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 .
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 intersection, upper support surface, lower support surface, first upper support surface, second upper support surface body surface head surface, common vertex, vertex bifurcates first angle, second angle, reduced cross-section, cross-section, slidingly adjustable along an incline surface, increasing cross-section, central mid-point portion, midpoint, vertical height, horizontal displacement, horizontal separation, angularly offset, first state, second state, first edge, second edge, wherein a first edge of the first upper support surface is spaced away from a second edge of the second upper support surface wherein the first edge of the first upper support surface is adjacent to the second edge of the second upper support surface. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The terms the intersection, upper support surface, lower support surface, first upper support surface, second upper support surface body surface head surface, common vertex, vertex bifurcates first angle, second angle, reduced cross-section, cross-section, slidingly adjustable along an incline surface, increasing cross-section, central mid-point portion, midpoint, vertical height, horizontal displacement, horizontal separation, angularly offset, first state, second state, first edge, second edge, wherein a first edge of the first upper support surface is spaced away from a second edge of the second upper support surface wherein the first edge of the first upper support surface is adjacent to the second edge of the second upper support surface do not reference the specification in anyway and lack antecedent basis with the specification.
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 24-43 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.
The specification’s entire disclosure of the folding structure is the following: a “central area of the support body 21 is concaved along a downward direction of the inclined surface to form a folding structure 24,” wherein “the support body 21 is expanded while the folding structure 24 is expanded while the folding structure 24 is expanded and the support body 21 is folded while the folding structure 24 is folded” (FIGS. 10-11). The specification defines a lateral axis X, a longitudinal axis Y, and a vertical axis Z, and use these axes to describe the support body’s longitudinal ends (28, 29), the lower body’s lateral ends (31, 32), the inclined surface, the neck bolster portion (22), and the concave structure (23). The folding structure is described only as a “central area” “concaved along a downward direction” that “expands and folds” The specification nowhere describes the structural and dimensional limitations recited below
Regarding claim 24,
The claim recites that the support structure has a first state in which the upper support surface is inclined relative to the lower support surface at a first angle, and a second state in which the upper support surface is inclined relative to the lower support surface at a second angle different than the first, with a first edge of a first upper support surface moving from spaced away from to adjacent to a second edge of a second upper support surface. The specification discloses a single, fixed inclination angle: “an angle formed between the inclined surface and the horizontal surface of the support body 21 is represented by α and 0°<α<10°, wherein the angle α is preferably 9°.” The specification does not describe the upper support surface assuming two different inclination angles relative to the lower support surface, nor a first and second upper support surface having respective edges that transition from spaced to adjacent. The “expanded”/”folded” disclosure describes that the folding structure opens and closes; it does not describe a change in the inclination angle of the upper support surface relative to the lower support surface, nor the recited two upper support surfaces and their edges. The inventor is not shown to have possessed this subject matter.
Regarding claims 27 and 38,
The claims recite that the bifurcation forms a reduced cross-section along a central mid-point portion of the support body. The specification does not describe the support body, or the folding structure, as having a cross-section that is reduced at a central mid-point portion. The single fold sentence (“central area… concaved along a downward direction… expands and folds”) does not disclose any cross-sectional dimension of the folding structure, much less a reduction localized to a central mid-point portion. FIGS. 10-11 are schematic views of the folding structure in expanded and folded states and do not depict a cross-section reduced at a mid-point; FIGS. 5-9 are single cross-sectional views taken at one longitudinal station, do not depict the folding structure 24, and cannot, as a matter of geometry, disclose a cross-section that varies along the length of the support body. The inventor is not shown to have possessed this subject matter.
Regarding claims 29 and 40,
The claims recite that the bifurcation extends along a vertical height of the upper support surface. The specification’s only directional statement concerning the folding structure is that the central area is “concaved along a downward direction of the inclined surface.” The specification does not describe the bifurcation extending along a vertical height of the upper support surface, and no figure depicts such a vertical extent of the folding structure. The inventor is not shown to have possessed this subject matter.
