Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/523,356

Carrying device for babies

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 19, 2024
Examiner
CZYZ, STEVEN J
Art Unit
2913
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Cybex GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
94%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 9m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 94% — above average
94%
Career Allow Rate
904 granted / 965 resolved
+33.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+2.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 9m
Avg Prosecution
4 currently pending
Career history
969
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§102
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
§112
88.0%
+48.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 965 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
NON-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 . Election In the paper received 12/08/2025, applicant elects without traverse the design shown in Group II (Reproductions 2.1-2.7). Accordingly, the design shown in Group I stands withdrawn from further prosecution. 37 CFR 1.142(b). Specification The specification is objected to for the following reasons: There are multiple inventors listed for the claimed design. For proper form (37 CFR 1.153), the claim must be amended to read: --We claim: the ornamental design for a Carrying Device for Babies, as shown and described.-- The specification does not include a brief description of the reproductions as required. (See Hague Rule 7(5)(a), 37 CFR 1.1024, MPEP 2920.04(a)II) For accuracy and clarity, the specification has been amended to provide descriptions for the views of the reproductions as follows: --2.1: Front View 2.2: Right Side View 2.3: Left Side View 2.4: Rear View 2.5: Top View 2.6: Bottom View 2.7: Perspective View-- 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 2.1 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.2. Reproduction 2.1 shows a zipper pull extending off the front of the article (indicated below) that is not seen in reproduction 2.2. Consistency is required. PNG media_image1.png 581 1208 media_image1.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.1 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.2. Reproduction 2.2 shows a zipper pull extending off the side and below the article (indicated below) which is not seen in reproduction 2.1. Consistency is required. PNG media_image2.png 581 1208 media_image2.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.1 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.3. Reproduction 2.1 shows a zipper pull extending off the front of the article (indicated below) that is not seen in reproduction 2.3. Consistency is required. PNG media_image3.png 585 1569 media_image3.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.1 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.3. Reproduction 2.3 shows a zipper pull extending off the side and below the article (indicated below) which is not seen in reproduction 2.1. Consistency is required. PNG media_image4.png 585 1123 media_image4.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.1 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.5. Reproduction 2.1 shows a zipper pull on the front of the article (indicated below) which is not seen on the front in reproduction 2.5. Consistency is required. PNG media_image5.png 600 1962 media_image5.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.1 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.5. Reproduction 2.5 shows a zipper pull on the top and of the article and extending off the front edge (indicated below) which is not seen on the top in reproduction 2.1. Consistency is required. PNG media_image6.png 637 1946 media_image6.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.1 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.5. Reproduction 2.1 shows two solid lines forming the top edge of what the examiner presumes to be a pocket (indicated below) while reproduction 2.5 shows a single line. Consistency is required. PNG media_image7.png 775 1132 media_image7.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.1 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.5. Reproduction 2.5 shows two strap elements on the rear support pad (indicated below) which are not seen on the rear support pad in reproduction 2.1. Consistency is required. PNG media_image8.png 918 1963 media_image8.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.1 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.6. Reproduction 2.1 shows a zipper pull on the front of the article (indicated below) which is not seen on the front in reproduction 2.6. Consistency is required. PNG media_image9.png 917 1967 media_image9.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.1 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.6. Reproduction 2.6 shows two strap elements on the rear support pad (indicated below) which are not seen on the rear support pad in reproduction 2.1. Consistency is required. PNG media_image10.png 636 1966 media_image10.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.1 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.7. Reproduction 2.7 shows the zipper elements more on the top of the article (indicated below) while reproduction 2.1 shows the zipper elements on the front. Consistency is required. PNG media_image11.png 692 2054 media_image11.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.1 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.7. Reproduction 2.7 shows a different shape and configuration to the zipper pull on the article (indicated below) which does not match the zipper pull in reproduction 2.1 Consistency is required. PNG media_image12.png 691 1194 media_image12.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.1 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.7. Reproduction 2.7 shows a different shape to the indicated front portion of the article (indicated below) which does not match the shape seen in reproduction 2.1 Consistency is required. PNG media_image13.png 681 1714 media_image13.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.7 is inconsistent with all the views. The shape and configuration of the waist band portion of the article (indicated below) does not match the waist band portion seen in any of the other views. Consistency is required. PNG media_image14.png 758 1015 media_image14.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.7 is inconsistent with reproductions 2.2 and 2.3. Reproductions 2.2 and 2.3 show a rounded top to the indicated element (indicated below) while reproduction 2.7 shows a flat top. Consistency is required. PNG media_image15.png 634 2037 media_image15.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.7 is inconsistent with reproductions 2.2 and 2.3. Reproductions 2.2 and 2.3 show a zipper pull on the sides of the article (indicated below) which are not seen in reproduction 2.7. Consistency is required. PNG media_image16.png 634 2037 media_image16.