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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 Dec 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-13 and 16 has been maintained and a new ground of rejection against amended claim 3 has been made.
In response to applicant's argument that the reference to Sudoh fails “to disclose a rotation of protector 11 unambiguously” and fails to teach or suggest a clockwise rotation as claimed: Sudoh’s disclosure of the support’s 11 downward projection 12 being curved and conforming to the main body’s 1a upward projection 2 (col. 2) teaches that the movement of the support 11 along the main body 1a (fig. 4) comprises a rotation (the relative movement between the curved faces shown in fig. 4 and described in the specification includes a change in both the x and y-axis positions); wherein the rotation of the support 11 from a lower position to a higher position comprises a counterclockwise rotation toward the front of the vehicle in the view of the left side of the child seat in fig. 4, which is a clockwise rotation toward the front of the vehicle when viewing the right side of the child seat.
Applicant argues that the reference to Williams fails to teach or suggest the position of a child’s center of gravity as claimed relative to the rotation axes of the seat and to a sudden deceleration of the vehicle. Because the shield in Sudoh is required to operate in a manner that maintains effective balance and movement with respect to the child’s center of gravity, its function is inherently tied to the location of the rotation axis. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, for the shield to perform as intended, the rotation axis must be positioned at or near the child’s center of gravity. Williams is relied upon for showing how one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously use routine experimentation to yield the predictable of structuring a shield, like that of Sudoh, to protect a child in the booster seat in a sudden deceleration event.
Applicant’s argument, see page 7 of the reply, with respect to the specification has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection of 16 Oct 25 has been withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4-13 and 16 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. Claim 1 newly recites the limitation "at least temporarily clockwise" to describe the relative rotation between the impact shield and the main body. With respect to the impact shield rotating clockwise (as viewed from the child seat’s right side), page 32 line 5 is the only mention of the impact shield rotating clockwise and that rotation is described as being relative to the shield’s second rotation axis. Moreover, the description does not recite that the clockwise rotation is at least temporary; thus, it does not clearly set forth that the shield rotation is “at least temporarily clockwise relative to the main body”. This limitation is considered new matter.
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 1-2, 4-13 and 16 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.
Claim 1 recites the new limitation "wherein the impact shield is configured to rotate at least temporarily clockwise relative to the main body in a view of the right side of the child seat". The recitation “at least temporarily clockwise” has rendered the claim indefinite because it is not clear how the term “temporarily” is meant to modify the clockwise direction or the rotation movement of the impact shield. It is also unclear where or when this configuration fits into the overall operation of the impact shield; i.e. is “temporarily clockwise” meant to be related to a certain state of the sudden deceleration recited, or is it related to an operation of the shield under normal driving conditions?
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) 1, 2, 4-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudoh (US 4765685) in view of Williams (US 2016/0144823).
Claim 1- Sudoh discloses a system comprising a motor vehicle and a child seat (1) arranged on a vehicle seat (16) of the motor vehicle (figs. 1, 6), wherein the child seat comprises:
a main body (1a) for accommodating a child (18);
an impact shield (11) for holding the child (figs. 1, 6); and
at least one impact shield fastening means (8) for fastening the impact shield to the main body (figs. 2, 5);
wherein the at least one impact shield fastening means comprises a belt (col. 3: ln 1-8); and
wherein the impact shield (11) is configured to rotate at least temporarily clockwise (forward) relative to the main body (1a) in a view of the right side of the child seat (col. 2: 47-67, the impact shield 11 at least temporarily rotates forward when it slides vertically along the stepped face 9 of the main body’s upward projection 2 due to the mating curvatures of the shield’s downward projection 12 and the upward projection 2, fig. 4).
Sudoh shows that the belt fastens the impact shield to the main body at an upper groove (14) and a lower groove (not designated, adjacent the retractor 7, figs. 5-6); and shows that the child seat is configured to position a child in a sitting posture comprising the child’s back being substantially upright against a vehicle seatback and the child’s legs being substantially bent at a right angle relative to the main body (figs. 1, 6).
It is common knowledge in the field of invention that this sitting posture locates the child’s center of gravity approximately between the child’s lower torso and pelvis.
