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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-14 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 is indefinite as the claim is directed in the preamble to "an impact shield", which is a component or subassembly of a child seat. However, the body of the claim then positively recites limitations relating to the child seat itself, for example: "wherein the child seat has a main body for accommodating a child". This creates ambiguity as to the actual subject matter being claimed. It is unclear whether the claim is intended to cover only the impact shield per se, the combination of an impact shield and a child seat, or some other arrangement. The claim does not specify whether the recited features of the child seat are limitations of the impact shield, required structural context, or merely intended use.
This confusion is compounded by the presence of claim 12, which is separately directed to "a child seat comprising an impact shield according to claim 1." The scope of claim 1 is thus unclear: If claim 1 is directed to the impact shield alone, reciting positive limitations of the child seat may be improper and indefinite. If claim 1 is intended to cover the combination, then claim 12 is redundant or unclear in scope.
A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably ascertain from the claim language whether the invention is an impact shield, a child seat with an impact shield, or some other combination. The relationship between the impact shield and the child seat is not clearly defined, resulting in indefiniteness. Applicant is required to amend the claim to clarify whether the invention is directed to an impact shield per se, a combination of a child seat and impact shield, or otherwise, and to ensure that the claim only recites limitations appropriate to the subject matter claimed.
Claim 1 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as it recites the phrase "a means of a cover" which does not clearly define the structure or scope of the claimed element. The term "means" is generally used in patent claims to invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) (means-plus-function), which requires that the claim recite a function performed by the "means" and that the specification disclose corresponding structure for performing that function. In this claim, however, "means of a cover" does not recite a function, nor does it clearly identify what structure is being claimed.
Furthermore, the phrase "means of a cover" is grammatically ambiguous and could be interpreted as either a structural element (e.g., a cover), a functional element (e.g., an element for covering), or an unspecified mechanism related to a cover. This ambiguity prevents a person of ordinary skill in the art from determining the precise scope of the claim.
The specification and drawings consistently use "cover" as a structural term, and there is no disclosure of a "means" for covering the recess that is distinct from a cover itself. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claim is intended to cover any covering mechanism, only a specific cover, or some other undefined element.
For these reasons, the phrase "a means of a cover" renders claim 1 indefinite under §112(b).
Applicant is required to amend the claim to clearly recite the structure intended, such as "wherein the at least one recess is covered by a cover."
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The phrase “thickness of to 5 cm" is unclear and lacks a definite meaning. It is not apparent whether the claim is intended to define a maximum thickness, a precise thickness, a range of thicknesses, or some other limitation. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty. "Of to" is not a recognized technical or claim-drafting phrase. It appears to be a typographical or drafting error, possibly intended to read "of up to 5 cm" or "from [value] to 5 cm." Without correction, the claim is ambiguous.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite. The claim repeatedly recites "section," "surface section," and "in sections" without providing clear antecedent basis or definition for these terms. It is unclear what constitutes a "section" as opposed to a "surface section," what is meant by "in sections," or how these various sections relate spatially or functionally to each other or to the head impact section. The claim further recites alternatives and partial requirements in a manner that renders the scope ambiguous. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty. Applicant is required to amend the claim to clearly define the various "sections" and their relationships, and to clarify the intended scope.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite. The phrase "or by a chemical composition" is ambiguous and does not clearly indicate the intended difference between the first and second materials. It is unclear whether "chemical composition" is intended as an alternative difference or is modifying another property. Applicant is required to amend the claim to clarify the intended scope, for example by reciting "or a different chemical composition." Furthermore, the phrase “or by a chemical composition” is grammatically awkward and ambiguous, and it is not clear what portion of the claim it is in alternative to; the earlier parts of the claim recite differences in modulus of elasticity and porosity, both of which are specific material properties. "By a chemical composition" is not parallel in structure or meaning.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite. The phrase "in at least one state of use" is ambiguous and does not clearly define the structural limitations of the claimed device. It is unclear which configurations, positions, or conditions constitute a "state of use," and whether the claimed structural features must be present in all, some, or only one possible configuration. Furthermore, while the claim appears to define a structural limitation of the shield, it is unclear how this feature is only present in “at least one state of use” and not permanently. Applicant is required to amend the claims to specify the relevant structural configuration or operational condition in which the claimed features must be present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Opel (DE19954383).
Regarding claim 1, Opel discloses an impact shield for a child seat for mounting on a motor vehicle seat, wherein the child seat has a main body (2; see Fig. 3) for accommodating a child, wherein the impact shield has a first surface section including a head impact section (upper portion of 2, the section under cushion 11), against which a head of a child impacts in event of sudden deceleration (inherent), wherein the head impact section has at least one recess, and wherein the at least one recess is covered by a means of a cover (the recess is the cutout portion of 2 which accommodates the cover 11; the cover is foam 11).