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.7 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.2. Reproduction 2.2 shows the indicated line to extend up and curve to the right on the article (indicated below) while reproduction 2.7 shows the same line to curve left into the article. Consistency is required. PNG media_image17.png 633 1680 media_image17.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.7 is inconsistent with reproductions 2.2 and 2.3. Reproduction 2.7 shows a zipper pull on the top and front of the article (indicated below) which is not seen in reproductions 2.2 and 2.3. Consistency is required. PNG media_image18.png 633 1682 media_image18.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.7 is inconsistent with reproductions 2.2 and 2.3. Reproductions 2.2 and 2.3 show the waist band with additional elements (indicated below) which are not seen in reproduction 2.7. Consistency is required. PNG media_image19.png 634 2037 media_image19.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.7 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.4. Reproduction 2.4 shows the waist band with additional elements (indicated below) which are not seen in reproduction 2.7. Consistency is required. PNG media_image20.png 633 2042 media_image20.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.7 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.5. Reproduction 2.5 shows a longer size to the zipper track on the top of the article (indicated below) than what is seen in reproduction 2.7. Consistency is required. PNG media_image21.png 750 1996 media_image21.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.7 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.5. Reproduction 2.5 shows a different configuration to the zipper pull on the top of the article (indicated below) which does not match the zipper pull seen in reproduction 2.7. Consistency is required. PNG media_image22.png 749 1996 media_image22.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.7 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.5. Reproduction 2.5 shows the waist band portion of the article with additional elements (indicated below) which are not seen in reproduction 2.7. Consistency is required. PNG media_image23.png 920 1997 media_image23.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.7 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.6. Reproduction 2.7 shows a zipper pull extending off the top front of the article (indicated below) that is not seen in reproduction 2.6. Consistency is required. PNG media_image24.png 916 1985 media_image24.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.7 is inconsistent with reproduction 2.6. Reproduction 2.6 shows the waist band portion of the article with additional elements (indicated below) which are not seen in reproduction 2.7. Consistency is required. PNG media_image25.png 901 1651 media_image25.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.7 is inconsistent with reproductions 2.5 and 2.6. Reproduction 2.7 shows the indicated surface to have hard/shape edges/corners on the article (indicated below) while reproductions 2.5 and 2.6 show the surface with rounded corners/edges. Consistency is required. PNG media_image26.png 750 1996 media_image26.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.4 is inconsistent with reproductions 2.2 and 2.3. Reproduction 2.4 shows the top of the sides of the waistband to come to a peak and have pockets (indicated below) while reproductions 2.2 and 2.3 show the top of the sides as flat and without pockets. Consistency is required. PNG media_image27.png 613 2233 media_image27.png Greyscale Reproduction 2.4 is inconsistent with reproductions 2.2 and 2.3. Reproduction 2.4 is missing the zipper pulls that extend below the sides of the article (indicated below) which are seen in reproductions 2.2 and 2.3. Consistency is required. PNG media_image28.png 616 2948 media_image28.png Greyscale Reproductions 2.5 and 2.6 are inconsistent with reproductions 2.2 and 2.3. Reproductions 2.5 and 2.6 show the buckle elements to extend out past the waistband on the article (indicated below) while reproductions 2.2 and 2.3 show the buckle elements covered by the waistband. Consistency is required. PNG media_image29.png 1857 2827 media_image29.png Greyscale Reproductions 2.5 and 2.6 are inconsistent with reproductions 2.2 and 2.3. Reproductions 2.2 and 2.3 show zipper pulls on the sides on the article (indicated below) which are not seen on the sides of the article in reproductions 2.5 and 2.6. Consistency is required. PNG media_image30.png 1405 2825 media_image30.png Greyscale Reproductions 2.5 and 2.6 are inconsistent with reproductions 2.2 and 2.3. Reproductions 2.5 and 2.6 show two strap elements on the rear pad of the article (indicated below) which are not seen in reproductions 2.2 and 2.3. Consistency is required. PNG media_image31.png 1855 2827 media_image31.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). Discussion of the Merits of the Case: All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below. Telephonic or In Person Interviews A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner). The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, may be used for this purpose: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at Steven.czyz@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call. Email Communications The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information. When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence When responding to an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, Ex Parte Quayle, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, please note the following: The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by: Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450 Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions Conclusion The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b). The references are cited as pertinent prior art. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Patent Number Search” button. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /STEVEN J CZYZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2913
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 19, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1104569
FLOORING SAMPLE DISPLAY STAND
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104576
Clothes Rack
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104447
Knitting Machine
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1105400
FOLDING FAN
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1103740
ELECTRONIC READER MODULE OF AN ELECTRONIC LATCH ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
94%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+2.3%)
1y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 965 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month