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 .
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, 5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaishnav (US Patent Number 10016065).
Regarding claim 1, Vaishnav discloses a child seat having a coupling element (20 for instance) mountable to a first corresponding coupling element (48B) of a free-standing base and mountable to a second corresponding coupling element (26) of a supportable base (21), the supportable base being mountable to a support structure (21 is mountable 30).
Regarding claim 2, Vaishnav further discloses the coupling element is dimensioned to slidably engage the first corresponding coupling element and the second corresponding coupling element (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 5, Vaishnav further discloses the coupling element is positioned on a surface of at least one arm portion of the child seat (see figures).
Regarding claim 9, Vaishnav further discloses the coupling element comprises one of a polygonal groove element or a polygonal lip element (it is at least a polygonal groove).
Claim(s) 1-20 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bearup et al. (US Patent Number 7673934).
Regarding claim 1, Bearup discloses a child seat (30) having a coupling element (of 44 or at 40 generally; alternatively 34) mountable to a first corresponding coupling element (23 and/or 27) of a free-standing base (20) and mountable to a second corresponding coupling element (63 and/or 64) of a supportable base (60), the supportable base being mountable to a support structure (60 is mountable to 5; see the third full paragraph of column 6).
Regarding claim 2, Bearupf further discloses the coupling element is dimensioned to slidably engage the first corresponding coupling element and the second corresponding coupling element (34 slidably couples with 23, 63).
Regarding claim 3, Bearup further discloses the coupling element is dimensioned to pivotally engage the first corresponding coupling element and the second corresponding coupling element (40/44 pivotally engages 23, 63).
Regarding claim 4, Bearup further discloses the coupling element is dimensioned to snappedly engage the first corresponding coupling element and the second corresponding coupling element (40/44 would be at least capable of snappedly engaging 23, 63).
Regarding claim 5, Bearup further discloses the coupling element is positioned on a surface of at least one arm portion of the child seat (see figures).
Regarding claim 6, Bearup further discloses an interlocking element (42 for instance) configured to lock the child seat coupling element to at least one of the first corresponding coupling element or the second corresponding coupling element.
Regarding claim 7, Bearup further discloses a release element (45 for instance) operably connected to the interlocking element.
Regarding claim 8, Bearup further discloses a release pad (of 43 or 44) configured to eject the at least one coupling element from at least one of the first corresponding coupling element or the second corresponding coupling element (it would allow such function).
Regarding claim 9, Bearup further discloses the coupling element comprises one of a polygonal groove element or a polygonal lip element (it forms polygonal grooves and lips).
Regarding claim 10, Bearup further discloses the coupling element comprises one of a downward facing hook or an upward facing hook (34 forms a downward facing hook while portions of 40 for upward facing hooks).
Regarding claim 11, Bearup discloses a child seat (30) having a first coupling element (at least a portion of 44 for instance) mountable to a first corresponding coupling element (27 for instance) of a free-standing base (20) in more than one orientation (the elements would be capable of multiple orientations as would the seat at least via the recline, height adjust, etc.; see Figures 11 and 12) and a second coupling element (34 for instance) mountable to a second corresponding coupling element (63 for instance) of a supportable base (60), the supportable base being mountable to a support structure (60 is mountable to 5; see the third full paragraph of column 6).
Regarding claim 12, Bearup further discloses the first coupling element is dimensioned to snappedly engage the first corresponding coupling element (the latching mechanism would at least be capable of such) and the second coupling element is dimensioned to pivotally engage the second corresponding coupling element (being pivoted into position for instance).
Regarding claim 13, Bearup further discloses the first coupling element is positioned on a bottom surface of a seat portion of the child seat (at least generally) and the second coupling element is positioned at a distal end of at least one arm portion of the child seat (at least in part).
Regarding claim 14, Bearup further discloses an interlocking element (42 for instance) configured to lock at least one of the first coupling element to the first corresponding coupling element or the second coupling element to the second corresponding coupling element (42 functions at least to lock 44 to 27).