Regarding claim 3, the impact shield further including at least a second surface section comprising, at least in sections, a surface section adjacent to the head impact section or, at least in sections, an inner side surface section arranged on an inner side of the impact shield (the second section is merely any portion of the impact device adjacent to top 2, such as, for example, side surfaces.
Regarding claim 4, the head impact section is formed at least in sections from a first material (softer material at 11 in Figure 3) and at least a second surface section is formed at least in sections from a second material (underlying element 12 and shown in Figures 1-2, but these are clearly also in Fig. 3), wherein the first and second materials differ in that the first material has a lower modulus of elasticity than the second material or in that the first material has a higher porosity than the second material or by a chemical composition (the first material foam pad of element 11 is of a lower modulus of elasticity or is more porous than the underlying strong material described in paragraph 0005 of the translation).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the recess is formed by a clearance open at the top and closed at the sides (see dashed lines in 2 forming recess in Fig. 3), while also open on opposite sides.
Regarding claim 12, Opel discloses that a child seat (see Title) having the impact shield.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CONCORD GMNH (DE3313870).
CONCORD GMNH discloses an impact shield for a child seat for mounting on a motor vehicle seat, wherein the child seat has a main body (2) for accommodating a child, wherein the impact shield has a first surface section including a head impact section (21; see Fig. 4), against which a head of a child impacts in event of sudden deceleration, wherein the head impact section has at least one recess (22), and wherein the at least one recess is covered by a means of a cover (1); see Figs. 2 and 4.
Regarding claim 3, the impact shield clearly has a second surface.
Regarding claim 4, as noted by the abstract, the body is a plastic and the cover is a deformable plastic.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, see the open sides as shown in Figs. 1-4.
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.
Claims 2, 5, 8-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opel alone.
Regarding claim 2, Opel is discussed above but does not disclose the thickness of the cover.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a foam thickness within the claimed range ("up to 5 cm" as best understood) to optimize impact absorption, as such thicknesses are routine and well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Opel is discussed above but does not specify the depth of the recess.
Opel discloses projections (ribs) and cavities passing vertically through the table (see Figs. 1, 2, col. 3, lines 23–31). The depth of the projections and cavities is not specified, but such features for energy absorption typically fall within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to select a depth within 2–10 cm to optimize energy absorption, as this range is routine for such structures.
Regarding claim 8, Opel is discussed above but does not specify the area of the recess.
Opel discloses foam plates and projections covering substantial portions of the table surface (see Fig. 3). The areas are not explicitly measured, but the drawings and description suggest coverage within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to select an area within 10–400 cm², as such sizes are routine for child seat impact shields.
Regarding claim 9, Opel is discussed above but does not specify the distance of the recess from an upper edge.
Opel teaches projections and foam applied to areas adjacent to the table surface edges (see Figs. 1–3). The specific distances are not disclosed, but positioning within 2–10 cm from edges is routine for safety and comfort. It would have been obvious to select distances within 2–10 cm for optimal energy absorption and ergonomic design.
Regarding claim 10, Opel is discussed above but does not specify the angle of the upper side of the impact shield.
Opel shows table surfaces with projections that may slope or contour to fit the child’s body and optimize energy absorption (see Figs. 1–3). As Opel teaches contoured and sloped surfaces for energy absorption and ergonomic fit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to making a forward slope greater than 20% in order to properly absorb energy during an impact.
Regarding claim 11, Opel is discussed above but does not specify the angle of the slope of the impact shield.
The drawings show surfaces and projections oriented at angles less than 80° relative to horizontal (see Figs. 1–3). Such angles are routine for ergonomic and safety reasons. As the reference teaches surfaces and projections at angles less than 80°, which would have been obvious for impact absorption and ergonomic fit.
Regarding claim 13, see the rejections of claims 10 and 11 above as such angles would have been obvious for ergonomic and impact absorption purposes.
Regarding claim 14, Opel teaches an impact shield (catch table) with recesses/cavities (Figs. 1–3) and with a softer material (foam or foam plate) applied to the table surface or projections. Although Opel does not expressly disclose that a recess is formed at least partially softer than a second surface section, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a recess at least partially of softer material (e.g., foam) to further improve energy absorption, as Opel teaches the use of softer materials for this purpose. Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious in view of Opel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the pre-appeal brief request on 9/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the office action refers to three distinct embodiments. As noted in the rejection above, only the embodiment of Fig. 3 is relied upon for the rejection.
Applicant argues that Opel does not disclose a head impact section as claimed, but does not necessarily explain why. Opel clearly has a head impact section (as discussed above, for example, where “2” points in the figures).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DUNN whose telephone number is (571)272-6670. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights