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 .
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s patent application number 18/290,605 filed on 1/19/2024.
Currently, claims 1-35 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/1/2025 and 1/19/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” or “The present disclosure provides”, etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Applicant is advised to take out “The present disclosure provides”. Correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means of a hook-loop fastener in claim 35.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-35 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.
Re claim 1, line 2; a phrase “which” renders the claim indefinite and confusing because it is unclear whether “which” referring to which structure? Clarification is required. Claims 2-20 depending upon the rejected claim 1 are also rejected. Claims 2, 8, 21, 25; having the same issues as mentioned are also rejected.
Re claim 21, line 4; a citation “a second buffer” renders the claim indefinite and confusing because it is unclear whether there is “a first buffer” in the claims 21-35? Clarification is required. Claims 22-35 depending upon the rejected claim 21 are also rejected.
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.
As best understood, claim(s) 1-3, 18, 21, 22, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 2024/0326666 to Oltman.
Re claim 1: Oltman discloses in Figs. 1 and 8, a child safety seat (10) comprising: a seat body (wherein 18 points to, Fig. 1) having two seat side wings (wherein 18 points to) which are oppositely disposed; a headrest (20) installed on the seat body; and a first buffer (30) disposed along an inner side wall of the headrest (20), wherein the first buffer (30) comprises at least one first buffer layer (32) and at least one second buffer layer (34, i.e. foam), wherein a hardness of the second buffer layer (34) is less than that of the first buffer layer (32, i.e. cushion), the second buffer layer (34) is fixed on a side of the first buffer layer (32) and adjacent to the inner side wall of the headrest (20), and the first buffer layer (32) is located at a side away from the inner side wall of the headrest (20).
Re claim 2: wherein the headrest (20) has two headrest side wings (24/26, Fig. 1) which are oppositely disposed, and the first buffer (30) is disposed at least along an inner side wall of one of the two headrest side wings 24/26 (i.e. as shown in Fig. 1, one buffer on each side).
Re claim 3: wherein the child safety seat (20) further comprises a headrest cover (38) sleeved outside the headrest (20), the first buffer (32) is fixed on the inner side wall of one of the headrest side wings (24/26) or located inside the headrest cover (38) and attached to the inner side wall of one of the headrest side wings (24/26).
Re claim 18: wherein the first buffer layer (32) of the first buffer (30) is integrally formed by any one of expandable polyethylene, expanded polypropylene, expanded polystyrene, and expandable polyolefins (see Table 1, par. [0025], page 2).
Re claims 21, 28: Oltman discloses Fig. 1, child safety seat comprising: a seat body (wherein 18 points to, Fig. 1) having two seat side wings (wherein 16 points, one for each side) which are oppositely disposed; a headrest (20) installed on the seat body; and two seatbelt cushions below cushions 30 serve as one of a second buffer disposed along an inner side wall of one of the two seat side wings and located below the headrest (20); and wherein the second buffer comprises at least one first buffer layer (i.e. a layer wraps around the belt, Fig. 1).
Re claim 22: wherein the seat body further comprises a seat portion (12) and a backrest portion (14) disposed above the seat portion (12), each of the seat side wings (wherein 16 points to) extends along an up-down direction of the seat body (12) and is connected to the seat portion (12) and the backrest portion (14), the headrest (20) is installed on the backrest portion (14), and the second buffer is disposed in an area between the headrest (20) and the seat portion (12) in a height direction of the seat body (wherein 18 points to).
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) 17, 19, 20, 29, 30, 34, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US No. 2024/0326666 to Oltman.
Re claim 17: Oltman discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above and further discloses wherein the first buffer layer (32) of the first buffer (30) is integrally formed by an expanded material (i.e. foam, see par. [0032], lines 6) but does not disclose expressly a thickness of the first buffer layer of the first buffer is 5 mm to 25 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have different thickness for the buffer layers in order to optimize the supporting cushion.
Re claim 19: Oltman discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above ad further discloses at least one third buffer layer (wherein 30 points to, Fig. 8), and the third buffer layer is fixed on a side of the first buffer layer (32) away from the second buffer layer (34) but does not disclose expressly a hardness of the third buffer layer is less than that of the first buffer layer. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have different hardness for the buffer layers in order to optimize and comfortably support occupants.
Re claim 20: Oltman discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein the second buffer layer and the third buffer layer are both foam layers, and a thickness of the second buffer layer is 10 mm to 40 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the same material, i.e. foam and different thickness for the second buffer layer in order to optimize and comfortably support occupants.
Re claims 29, 30: Oltman discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein the first buffer layer is integrally formed by an expanded material by any one of expandable polyethylene, expanded polypropylene, expanded polystyrene, and expandable polyolefins, and a thickness of the first buffer layer (141) is 5 mm to 25 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the different foam materials, and different thickness for the buffer layer in order to optimize and comfortably support occupants.
Re claim 34: Oltman discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein a distance from an upper edge of the second buffer to the seat portion is 200 mm to 400 mm, and an area of a surface of the second buffer contacting with a side of an infant is 4000 mm2 to 20000 mm/2. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust distance between the buffer to the seat portion and contacting area for comfortably secure an occupant.
Re claim 35: Oltman discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein the second buffer is connected to one of the seat side wings by means of a hook-loop fastener. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a hook-loop fastener for a quick and convenient secure and unsecure the buffer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-16, 23-27 and 31-33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
100
143
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.