According to the belt configuration, Sudoh suggests that the impact shield would have at least one shield rotation axis (at the level of the upper groove 14) about which the shield would be capable of rotating relative to the main body. Sudoh also teaches that the child seat is configured with lateral projections (15b) of the impact shield (11); such that movement of the child is limited (via restriction of the abdomen and thighs- col. 3: 38-44, 51-57), as well as movement of the impact shield relative to the main body (col. 4: 12-19), at least in an initial state at a beginning of a sudden deceleration of the motor vehicle or at a beginning of a rotation of the child relative to the main body during a sudden deceleration of the motor vehicle.
Sudoh does not explicitly recite the location of the child’s center of gravity, in a particular condition of the motor vehicle, relative to a child rotation axis or an impact shield rotation axis as claimed.
Williams discloses a system comprising: a child seat (figs. 15-16), and an impact shield (figs. 1-2) configured to operate with a main body of the child seat to position a child in a proper sitting posture (figs. 3-4) so that the child can safely ‘ride down’ an impact event with the vehicle seat (¶ 14, 45); wherein the lateral ends (28, 211) of the impact shield are configured as lateral projections that better conform to the pelvic area of the child (fig. 6b).
Williams teaches that inertial forces acting on the child’s pelvis can be reduced by maintaining the proper pelvic orientation through the lateral projections, and by applying a restraining force on the thighs of the child to counteract the rotation resulting from the impact’s inertial forces (¶ 35, 80, 82, 88). The system uses the vehicle seatbelt to operatively couple the shield to the main body and Williams explains that this structural cooperative relationship defines a rotation axis through the contact point between the seatbelt and the shield’s belt groove (214).
According to the level of knowledge in the art and to Williams’ teaching on the dynamics of the system during a sudden deceleration of the vehicle, the system of Sudoh renders the claimed system obvious; wherein based on there being a contact point between the belt (8) and the impact shield’s belt groove (14), a rotation axis would be defined therethrough (fig. 5); and as such, the child’s center of gravity (known to be located approximately in the lower torso or pelvic area, in a sitting posture) would be at least approximately at or below the level at which the impact shield rotation axis is located about which the impact shield can rotate relative to the main body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system of Sudoh, according to the level of knowledge and skill in the art as well as the teachings of Williams, comprises a child seat that is configured in such a way that a center of gravity of the child is at least approximately at or below a level at which at least one impact shield rotation axis is located about which the impact shield can rotate relative to the main body, at least in an initial state at a beginning of a sudden deceleration of the motor vehicle or at a beginning of a rotation of the child relative to the vehicle seat or at a beginning of a rotation of the child relative to the main body during a sudden deceleration of the motor vehicle; since Sudoh’s child seat configuration would yield the predictable result of preventing a seated child from experiencing the full harmful dynamics of a vehicle impact event.
Claim 2- Sudoh and Williams teach the system according to claim 1, and Sudoh further teaches wherein the main body (1a) comprises at least one seating section (3) which defines a seating area on which the child can sit and lateral support sections (2) for laterally supporting the child (col. 2: 1-12), or wherein the impact shield (11) comprises at least one middle section (15) for holding the child and lateral sections (15b) which support themselves on the supporting sections of the main body (col. 2: 41-55).
Claim 4- Sudoh and Williams teach the system according to claim 1, wherein:
the child seat main body has a first fastening means (Sudoh provides vehicle seatbelt receiving formations 4, 40 for fastening), comprising an Isofix fastening means or a latch fastening means (Williams teaches that it is suitable to provide the main body with an Isofix/LATCH fastener, ¶ [0150]), for fastening the child seat to the vehicle seat; or
the child seat main body (taught by Sudoh) or impact shield has a guide mechanism (4) for receiving a motor vehicle belt (17) in such a way that the child seat is fastenable to the motor vehicle seat (col. 2: 12-18).
Claim 5- Sudoh and Williams teach the system according to claim 1, and Sudoh further teaches wherein the impact shield (11) is at least substantially rigidly connected or connectable to the main body (col. 3: 7-27), or at least partially detachably connected or connectable to the main body relative to a rotation or translation (figs. 3-4, col. 2: 47-66).
Claim 6- Sudoh and Williams teach the system according to claim 1, and Sudoh further teaches wherein the child rotation axis displaces itself relative to the impact shield (col. 4: 12-14, Sudoh teaches that at the beginning of the impact event the child body moves forward into the shield), or the child rotation axis remains stationary relative to the impact shield (col. 4: 12-17, Sudoh teaches that the child’s body presses into the shield such that movement of the rotation axis would be relatively stationary after the beginning of the impact event).
Claims 7 and 16- Sudoh and Williams teach the system according to claim 1, and Sudoh further teaches wherein the impact shield (11) is rotationally movable without allowing a pure translation (the shield movement Sudoh teaches is along an arc and comprises both rotation and translation, and as such is not considered a pure translation, col. 2: 59-67), the impact shield is at least partially detachably connected or connectable to the main body (figs. 3-4, col. 2: 47-66), the impact shield is rotationally movable about exactly one impact shield rotation axis (a rotation axis defined through a contact point between the belt 8 and the impact shield’s belt groove 14, fig. 5); and wherein the exactly one impact shield rotation axis is at least temporarily identical with the child rotation axis (Sudoh teaches that the child would press against the shield in an impact event, wherein the child would have head protection, which suggests that the child would rotate about the axis defined by the shield groove 14, col. 4: 12-19).
Claim 8- Sudoh and Williams teach the system according to claim 1, and Sudoh further teaches wherein the impact shield fastening means (8):
allows a rotation of the impact shield about exactly one or exactly two or more than two impact shield rotation axes (a rotation axis defined through a contact point between the belt 8 and the impact shield’s belt groove 14, fig. 5; and a rotation axis defined at the lateral end of the main body, fig. 3),
or has at least one first section (having the tongue 10a) which is linked or linkable to the main body (fig. 3), or at least one second section (having the buckle 10) which is linked or linkable to the impact shield (fig. 3),
or has at least one or exactly one or two articulated connection (10, 10a) in a connecting section between the main body and the impact shield (fig. 4).
Claim 9- Sudoh and Williams teach the system according to claim 1, and Williams further teaches wherein the impact shield of Sudoh would be rotatable relative to the main body about at least one first impact shield rotation axis (a rotation axis defined through a contact point between the belt 8 and the impact shield’s belt groove 14, fig. 5); and wherein: the first impact shield rotation axis is defined by a link of a connecting device for connecting the main body and the impact shield to the main body, or by a link to the impact shield (the groove 14 taught by Sudoh functions as a link to the shield 11).
Claim 10- Sudoh and Williams teach the system according to claim 1, and Sudoh further teaches wherein the child seat is configured such that a center of gravity of the child during the rotation remains at least approximately at a level of the child rotation axis or at least one impact shield rotation axis (in light of the level of knowledge and skill in the art, the child’s center of gravity during rotation due to sudden deceleration would remain at least approximately at a level of the shield rotation axis defined by the groove 14).
Claim 11- Sudoh and Williams teach the system according to claim 1, and Williams further teaches wherein the child seat of Sudoh is configured in such a way that during a progressing rotation of the child during sudden deceleration, at least or exactly one reversal of a direction of rotation of the child relative to the main body or the motor vehicle would occur (Williams teaches the impact shield would function to yield a counter-rotation against the rotation due to inertia, ¶ 102, 166-173).
Claim 12- Sudoh and Williams teach the system according to claim 1, and Sudoh further teaches wherein the child is provided and positioned and secured, in the child seat (figs. 1, 6).
Claim 13- Sudoh and Williams teach the system according to claim 1, and Sudoh further teaches wherein the child seat is configured to be inclined at an angle of at least zero degrees and at most 30 degrees relative to the horizontal when the child seat is arranged on a motor vehicle seating surface (fig. 5 teaches that the height of the main body front end, between the vehicle seat and its top side, is greater than the height between the vehicle seat and the top side of the rear end 6).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudoh (US 4765685) in view of Williams (US 2016/0144823) and Molnar (US 4275923).
Claim 3- Sudoh discloses a system comprising a motor vehicle and a child seat (1) arranged on a vehicle seat (16) of the motor vehicle (figs. 1, 6), wherein the child seat comprises:
a main body (1a) for accommodating a child (18);
an impact shield (11) for holding the child (figs. 1, 6); and
at least one impact shield fastening means (8) for fastening the impact shield to the main body (figs. 2, 5);
wherein the at least one impact shield fastening means comprises a belt (col. 3: ln 1-8); and
wherein a front section of a seating area of the main body has a centrally located elevation for restraining the child (figs. 4-5 show the front section has a greater height than the rear section and fig. 1 shows the front section is disposed between the lateral projections 2).
Sudoh shows that the belt fastens the impact shield to the main body at an upper groove (14) and a lower groove (not designated, adjacent the retractor 7, figs. 5-6); and shows that the child seat is configured to position a child in a sitting posture comprising the child’s back being substantially upright against a vehicle seatback and the child’s legs being substantially bent at a right angle relative to the main body (figs. 1, 6).
It is common knowledge in the field of invention that this sitting posture locates the child’s center of gravity approximately between the child’s lower torso and pelvis.
According to the belt configuration, Sudoh suggests that the impact shield would have at least one shield rotation axis (at the level of the upper groove 14) about which the shield would be capable of rotating relative to the main body. Sudoh also teaches that the child seat is configured with lateral projections (15b) of the impact shield (11); such that movement of the child is limited (via restriction of the abdomen and thighs- col. 3: 38-44, 51-57), as well as movement of the impact shield relative to the main body (col. 4: 12-19), at least in an initial state at a beginning of a sudden deceleration of the motor vehicle or at a beginning of a rotation of the child relative to the main body during a sudden deceleration of the motor vehicle.
Sudoh does not explicitly recite the location of the child’s center of gravity, in a particular condition of the motor vehicle, relative to a child rotation axis or an impact shield rotation axis as claimed. Sudoh does not teach that the elevation of the seating area’s front section slopes down to a right and left of the main body.
Williams discloses a system comprising: a child seat (figs. 15-16), and an impact shield (figs. 1-2) configured to operate with a main body of the child seat to position a child in a proper sitting posture (figs. 3-4) so that the child can safely ‘ride down’ an impact event with the vehicle seat (¶ 14, 45); wherein the lateral ends (28, 211) of the impact shield are configured as lateral projections that better conform to the pelvic area of the child (fig. 6b).
Williams teaches that inertial forces acting on the child’s pelvis can be reduced by maintaining the proper pelvic orientation through the lateral projections, and by applying a restraining force on the thighs of the child to counteract the rotation resulting from the impact’s inertial forces (¶ 35, 80, 82, 88). The system uses the vehicle seatbelt to operatively couple the shield to the main body and Williams explains that this structural cooperative relationship defines a rotation axis through the contact point between the seatbelt and the shield’s belt groove (214).
According to the level of knowledge in the art and to Williams’ teaching on the dynamics of the system during a sudden deceleration of the vehicle, the system of Sudoh renders the claimed system obvious; wherein based on there being a contact point between the belt (8) and the impact shield’s belt groove (14), a rotation axis would be defined therethrough (fig. 5); and as such, the child’s center of gravity (known to be located approximately in the lower torso or pelvic area, in a sitting posture) would be at least approximately at or below the level at which the impact shield rotation axis is located about which the impact shield can rotate relative to the main body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system of Sudoh, according to the level of knowledge and skill in the art as well as the teachings of Williams, comprises a child seat that is configured in such a way that a center of gravity of the child is at least approximately at or below a level at which at least one impact shield rotation axis is located about which the impact shield can rotate relative to the main body, at least in an initial state at a beginning of a sudden deceleration of the motor vehicle or at a beginning of a rotation of the child relative to the vehicle seat or at a beginning of a rotation of the child relative to the main body during a sudden deceleration of the motor vehicle; since Sudoh’s child seat configuration would yield the predictable result of preventing a seated child from experiencing the full harmful dynamics of a vehicle impact event.
The main body (1a) of Sudoh functions as a booster seat for a child (18), wherein the occupant-supporting side includes a cushioning member (3). Molnar discloses a main body (cushion base 3) for accommodating a child that also functions as a booster seat.
Molnar teaches a system comprising a child seat arranged on a vehicle seat of a motor vehicle (fig. 1), wherein the child seat comprises a main body (3) for accommodating a child, and wherein a front section of the main body’s seating area (2) has a centrally located elevation (not designated, figs. 2 & 4) that slopes down to a right and a left of the main body (shown best in fig. 4). Molnar teaches that the seating area (2) is contoured to provide a comfortable seating surface for the occupant (col. 1: 58-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main body of Sudoh with a downwardly sloped elevation as claimed, according to Molnar’s teaching, in order to provide an ergonomically contoured seating area on the main body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2635. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 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, 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.
/T.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636