Regarding claims 30 and 41,
The claims recite the first upper support surface and the second upper support surface have a greater horizontal displacement than along the central mid-point portion i.e. a horizontal separation between the two surfaces that is greater toward the ends than at a central mid-point portion. The specification contains no disclosure of any horizontal displacement between two upper support surfaces, and no disclosure of any horizontal displacement between two upper support surfaces, and no disclosure that such displacement varies along the length of the support body. The sole fold disclosure describes a concavity “along a downward direction” (i.e. along the vertical axis Z), which is a different axis than the horizontal (lateral axis X) displacement recited. No figure depicts the lateral footprint of the folding structure or any variation of that footprint along the length: FIGS. 10-11 depict the folding structure opening and closing, not a horizontal displacement that is greater at the ends than at a mid-point; and FIGS. 5-9are single-station cross-sectional views that cannot disclose a displacement that varies along the length of the support body. A flared, position-dependent lateral geometry is not an inherent consequence of a fold. The inventor is not shown to have possessed this subject matter.
Regarding claim 34
The specification describes a support body 21 having a single inclined top surface (at a single angle), a U-shaped neck bolster portion 22 protruding from the inclined surface to support the infant’s neck (slidably and/or detachably connected, e.gh, by Velcro), a concave structure 23 at the downward end for resisting the buttocks, and a folding structure 24 described as "a central area of the support body 21... concaved along a downward direction of the inclined surface” that “expands and folds” (FIGS. 10-11). The specification does not use the terms “body surface,” “head surface,” or “intersection,” and does not describe a body surface and a head surface as two distinct surfaces, an intersection between them, or the structures recited in claims 38-41. Claim 34 only recites that “the U-shaped head support structure is positioned along the support body surface and the head surface” i.e. the U-shaped head support is positioned along both surfaces, extending across the region between them. The specification describes the U-shaped neck bolster 22 as positioned to support the infant’s neck such that “the neck and the chin-to-chest positions of the infant… are optimal.” It does not describe the U-shaped head support being positioned along both a body surface and a head surface, nor extending across an intersection between two such surfaces. The specification discloses the bolster at the neck on a single inclined surface, not spanning two distinct surfaces. The inventor is therefore not shown to have possessed a U-shaped head support “positioned along the support body surface and the head surface.” Figure 2 which shows a U-shaped structure in the vicinity of the concave structure 23 is unlabeled in the drawings and undescribed in the specification. An unlabeled undescribed feature in a drawing does not convey possession of a specific claimed structure or spatial relationship; the specification expressly identifies and describes only the U-shaped neck bolster 22, the concave structure 23, and the folding structure 24. No description ties ANY depicted feature to a U-shaped head support positioned along both a body surface and a head surface.
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 33-43 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.
Regarding claims 33-43,
Claim 33 recites “a support body including a body surface and a head surface; an intersection formed between the body surface and the head surface, “ and “an intersection formed between the body surface and the head surface,” with the U-shaped head support structure “positioned on the body surface and adjacent to the intersection of the body surface and the head surface.” Claim 36, which depends from claim 33, recites that the head surface is comprised of “a first angle formed by a horizontal separation of a first upper support surface and a second upper support surface and a second angle formed longitudinally along each of the first upper support surface and the second upper support surface, wherein the first angle and the second angle have a common vertex which partially bifurcates.” Claim 33 thus defines “the intersection” as the locus formed between a “body surface” and a “head surface,” while claim 36 characterizes the same region in terms of “a first upper support surface” and “a second upper support surface” meeting at “a common vertex which partially bifurcates.” It cannot be determined with reasonable certainty whether “the intersection” of claim 33 is (a) a boundary between a body-supporting surface and a head-supporting surface, or (b) a bifurcating common vertex between a first upper support surface and a second upper support surface, these being structurally different features. The specification discloses a single inclined top surface and does not disclose any structure that is simultaneously a body-surface/head-surface boundary and a bifurcating vertex between two upper support surfaces. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of “the intersection,” and of the “body surface,” “head surface,” “first upper support surface,” and “second upper support surface” that define it, cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty.
support “positioned… adjacent to the intersection of the body surface and the head surface.”
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.
Minus the U-shaped pillow positioning and the change of claim language in claim 33, the examiner notes that claims 33-43 would stand rejection for the same reasons claims 24-32 stand rejected since they are of similar scope, until applicant clarifies claim language, interpretation as well written support for such features.
Claim(s) 24-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent No. 2896968 issued to Freitas in view of U.S. Publication No. 20060096031 issued to Foster.
