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 § 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 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell (US 11,214,216) in view of Sankrithi et al. (4,834,420).
Powell discloses an impact shield (impact shield 14) for a child seat for mounting on a motor vehicle seat ,wherein the impact shield has a first surface section including a head impact section (see for example, Fig. 2), against which a head of a child impacts in event of sudden deceleration, wherein the head impact section has at least one recess (location of airbag 15 inside the shield 14; see Fig. 1), and wherein the at least one recess is covered by a cover (Powell discloses the airbag housed within the shield, which inherently requires a cavity or recess; however, Powell does not explicitly disclose a cover over the recess containing the airbag), wherein at least a portion of an upper side of the impact shield slopes forward (see curved front top edge of 14, this portion slopes forward due to its curvature).
Powell is discussed above but does not clearly show a cover over the recess.
Sankrithi teaches a child seat with an airbag mounted in a similar structure. The structure has a recess in which airbag (4) is positioned (see Figure 3). This recess is covered by a cover (see 5; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the impact shield of Powell to position the airbag within a recessed portion of the shield and provide a cover over the recess as taught by Sankrithi, in order to retain and protect the airbag and provide a finished protective surface over the airbag. The modification would have been the predictable use of a known recess and covered airbag construction in the impact shield of Powell.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the combination of Powell and Sankrithi et al. teaches an impact shield for a child seat with a recess in the head impact section covered by a cover. Sankrithi et al. specifically shows a cover (element 5) over the recess containing an airbag (see Figs. 1, 3). While neither reference expressly recites the thickness of the cover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a cover thickness within the claimed range (e.g., up to 5 cm), as this is a routine engineering choice dictated by the need for adequate protection, durability, and manufacturability, and is consistent with standard materials used for impact shield covers in child seats. The modification yields predictable results and does not require undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, Powell shows the impact shield having a second surface section being arranged on an inner side of the impact shield (the side surface facing the occupant).
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Powell and Sankrithi et al. collectively teach an impact shield for a child seat with a recess for housing an airbag, covered by a cover. While neither reference expressly recites the depth of the recess, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a recess depth within the claimed range (2 cm to 10 cm), as this is a routine engineering consideration dictated by the size of the airbag, the thickness of the shield, and ergonomic constraints. Airbag compartments in child seats are typically designed with a depth sufficient to accommodate a folded airbag, and a depth of 2–10 cm is standard in the field. The modification yields predictable results and does not require undue experimentation, following the principles set forth in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Powell and Sankrithi et al. shows the recess formed by a clearance open at a top and closed at sides thereof (see Fig. 1 of Powell).
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the area of the recess within the impact shield to be within the range of 10 cm² to 400 cm², as this sizing is dictated by the need to accommodate a folded airbag of appropriate size for effective protection, while ensuring the structural integrity and ergonomic fit of the shield. The selection of recess area is a routine engineering consideration based on the dimensions of airbags commonly used in child safety seats, and provides a predictable result in terms of airbag storage and deployment performance.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the recess within the impact shield such that it is located a distance of 2 cm to 10 cm from an upper edge of an inner side or from a front edge of an upper side. This placement optimizes the accessibility and deployment path of the airbag while maintaining the shield’s protective function and ergonomic design. Selecting such a distance is a routine design choice, guided by the dimensions of the shield, the required deployment trajectory of the airbag, and safety standards, yielding predictable results without undue experimentation.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Powell and Sankrithi et al. collectively teach an impact shield for a child seat with a sloped upper surface. While neither reference expressly recites the angle of the sloped portion relative to horizontal or the underside of the impact shield, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an angle greater than 20° and less than 80°, as recited in claims 10 and 11. The selection of such angles is a routine engineering consideration in child seat design, dictated by ergonomic requirements, safety standards, and the need for effective positioning and deployment of the shield and airbag. Shields with sloped portions in this angular range are standard in the field, and the modification yields predictable results without undue experimentation, following the principles set forth in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claim 12, Powell shows a child seat 10.
Regarding claim 14, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Powell and Sankrithi et al. collectively teach an impact shield for a child seat, including a head impact section and other surface sections. While neither reference expressly recites that the head impact section is softer than at least a second surface section, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide increased softness or padding in the head impact section to absorb impact energy and reduce injury risk, while maintaining greater rigidity in other sections for structural support and proper anchoring. The selection and relative arrangement of materials with different degrees of softness is a routine engineering consideration in child safety seat design, yielding predictable safety and comfort benefits and not requiring undue experimentation (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Regarding claim 16, as a negative limitation, the claim encompasses impact shields with a flat upper side, since in such a configuration, no rear point is more than 80% of the shield’s height above any forward point. The claim also covers gently sloped or stepped shields, provided the maximum rear-to-forward vertical difference does not exceed 80% of the shield height.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Powell and Sankrithi collectively teach an impact shield for a child seat with an upper side that is flat or gently sloped, as depicted in Figs. 1–9 of Powell and Figs. 1–3 of Sankrithi. Neither reference discloses or suggests an upper side of the shield where any rear point is more than 80% of the shield’s height above all forward points. On the contrary, the figures and descriptions show shields with continuous, smooth, or gently sloped upper surfaces, inherently satisfying the limitation of claim 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the upper side of the impact shield to be flat or gently sloped, such that the maximum rear-to-front vertical difference does not exceed 80% of the shield’s height, in order to optimize ergonomic comfort, occupant safety, and ease of installation. The avoidance of extreme steps or slopes is a routine design consideration in child seat engineering, yielding predictable results and consistent with industry standards (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell (US 11,214,216) in view of Sankrithi et al. (4,834,420) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 3313870.
The combination of Powell and Sankrithi is discussed above but does not show the shield having a second surface section formed of second material.
DE 3313870 shows an impact shield with a second surface section (12) made of a second material while the head impact section is formed from a first material (11 is made of deformable plastic while 12 is a softer, more malleable plastic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Powell and Sankrithi to provide the first and second surface portions of different materials, as taught by DE 3313870, to selectively provide the respective portions with desired structural impact-absorbing characteristics. Such a modification would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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