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 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-11, and 18-24 is/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.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “horizontal within +/- 1 with respect to parallel,” and claim 21 recites “within +/-0.5 with respect to parallel.” The claims do not identify the reference to which “parallel” pertains. “Horizontal” and “parallel” denote different geometric relationships; a surface is parallel to something, and no such referent is recited. The specification repeats the phrase without defining the referent. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claimed tolerance therefore cannot be ascertained. The examiner will interpret as being with respect to the horizontal plane rather than parallel.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 18-24 are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 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, 10, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20230320496 issued to Buckley in view of U.S. Publication No. 20180295994 issued to DeWeerd, further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160367419 issued to Bhai.
Regarding claim 1,
Buckley discloses a leveling infant bed system comprising: a frame comprising one of a bassinet frame, a crib frame, and a play-yard frame, the frame comprising a frame portion and at least one vertical member; (Buckley: FIGS. 3-4 (200, 210, 232, 240, 215)) an infant sleeping support surface attached to the frame and configured to support an infant mattress or pad; (Buckley: FIGS. 3-4 (254) supported within base via framework (250)) … an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust the frame (Buckley: legs (215) are adjustable see [0086] “In some cases, the legs also may be independently adjustable, to allow the bassinet to be angled to a desired degree. For example, this may allow an infant to recline with its head slightly elevated, to address infant reflux.”)
Buckley does not appear to disclose a level indicator attached to the frame and configured to indicate whether the infant sleeping support surface is horizontal within +/- 1° with respect to parallel.
However, Bhai discloses a level indicator attached to the frame and configured to indicate whether the infant sleeping support surface is horizontal within +/- 1° with respect to parallel. (Bhai: [0040]; FIGS. 2, 6 (inclinometer)), maintained within a range of +/-0.5⁰ of a nominal reference orientation see also [0062] which is within the claimed +/-1⁰
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Buckley’s frame with a level indicator with the tolerance above since doing so would allow a caregiver to verify that the sleep surface is horizontal when adjusting the legs.
Buckley in view of Bhai does not appear to disclose wherein the adjustment mechanism is a manual adjustment mechanism comprising one or more manually operable adjustment screws, wherein at least one of the one or more manually operable adjustment screws extends from the frame portion to the at least one vertical member, and wherein manual rotation of the at least one manually operable adjustment screw adjusts an angle of the at least one vertical member relative to the frame portion and thereby adjusts an angular orientation of the infant sleeping support surface relative to horizontal.
However, DeWeerd discloses wherein the adjustment mechanism is a manual adjustment mechanism comprising one or more manually operable adjustment screws, wherein at least one of the one or more manually operable adjustment screws extends from the frame portion to the at least one vertical member, and wherein manual rotation of the at least one manually operable adjustment screw adjusts an angle of the at least one vertical member relative to the frame portion and thereby adjusts an angular orientation of the infant sleeping support surface relative to horizontal. (DeWeerd: [0028] “The set screws 22, 24 may extend into the through holes 28 in the front and rear surfaces of the tubular member 8. In this way, the set screws may be adjusted to set the angle of incline of the upright assembly 11 with respect to the foot 9. Depending on the depth of the respective set screws 22, 24, the upright assembly 11 may be set to a desired angle in the direction of either the first end 15 or the second end 14 of the foot 9.” Refer to FIG. 3, [0032] and [0034] which talks about manually loosening the screws by turning them in order to adjust for angular orientation)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the adjustable legs of Buckley with DeWeerd’s set-screw arrangement since doing so would provide simple, low-profile, fine angular adjustment for leveling on uneven surfaces (DeWeerd: [0003]).
Regarding claim 10,
Buckley in view of Bhai in view of DeWeerd discloses a method for maintaining a horizontal support surface in a leveling infant bed system, the method comprising: providing an infant bed system according to Claim 1; and manually rotating at lest one of the one or more manually operable adjustment screws extending from the frame portion to the at least one vertical member to adjust an angle of the at least one vertical member relative to the frame portion (DeWeerd: see claims 18-19) and thereby adjust an angular orientation of the infant sleeping support surface until the level indicator indicates that the infant sleeping support surface is horizontal within +/-1⁰ with respect to parallel. (Bhai: [0040], [0062])
Regarding claim 21,
Buckley in view of Bhai in view of DeWeerd discloses the leveling infant bed system of claim 1, wherein the level indicator is configured to indicate whether the infant sleeping support surface is horizontal within +/-0.5⁰ with respect to parallel. (Bhai:[0062])
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley in view of DeWeerd and Bhai, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8056975 issued to Longenecker.
Regarding claim 2,
Buckley in view of Bhai in view of DeWeerd discloses the leveling infant bed system of Claim 1.
Neither reference appears to disclose wherein the level indicator is one of a mechanical level.
However, Longenecker discloses wherein the level indicator is one of a mechanical level. (Longenecker: FIGS. 1-3, 9-10 (160, 162) used to assist a user in verifying the orientation of the base when operating a manual angle-adjustment mechanism (172, 174) see also col. 9 lines 24-40)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a liquid bubble level as taught by Lonenecker for the electronic indicator of Bhai since doing so would provide a simple, inexpensive indicator requiring no electrical power that is readable at a glance from either side of the frame while also maintaining the tolerances of Bhai.
Regarding claim 11,
Buckley in view of Bhai in view of DeWeerd discloses the method of claim 10.
Neither reference appears to disclose wherein the level indicator is one of a mechanical level.
However, Longenecker discloses wherein the level indicator is one of a mechanical level. (Longenecker: FIGS. 1-3, 9-10 (160, 162) used to assist a user in verifying the orientation of the base when operating a manual angle-adjustment mechanism (172, 174) see also col. 9 lines 24-40)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a liquid bubble level as taught by Lonenecker for the electronic indicator of Bhai since doing so would provide a simple, inexpensive indicator requiring no electrical power that is readable at a glance from either side of the frame while also maintaining the tolerances of Bhai.
Claim(s) 18 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley in view of Bhai in view of DeWeerd further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20050103972 issued to Milton.
Regarding claim 18,
Buckley in view of Bhai in view of DeWeerd discloses the leveling infant bed system of claim 1.
Buckley in view of Bhai in view of DeWeerd does not appear to disclose wherein the one or more manually operable adjustment screws comprise a fine-pitch thread configured to permit incremental angular adjustment of the infant sleeping support surface.
However, Milton discloses wherein the one or more manually operable adjustment screws comprise a fine-pitch thread configured to permit incremental angular adjustment of the infant sleeping support surface. (Milton: [0023]-[0024] see FIGS. 2-3 (2) the pitch and roll if a deck is leveled by rotating threaded levelers (1A-1C) within leveler mounts (2) which “is accomplished by means of a fine pitch thread on both items.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Buckley in view of Bhai in view of DeWeerd’s screws with a fine-pitch thread as taught by Milton since doing so would permit finer incremental angular adjustment of the sleep surface toward the tolerance of Bhai. Furthermore, such a selection of pitch thread is routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 24,
Buckley in view of Bhai in view of DeWeerd discloses the method of claim 10.
Buckley in view of Bhai in view of DeWeerd does not appear to disclose wherein the at least one manually operable adjustment screws comprise a fine-pitch thread configured to permit incremental angular adjustment of the infant sleeping support surface.
However, Milton discloses wherein the at least one manually operable adjustment screws comprise a fine-pitch thread configured to permit incremental angular adjustment of the infant sleeping support surface. (Milton: [0023]-[0024] see FIGS. 2-3 (2) the pitch and roll if a deck is leveled by rotating threaded levelers (1A-1C) within leveler mounts (2) which “is accomplished by means of a fine pitch thread on both items.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Buckley in view of Bhai in view of DeWeerd’s screws with a fine-pitch thread as taught by Milton since doing so would permit finer incremental angular adjustment of the sleep surface toward the tolerance of Bhai. Furthermore, such a selection of pitch thread is routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Claim(s) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley in view of DeWeerd and Bhai further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2700893 issued to Kudlacik.