Regarding claim 24,
Freitas discloses a support structure (Freitas: FIGS. 1-3, 9) comprising a support body (Freitas: FIG. 2 (1)) including a lower support surface an upper support surface extending from the lower support surface at an intersection (Freitas: FIG. 2 has a lower support (10) and a upper support (11) extending from a intersection i.e. at the ends of the supports) …,wherein the support structure has a first state in which the upper support surface is inclined relative to the lower support surface at a first angle, wherein a first edge of the first upper support surface is spaced away from a second edge of the second upper support surface, (Freitas: FIG. 2 shows (11) having a first edge spaced away from a second edge in the second surface (10)) wherein the support structure has a second state in which the upper support surface is inclined relative to the lower support surface at a second angle that is different than the first angle, and wherein the first edge of the first upper support surface is adjacent to the second edge of the second upper support surface. (Freitas: discloses that the upper part is pivotable about fold line 110 to a different inclination causing the edges to be adjacent to one another)
Freitas does not appear to disclose and a U-shaped head support positionable on the upper support surface
However, Foster disclose and a U-shaped head support positionable on the upper support surface (Foster: FIG. 4B (15))
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the infant support of Freitas with the U-shaped removable head support of Foster, in order to cradle and laterally position the infant’s head.
Regarding claim 25,
Freitas in view of Foster discloses the support structure according to claim 24, wherein the first angle and the second angle have a common vertex which partially bifurcates. (Freitas: FIG. 2 (110) is a common vertex that bifurcates the upper and lower surfaces (10, 11))
Regarding claim 26,
Freitas in view of Foster discloses the support structure according to claim 25, wherein the bifurcation extends along the upper support surface. (Freitas: FIG. 2 (110) is on the upper support surface)
Freitas in view of Foster does not appear to disclose wherein the bifurcation extends along the upper support surface. (Freitas: FIG. 2 (110) is on the upper support surface)
Claim(s) 27-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent No. 2896968 issued to Freitas in view of U.S. Publication No. 20060096031 issued to Foster further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20180345113 issued to May.
Regarding claim 27,
Freitas in view of Foster discloses the support structure according to claim 26.
Freitas in view of Foster does not appear to disclose wherein the bifurcation forms a reduced cross-section along a central mid-point portion of the support body.
However, May discloses wherein the bifurcation forms a reduced cross-section along a central mid-point portion of the support body. (May: FIG. 13 (122))
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freitas in view of Foster to form the fold line as a score-line living hinge as taught by May. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to give the foam body a controlled, durable, repeatable fold along a defined line.
Regarding claim 28,
Freitas in view of Foster in view of May discloses the support structure according to claim 27, wherein the bifurcation extends through an increasing cross-section of the support body and along the entirety of the first upper support surface and the second upper support surface. (Freitas: FIG. 2 (110) extends along the entirety of the first and second upper support surface i.e. at the transition point between the two surfaces)
Regarding claim 29,
Freitas in view of Foster in view of May discloses the support structure according to claim 28, wherein the bifurcation extends along a vertical height of the upper support surface. (May: FIG. 13 (122) has a vertical height)
Regarding claim 30,
Frietas in view of Foster in view of May discloses the support structure according to claim 27, wherein the first upper support surface and the second upper support surface have a greater horizontal displacement than along the central mid-point portion. (Frietas: FIG. 2 (110) and May FIG. 13 (122) each having a small horizontal displacement relative to the displacement of the fold line or central mid-point portion)
Regarding claim 31,
Frietas in view of Foster in view of May discloses the support structure according to claim 30, wherein the bifurcation forms a folding structure of the support body. (Frietas: FIG. 2 (110) allows for folding to take place)
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent No. 2896968 issued to Freitas in view of U.S. Publication No. 20060096031 issued to Foster further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20110113552 issued to Miller.
Regarding claim 32,
Frietas in view of Foster in view of May discloses the support structure according to claim 27.
Frietas in view of Foster in view of May does not appear to disclose including a fixing member, the fixing member connected to the support structure and the support structure detachably connectable to a carriage body.
However, Miller discloses including a fixing member, the fixing member connected to the support structure and the support structure detachably connectable to a carriage body. (Miller: FIG. 1 a plurality of fixing members (22) attaches the corners of the support body at the first and second longitudinal ends)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frietas in view of Foster in view of May by adding straps/ties as taught in Miller in order to allow the positioner to be fixedly disposed on the mattress of a carriage body which would prevent relative movement of the positioner.
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