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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statement filed on 11/24/2025 was considered by the examiner; see attachment PTO-1449.
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.
Claims 1-15 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 1 recites “a framework comprising U-shaped arch that spans between a first end and a second end,….; a seat positioned at the first end of the U-shaped arch,….; at least a support that assists a child in sitting upright at the second end of the U-shaped arch.”
The U-shaped is not described in the original specification or the original drawing. As clearly shown in fig. 2 of the current application, the first and the second end of the frame are not in the same level (i.e, no U-shaped). What’s shown is more like J-shaped so it can accommodate the “faced-to-face relationship” in the current claim and “at a common eye level” as in claim 1 of the previous application (13/974,762 for example). Note that using U-shaped as a general term where it’s simply curved at the top but not specifically equal at the two ends of the framework is a “new matter” because that will include having the two seats at the same level which was not described in the original specification. Claims 2-15 are also rejected based on its dependency on rejected claim 1.
In addition, there is no support for claims 6-7 about “The swing of claim 5, wherein the one or more stabilizing bars comprises a first stabilizing bar positioned between the first end of the U-shaped arch and a top of the U-shaped arch and a second stabilizing bar positioned between the second end of the U-shaped arch and the top of the U-shaped arch.” The location of the stabilizer 19 in applicant’s figures is not provided in the location described in the claim above.
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) 1-5, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US patent 9,061,213, note that previous publication date for the PCT is Oct. 13, 2011) in view Miller (US patent No. 5,533,934).
As to claim 1, Hsu et al. teaches A swing for promoting attunement between a caretaker and child (figure 1) comprising: a framework comprising a U-shaped arch that spans between a first end and a second end (figure 7, part 26 of the swing where the two seats are connected to each other with a frame that’s substantially in U-shape), an upper portion of the arch comprising one or more suspension points by which the framework may be suspended from a support structure (support structure 30 and the framework is connected to it); a seat positioned at the first end of the U-shaped arch, the seat being configured to be occupied by a caretaker of a child (either seat can be considered);
Hsu et al. does not expressly teach “at least a support that assists a child in sitting upright positioned at the second end of the U-shaped arch.
Miller (figures 1 and 2-3) teaches a swing that includes a support that assists a child in sitting upright position (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the teaching of Miller to replace one of the seats of Hsu et. to with seat that support the child so as motivated by Miller, to prevent a small child from tipping forward or backward (abstract)
As to claim 2, Hsu et al. teaches, The swing of claim 1, wherein the framework is a piped framework (figure 1).
As to claim 3, Hsu et al. teaches The swing of claim 1, wherein the U-shaped arch comprises a first arch element and a second arch element, and wherein the seat is configured such that the caretaker is positioned between the first and second arch elements (fig. 7 shows the two U-shaped are to the right and to the left of both seats).
As to claim 4, Hsu et al. teaches The swing of claim 3, wherein the support that assists a child in sitting upright is configured such that the child is positioned between the first and second arch elements (fig. 7 shows the two U-shaped are to the right and to the left of both seats).
As to claim 5, The swing of claim 4, wherein the U-shaped arch further comprises one or more stabilizing bars spanning between the first arch element and the second arch element (element 30 connects the two arches).
As to claim 10, Hsu et al teaches (or at least suggest) The swing of claim 1, wherein the first end of the U-shaped arch and the second end of the U-shaped arch are spaced apart horizontally by between about twelve and about thirty inches (this is optimization factor to have the space enough to the user to sit comfortably).
As to claim 11, The swing of claim 10, wherein the first end of the U-shaped arch and the second end of the U-shaped arch are spaced apart horizontally by between about sixteen and about twenty-six inches (see claim 1o above).
As to claim 12, Hsu et al. teaches The swing of claim 1, wherein the seat comprises a backing structure that supports the caretaker in an upright position (see the discussion of Miller reference above).
As to claim 13, Hsu et al. teaches The swing of claim 1, wherein the swing is configured so that the caretaker may push off of the ground (clearly from the figure, the seat if occupies by adult, the feet will be touching the ground).
As to claim 14, the modified device teaches The swing of claim 13, wherein the swing is configured so that the child is unable to touch the ground (if the modified device by Miller used uses the child seat will not touch the ground).
As to claim 15, Hsu et al. teaches The swing of claim 1, wherein the framework is suspended from a support structure by one or more chains affixed to the one or more suspension points (figure 22).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 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 the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. It is noted that there is no art rejection for claims 8-9. However, the determination of its allowability will rely on how claim 1 will be amended to overcome the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gaucher (US Patent No. 3,825,299) teaches a lawn swing with two opposing seats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMR A AWAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7764. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
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.
/AMR A AWAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights