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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 October 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ayette et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0168603).
Regarding claim 1, Ayette discloses a lap belt length adjusting device for a child safety seat, wherein a lap belt of the child safety seat comprises a fixing end and a free end, the fixing end is fixed to a seat part of the child safety seat, and the free end is pulled by a user (belt 49 is viewed as a lap belt at least inasmuch as that of the invention and has an end fixed to 48 of a child seat and a free end for pulling as in Figure 7 for instance or an end at 64 fixed and a free end at 65 as in Figure 6 for instance), the lap belt length adjusting device comprises: an adjusting structure (71 and/or 72 for instance; alternatively 61 and/or 62) arranged at the seat part and through which the free end passes, wherein after the free end passes through the adjusting structure, a length of a use section of the lap belt between the fixing end and the adjusting structure can be increased or decreased (i.e. a use section of 49 above 71 or 63 for instance); and a locking structure (73; alternatively 63) movably engageable with the lab belt ()73 and 63 both move relative to, and engage with, the lab belt) to lock the lap belt between the adjusting structure and the free end (see figures), the locking structure being movable out of engagement with the lap belt (at least inasmuch as in the invention) to allow an increase or decrease in the length of the use section of the lap belt between the fixing end and the adjusting structure (this is the general manner of operation).
Regarding claim 2, Ayette further discloses the adjusting structure is a first opening penetrating through an upper surface of the seat part, and the free end of the lap belt passes through the first opening to a bottom of the seat part (the belt passes in this manner through 71).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ayette further discloses a second opening (61 for instance) is arranged on the upper surface of the seat part, and the fixing end of the lap belt is fixed to the second opening, wherein the fixing end of the lap belt passes through the second opening and then is connected with a fixing member (64), and the fixing member is blocked by the second opening, such that the fixing end is not withdrawn from the second opening (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 10, Ayette discloses a lap belt length adjusting device for a child safety seat, wherein a lap belt of the child safety seat comprises a fixing end and a free end, the fixing end is fixed to a seat part of the child safety seat, and the free end is pulled by a user (belt 49 is viewed as a lap belt at least inasmuch as that of the invention and has an end fixed to 48 of a child seat and a free end for pulling; see at least Figure 7 for instance), the lap belt length adjusting device comprises: an adjustable locking structure (73) fixed to the seat part and through which the free end passes, wherein after the free end passes through the adjustable locking structure, a length of a use section of the lap belt extending between the fixing end and the adjustable locking structure can be increased or decreased (i.e. a use section of 49 above 71 for instance); and the adjustable locking structure is engageable with the lap bel to lock the lap belt passing through the adjustable locking structure and is moveable out of engagement with the lap belt (at least inasmuch as the invention), to allow an increase or decrease in the length of the use section of the lap belt extending between the fixing end and the adjustable locking structure (this is the general manner of operation).
Regarding claim 11, Ayette further discloses a child safety seat (30), wherein the child safety seat employs the lap belt length adjusting device according to claim 1.
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(s) 3, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayette.
Regarding claim 3, Ayette discloses a device as explained above and further discloses a lower recess is arranged on the upper surface of the seat part but may not disclose the locking structure located there. Rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the locking structure located as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort, convenience, or safety for various users.
Regarding claim 9, Ayette discloses a device as explained above but does not clearly disclose a buckle slidably connected. Ayette discloses other arrangements of sliding buckles (see members 46, 63, etc.) and as duplication and rearrangement of components require only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a buckle connected as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort, convenience, or safety for various users.
Regarding claim 12, Ayette discloses a device as explained above and further discloses the adjusting structure arranged at a surface of the seat part, the use section of the lap belt being positioned above the surface of the seat part (at least in part; see figures) but may not clearly disclose the locking structure beneath the surface of the seat part. Rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the locking structure located as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort, convenience, or safety for various users.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayette in view of Meeker (US Patent Number 4826246).
Regarding claims 4-6, Ayette discloses a device as explained above including the belt passing through the lower recess and then passes through the upper surface, wherein the free end of the lap belt is exposed to the upper surface of the seat part at a side of the seat part but does not disclose details of the locking structure. Meeker discloses a related device including a locking structure comprising: a fixing case (of 34 surrounding 110 for instance) having a U-shaped structure and fixed to a lower recess; a locking member (104) pivoted to the fixing case and comprising an operating end and a locking end, and the operating end being exposed out of the fixing case to be operated by the user (this is the general arrangement); wherein a belt passes through a bottom of the U-shaped structure to be located between the bottom of the U-shaped structure and the locking member, and the locking end of the locking member is configured to press and lock the belt (again, this is the general manner of operation; see figures and the paragraph bridging columns 7 and 8 for instance), wherein the locking structure further comprises an elastic member that drives the locking member to lock the lap belt (104 is spring biased in this manner). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a locking structure as taught by Meeker in Ayette’s device because this could ensure proper locking for user safety and comfort.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Ayette does not disclose an engageable/disengageable locking structure or ends arranged as claimed. However, it is maintained that Ayette does disclose an arrangement as claimed as explained in the rejections above. The rejections in view of Ayette have accordingly been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636