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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-12 are pending in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 1/20/2026 has been considered by the office.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 recites the limitation, “spans an angle ranging from 36 radians to 50 radians”. It is unclear to the examiner what is meant by this limitation. There are only 6.28 radians in a circle, therefore, the modular unit spanning an angle greater than that is not possible. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Binning (US 6926613 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Binnning discloses a modular crib unit, comprising: a frame member comprising a first frame member (See Fig. 2, identical outer rail members 26-34) and a second frame member (See Fig. 2, corner member 12); a first connection mechanism disposed on a first end of the frame member (See Fig. 3, holes 100, 102, 104); a connector disposed on a second end of the frame member (See Fig. 3, dowels 68 and 70), wherein the connector has a first end fixedly connected to the frame member (See Fig. 3, dowels 68 and 70 within holes 108 and 110) and a second end protruding to form a second connection mechanism (See Fig. 4, dowels 68 and 70 protruding); and a fastener (See Fig. 3, nut 82); wherein the second connection mechanism comprises at least two connection columns (See Fig. 3, dowels 68 and 70 being columns, threaded member 64 being a column)), at least one of the connection columns is provided with a fastener hole (See Fig. 4, bore 174 having aperture 130), and the first connection mechanism comprises a connection hole arranged correspondingly to the connection column (See Fig. 3, holes 100, 102, 104); and when a plurality of the modular units are assembled adjacently, the connection column of one modular unit is inserted into the connection hole of another modular unit adjacent to the one modular unit (See Fig. 3-4, adjacent dowels and holes connected to one another and adjacent), and the fastener is installed within the connection hole and the fastener hole in a penetrating manner to connect and lock the first connection mechanism and the second connection mechanism (See Fig. 3-4, threaded member 64 is placed through bore 50 and aperture 130 then secured by washer 84 and nut 82).
PNG
media_image1.png
507
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
521
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
541
787
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Binning discloses the modular crib unit according to claim 1, wherein the connector comprises at least one fixation column at a first end thereof (See Fig. 3, threaded member 64), the frame member is provided with a fixation hole at a second end thereof (See Fig. 3, threaded member reception hole 112), and the fixation column is pre-mounted and fixedly connected within the fixation hole (See Fig. 3, member 64 threaded into hole 112).
Regarding Claim 6, Binning discloses the modular crib unit according to claim 1, wherein the frame member is composed of a number of first frame members (See Fig. 2, identical outer rail members 26, 28, 30, 34) and two second frame members respectively installed at two ends of each of the first frame members (See Fig. 2, corner members 12, 14, 16, 18 at ends of rail members), and the first connection mechanism and the connector are disposed at two ends of the same second frame member, respectively (See Fig. 2-4, dowels and holes disposed at ends of corner members).
Regarding Claim 7, Binning discloses the modular crib unit according to claim 6, wherein the second frame is a straight member (corner members 12, 14, 16, 18 are straight members), a curved member, or an undulating member.
Regarding Claim 8, Binning discloses the modular crib unit according to claim 6, wherein the first frame member is a column-like member (rail members 26, 28, 30, 34 are straight column members), a sheet-like member, or a plate-like member, and is provided in quantity of one or more (See Fig. 2, identical outer rail members 26, 28, 30, 34).
Regarding Claim 9, Binning discloses the modular crib unit according to claim 6, wherein the two second frame members of each of the modular units are provided with the first connection mechanism and the connector at two ends thereof respectively (See Fig. 2-4, dowels and holes disposed at ends of corner members).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binning (US 6926613 B1) in view of Cattaneo (US 20190003505 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Binning discloses the modular crib unit according to claim 2, and the connection column and the fixation column are respectively arranged on two sides {of the connection main body} (See Fig. 3, dowels 68 and 70 on a different side than threaded member 64); and the connection column comprises a first connection column (See Fig. 3, dowels 68 and 70), wherein the first connection columns is provided in quantity of two (dowels 68 and 70).
Binning fails to explicitly disclose wherein the connector further comprises a connection main body; and a second connection column, wherein the first connection columns are disposed on two sides of the second connection column, respectively, and the fastener hole is provided in the second connection column.
However, Cattaneo teaches wherein the connector further comprises a connection main body (See Fig. 6, body 16); and a second connection column (See Fig. 6, half shells 48, 49), wherein the first connection columns are disposed on two sides of the second connection column (See Fig. 6, pins 17 and 18 on two sides of half shells 48, 49), respectively, and the fastener hole is provided in the second connection column (“a hole formed in one of the two half-shells 48”; [0074]).
PNG
media_image4.png
509
779
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Binning (directed to a modular pool table) and Cattaneo (directed to a joining system for furniture) and arrived at a modular unit of furniture One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (adding a half shell connector to the modular connection unit) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions (the modular unit would still conjoin together) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the modular unit could be used in combination with the connection mechanism to achieve the units conjoining together).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binning (US 6926613 B1) in view of Cattaneo (US 20190003505 A1), further in view of Koelling (US 20170023043 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Binning, as modified, teaches the modular crib unit according to claim 3.
Binning in view of Cattaneo fail to explicitly teach wherein the fixation column is configured to be interference-fit into the fixation hole, snap-fit into the fixation hole, or adhesively bonded into the fixation hole.
However, Koelling teaches wherein the fixation column is configured to be interference-fit into the fixation hole (See Fig. 9, barbs 50 of channel lock 2 are inference fit into holes 57), snap-fit into the fixation hole, or adhesively bonded into the fixation hole.
PNG
media_image5.png
281
299
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Binning in view of Cattaneo by substituting the fixation column for the interference fit columns taught by Koelling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “prevent the barbed channel lock 2 from being removed from the barbed post holes 57 after insertion”; (Koelling, [0158]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binning (US 6926613 B1) in view of Cattaneo (US 20190003505 A1), in view of Koelling (US 20170023043 A1), further in view of Berloni (US 20180310707 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Binning, as modified, teaches the modular crib unit according to claim 4, wherein the frame member is provided with a first hole in the first end thereof (See Fig. 3, counter bore 50), and a nut member is disposed within the first hole (See Fig. 3, nut 82 within bore 50).
Binning in view of Cattaneo in view of Koelling fails to explicitly teach when the modular units are assembled adjacently, the connection column provided with the fastener hole is installed within a through hole of the nut member in a penetrating manner, the fastener is installed within the nut member in a threaded connection manner and installed within the fastener hole in a penetration manner, and the fastener hole is a through hole or a threaded hole.
However, Berloni teaches when the modular units are assembled adjacently, the connection column provided with the fastener hole is installed within a through hole of the nut member in a penetrating manner (See Fig. 2, pin 6 installed into hole 8 of collar 4), the fastener is installed within the nut member in a threaded connection manner and installed within the fastener hole in a penetration manner, and the fastener hole is a through hole or a threaded hole (See Fig. 2, threaded peg 9 is installed into thread 10 in collar 4 until contacting eyelet 11 of pin 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
675
545
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Binning in view of Cattaneo in view of Koelling by adding connection mechanism as taught by Berloni. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “obtain the desired coupling”; (Berloni, [0040]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binning (US 6926613 B1).
Regarding Claim 10, Binnings fails to explicitly teach the modular crib unit according to claim 6, wherein a left-right length of the modular unit ranges from 10cm to 30cm or the modular unit spans an angle ranging from 36 radians to 50 radians. However, it has been held in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no unexpected or significant result to having the left-right modular unit having a length between 10-30cm.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binning (US 6926613 B1) in view of Kasem (US 7117550 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Binning discloses the modular unit according to claim 1.
Binning fails to explicitly teach a crib frame, wherein adjacent ones of the modular units are engaged and fixed to each other to form the crib frame, wherein the crib frame is circular or track-shaped.
However, Kasem teaches a crib frame comprising at least two modular units (See Fig. 2, crib 10 having modular units) according to claim 1, wherein adjacent ones of the modular units are engaged and fixed to each other to form the crib frame, wherein the crib frame is circular or track-shaped (See Fig. 2 and 3, circular crib 10 being formed from engaged modular units).
PNG
media_image7.png
719
535
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
753
513
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Binning by combining the units to form a circular crib as taught by Kasem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide a comfortable area for infants to sleep or play”; (Kasem, [Col. 2, Lines 5-6]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Binning fails to explicitly teach a crib comprising a bed panel and the crib frame according to claim 11.
However, Kasem teaches a crib comprising a bed panel and the crib frame (See Fig. 2, crib 10 having mattresses 28a, 28b, bases 22a and 22b, middle sections 16a and 16b, and side sections 18a).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Binning by adding the bases as taught by Kasem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “cushion the infant sleeping area”; (Kasem, [Col. 7, Lines 27-28]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20060185081 A1: Peer discloses a kit for enabling assembly of a crib structure comprising a first frame member and a second frame member; a connecting structure.
US 12331769 B2: Derelov discloses a set of panels configured to mechanically lock each other through a series of locking grooves and holes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