Regarding claim 19,
Buckley in view of DeWeerd in view of Bhai discloses the leveling infant bed system of claim 1.
Buckley in view of DeWeerd in view of Bhai does not appear to disclose wherein each adjustment screw comprises a screw head having a knurled surface or a hexagonal socket configured to facilitate manual rotation.
However, Kudlacik discloses wherein each adjustment screw comprises a screw head having a knurled surface or a hexagonal socket configured to facilitate manual rotation. (Kudlacik: FIGS. 1-2 (6) see col. 2 lines 30-34 “he opposite end of the base is provided with two leveling screws 5 arranged near its opposite edges and having knurled heads 6 to facilitate their adjustment.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide DeWeerd’s set screws with knurled or hexagonal-socket heads as taught by Kudlacik since doing so would facilitate manual rotation. (Kudlacik: col. 2 lines 30-34)
Regarding claim 22,
Buckley in view of DeWeerd in view of Bhai discloses the method of claim 10.
Buckley in view of DeWeerd in view of Bhai does not appear to disclose wherein manually rotating the at least one manually operable adjustment screw comprises manually rotating a screw head having a knurled surface or a hexagonal socket.
However, Kudlacik discloses wherein manually rotating the at least one manually operable adjustment screw comprises manually rotating a screw head having a knurled surface or a hexagonal socket.
(Kudlacik: FIGS. 1-2 (6) see col. 2 lines 30-34 “he opposite end of the base is provided with two leveling screws 5 arranged near its opposite edges and having knurled heads 6 to facilitate their adjustment.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide DeWeerd’s set screws with knurled or hexagonal-socket heads as taught by Kudlacik since doing so would facilitate manual rotation. (Kudlacik: col. 2 lines 30-34)
Claim(s) 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley in view of DeWeerd and Bhai further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5138134 issued to Ellison.
Regarding claim 20,
Buckley in view of DeWeerd in view of Bhai discloses the leveling infant bed system of claim 1.
Neither reference appears to disclose wherein the one or more manually operable adjustment screws comprise a first manually operable adjustment screw positioned at a first end of the frame and a second manually operable adjustment screw positioned at an opposite end of the frame.
However, Ellison discloses wherein the one or more manually operable adjustment screws comprise a first manually operable adjustment screw positioned at a first end of the frame and a second manually operable adjustment screw positioned at an opposite end of the frame. (Ellison: FIGS. 10, 13 (219a, 219b0 threaded into holes (234, 236) at opposite ends of (201) see col. 6 lines 60-col 7 line 45)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide adjustment screws at opposite ends of Buckley in view of DeWeerd in view of Bhai’s frame as taught by Ellison since doing so would permit each end of the sleep surface to be leveled independently.
Regarding claim 20,
Buckley in view of DeWeerd in view of Bhai discloses the method of claim 10.
Neither reference appears to disclose wherein the one or more manually operable adjustment screws comprise a first manually operable adjustment screw positioned at a first end of the frame and a second manually operable adjustment screw positioned at an opposite end of the frame.
However, Ellison discloses wherein the one or more manually operable adjustment screws comprise a first manually operable adjustment screw positioned at a first end of the frame and a second manually operable adjustment screw positioned at an opposite end of the frame. (Ellison: FIGS. 10, 13 (219a, 219b0 threaded into holes (234, 236) at opposite ends of (201) see col. 6 lines 60-col 7 line 45)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide adjustment screws at opposite ends of Buckley in view of DeWeerd in view of Bhai’s frame as taught by Ellison since doing so would permit each end of the sleep surface to be leveled independently.
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 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