7,
Long in view of Schmid discloses the system of claim 1, comprising a mattress disposed on an upper surface of the bottom portion. (Long: col. 6 lines 57-60 “The bassinet 50 includes a lower frame 52 defining a support surface for a mattress or other such bed for the baby (not shown).”)
Regarding claim 9,
Long in view of Schmid discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the front wall portion has a maximum height smaller than a maximum height of the first side wall portion and a maximum height of the second side wall portion. (Long: FIG. 2A (68) is smaller than (58))
Regarding claim 10,
Long in view of Schmid discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a distance between the front wall portion and the back wall portion is smaller than a distance between the first side wall portion and the second side wall portion. (Long: FIG. 2A the distance between the sidewalls (58) is greater than the distance between (68) and (56))
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long and Schmid further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5867850 issued to Mariol.
Regarding claim 2,
Long in view of Schmid discloses the system of claim 1.
Long in view of Schmid does not appear to disclose wherein the bottom portion, the back wall portion, the first side wall portion, and the second side wall portion are integrally formed.
However, Mariol discloses wherein the bottom portion, the back wall portion, the first side wall portion, and the second side wall portion are integrally formed. (Mariol: claim 9 “a side wall integral with and extending along the periphery of said bassinet bottom wall; a substantially rigid panel integral with said bassinet bottom and side wall and extending upward from said bassinet bottom wall separating said bassinet into at least two separate discrete stand-alone compartments whereby said bassinet and compartments comprise one integral unit”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Long a s a single integrally formed unit, as taught by Mariol in order to reduce manufacturing complexity, eliminate joints and seams that could trap contaminants or fail under repeated loading, and produce a rigid one-piece enclosure.
Regarding claim 3,
Long in view of Schmid discloses the system of claim 1.
Long in view of Schmid does not appear to disclose wherein the bottom portion, the back wall portion, the first side wall portion, and the second side wall portion are integrally formed.
However, Mariol discloses wherein the bottom portion and the front wall portion are integrally formed. (Mariol: claim 9 “a side wall integral with and extending along the periphery of said bassinet bottom wall; a substantially rigid panel integral with said bassinet bottom and side wall and extending upward from said bassinet bottom wall separating said bassinet into at least two separate discrete stand-alone compartments whereby said bassinet and compartments comprise one integral unit”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Long a s a single integrally formed unit, as taught by Mariol in order to reduce manufacturing complexity, eliminate joints and seams that could trap contaminants or fail under repeated loading, and produce a rigid one-piece enclosure.
Regarding claim 4,
Long in view of Schmid discloses the system of claim 1.
Long in view of Schmid does not appear to disclose wherein the back wall portion, the first side wall portion, and the second side wall portion are integrally formed.
However, Mariol discloses wherein the back wall portion, the first side wall portion, and the second side wall portion are integrally formed. (Mariol: claim 9 “a side wall integral with and extending along the periphery of said bassinet bottom wall; a substantially rigid panel integral with said bassinet bottom and side wall and extending upward from said bassinet bottom wall separating said bassinet into at least two separate discrete stand-alone compartments whereby said bassinet and compartments comprise one integral unit”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Long a s a single integrally formed unit, as taught by Mariol in order to reduce manufacturing complexity, eliminate joints and seams that could trap contaminants or fail under repeated loading, and produce a rigid one-piece enclosure.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long and Schmid further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8918929 issued to Kayser.
Regarding claim 6,
Long in view of Schmid discloses the system of claim 5.
Long in view of Schmid does not appear to disclose wherein the blocking portion is a first blocking portion, the infant tub including a second blocking portion configured to be transitioned between a first configuration in which the blocking portion blocks the second opening and a second configuration in which the blocking portion does not block the second opening.
However, Kayser discloses wherein the blocking portion is a first blocking portion, the infant tub including a second blocking portion configured to be transitioned between a first configuration in which the blocking portion blocks the second opening and a second configuration in which the blocking portion does not block the second opening. (Kayser: FIGS. 3-4 (50R, 50L) see also col. 7 lines 28-35 “Utilizing the structure described above, particularly the doors 50R, 50L comprising the upper section of front wall 20 of the infant crib 10, access to the bed space of the crib 10 is easily achieved without bending or straining over a non-moveable crib wall. Access is also easier in that the release mechanisms are placed more towards the center of the front wall 20 rather than at the corner posts as is the situation with currently available fold-down side cribs.” The examiner notes that the doors allow access to the first opening while simultaneously blocking the second opening)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the convertible-wall arrangement of Long by replacing the single convertible front wall 54 with two opposite-hand opening groups of doors as taught by Kayser since “access to the bed space of the crib 10 is easily achieved without bending or straining over a non-moveable crib wall” and Long suggests that “other walls or portions of the enclosure may be convertible to increase the number of approaches for reaching in to the bassinet.” (Long: col. 5 lines 26-30)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long and Schmid further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20100199426 issued to Long i.e. Long (2).
Regarding claim 8,
Long in view of Schmid discloses the system of claim 1, comprising a tub frame (Long: FIG. 1 (32)) coupled to the arm and configured to support the infant tub, (Schmid: FIG. 5 (7), examiner notes that the combination of Schmid and Long read on coupled to the arm)
Long does not appear to disclose the tub frame including an upper surface defining a recess, the infant tub including a mating portion extended downward relative to the bottom portion and configured to be received in the recess, the mating portion having at least one of a smaller width or a smaller length than a maximum width between the front wall portion and the back wall portion or a maximum length between the first side wall portion and the second side wall portion, respectively.
However, Long (2) discloses the tub frame including an upper surface defining a recess, the infant tub including a mating portion extended downward relative to the bottom portion and configured to be received in the recess, the mating portion having at least one of a smaller width or a smaller length than a maximum width between the front wall portion and the back wall portion or a maximum length between the first side wall portion and the second side wall portion, respectively. (Long (2): FIG. 12C (214) defines a recess that accepts mating portion (216) which has a smaller width/length than the side wall dimensions or front to back wall dimensions when combined with Long)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the proturbence-and-aperture mating mechanism of Long’s FIG. 12C embodiment into the rectangular partial-wall bassinet structure of Long in order to provide enhanced stability and positive alignment between the infant tub and the tub frame. (Long 2: [0075])
Conclusion
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 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights