Carrying device for babies

FINAL REJECTION 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 . General Information Acknowledgement is made of the applicant’s amendment filed on 08/28/2026, no new matter has been added. The merits of this case have been carefully reexamined in light of the applicant’s response received 08/28/2026. It is the examiner’s position that the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) has not been overcome by the applicant’s amendment and a FINAL rejection is set forth below. 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails 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. The claimed invention is indefinite and nonenabling for the following reasons: Reproduction 1.1 is inconsistent with the other views. Reproduction 1.1 shows broken line elements off the rear of the article (indicated below) that are not seen in the other views. The elements appear to be a wrapped-up strap and other unknown elements. Consistency is required. PNG media_image1.png 1532 984 media_image1.png Greyscale Reproductions 1.4 and 1.5 are inconsistent with reproductions 1.3, 1.6, and 1.7. Reproductions 1.4 and 1.5 are missing the indicated broken line elements that are shown on the interior of the article (indicated below) that are seen on the article in reproductions 1.3, 1.6, and 1.7. Consistency is required. PNG media_image2.png 1366 1294 media_image2.png Greyscale Reproduction 1.3 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.6. Reproduction 1.6 shows broken lines on the interior of the head support element (indicated below) that are not shown on the same element in reproduction 1.3. Consistency is required. PNG media_image3.png 807 785 media_image3.png Greyscale The exact configuration of reproduction 1.3 is not clearly disclosed. The bottom of the waistband straps are not shown extending to the bottom front of the article, instead, they extend upward into an unknown area. To be consistent, the bottom of the waistband straps should extend to the bottom edge of the body of the article. PNG media_image4.png 434 803 media_image4.png Greyscale The exact configuration and shape of the straps on the rear of the article (indicated below) in reproductions 1.4 and 1.5 are not clearly disclosed. The indicated straps in reproductions 1.4 and 1.5 do not match the shape that is seen in the other views and appear to combine creating an unknown shape. As currently disclosed it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture. PNG media_image5.png 797 1415 media_image5.png Greyscale The exact configuration of the small thin straps on the shoulder straps (indicated below) are not clearly disclosed and appear inconsistent throughout the views. Reproduction 1.6 shows the longer and with a different shape, and reproduction 1.7 shows them far from the unclaimed buckle elements that are shown close in the other views. As currently disclosed it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture. PNG media_image6.png 545 644 media_image6.png Greyscale Reproduction 1.7 is inconsistent with reproductions 1.1 and 1.3. Reproduction 1.7 shows a different shape and configuration to the shoulder straps of the article (indicated below) than what is seen in reproductions 1.1 and 1.3. Reproduction 1.7 appears to show additional solid lines and a different orientation of the shoulder straps. Consistency is required. PNG media_image7.png 756 1573 media_image7.png Greyscale Reproduction 1.6 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.1. The size and shape of the indicated element/surface on the article in reproduction 1.6 (indicated below in red color) does not match the same element/surface shown in reproduction 1.1 or any other views. As currently disclosed it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture. PNG media_image8.png 542 930 media_image8.png Greyscale Because of the inconsistencies, and insufficient information in the reproductions provided, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reproduce the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled. In order to overcome this refusal, it is suggested that the design be shown clearly and consistently among the views. However, care must be taken to not introduce new matter. It must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of original filing. When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). Conclusion The claim is FINALLY REJECTED under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CZYZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Simmons can be reached on 571-272-2658. 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. /STEVEN J CZYZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2913