Regarding claim 15, Bearup further discloses a release element (45) operably connected to the interlocking element (i.e. 45 operates to release 42).
Regarding claim 16, Bearup further discloses a release pad (of 43 or 44) configured to eject at least one of the first coupling element from the first corresponding coupling element or the second coupling element from the second corresponding coupling element (it would allow such function).
Regarding claim 17, Bearup further discloses a third coupling element (37) mountable to a third corresponding connection mechanism of a tray table (mounting supports of 55; see the second full paragraph of column 6).
Regarding claim 18, Bearup further discloses a system for child seating comprising: a child seat (30) having at least one coupling element (of 44 or at 40 generally); and a free-standing base (20) comprising a bench (at 22, 23 for instance), at least one leg (17) extending from the bench, and a first corresponding coupling element (a top portion of 23 and/or element 27), wherein the at least one coupling element is mountable to the first corresponding coupling element (this is the general arrangement) in more than one orientation (the elements would be capable of multiple orientations as would the seat at least via the recline, height adjust, etc.; see Figures 11 and 12); and wherein the at least one coupling element is mountable to a second corresponding coupling element (64) of a supportable base (60).
Regarding claim 19, Bearup further discloses the at least one coupling element is dimensioned to snappedly engage the first corresponding coupling element (it would be capable of such function).
Regarding claim 20, Bearup further discloses the first corresponding coupling element is positioned on a top surface of the bench (see figures).
Regarding claim 24, Bearup discloses a system for child seating comprising: a child seat (30) having at least one coupling element (of 44 or at 40 generally) mountable to a first corresponding coupling element (23 and/or 27) of a free-standing base (20); and a supportable base (60) comprising a support mechanism to couple the supportable base to a support structure (see the third full paragraph of column 6 describing straps, which would constitute a support mechanism to couple the base as claimed) and a second corresponding coupling element (63 and/or 64), and a spring-loaded release pad (of 44 or 45 for instance) configured to eject the child seat from the supportable base (it would function in this manner), wherein the at least one coupling element is mountable to the second corresponding coupling element (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 25, Bearup further discloses the at least one coupling element is dimensioned to pivotally engage the second corresponding coupling element (42, 44, etc. pivot in this manner).
Regarding claim 26, Bearup further discloses the second corresponding coupling element is positioned on one of a horizontal surface configured to sit adjacent a top surface of the support structure or a vertical surface configured to sit adjacent a side surface of the support structure when the supportable base is coupled to the support structure (it is at least on a horizontal surface as claimed).
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, 4, 6-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaishnav. Vaishnav discloses a seat as explained above including dimensioning that would seem to allow pivotal engagement (at least the rounded corners would provide minimal pivoting on entry) as well as broad disclosure of a snap or interlock (26 is described as a “frame interlocking mounting”) and release elements and pads (associated with 27-29 for instance) and hooks (of 22), but may not disclose the particular arrangements and/or details as claimed. However, duplication, changes in shape, and/or rearrangement of components require only routine skill in the art, and moreover the claimed elements are old and well-known even if not clearly described in Vaishnav. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the arrangements as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort and safety for various users.
Claim(s) 21-23 and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bearup.
Regarding claims 21-23, Bearup discloses a system as explained above including an interlocking element (of 42 or 44 for instance) configured to lock the at least one coupling element to the first corresponding coupling element, a release mechanism (45 for instance) operably connected to the interlocking element, wherein at least one of the coupling element and the first corresponding coupling element is spring-loaded (via 46), but may associate these components with the coupling element/seat rather than the corresponding coupling element/base. However, duplication and/or rearrangement of components require 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 arrangement as claimed based on normal variation to improve function or operation for various users.
Regarding claims 27-29, Bearup discloses a system as explained above including an interlocking element (of 42 or 44 for instance) configured to lock the at least one coupling element to the second corresponding coupling element, a release mechanism (45 for instance) operably connected to the interlocking element, and spring-loaded release pad (of 44 or 45 for instance as above), but may associate these components with the coupling element/seat rather than the corresponding coupling element/base and/or not clearly disclose force orientations as claimed. However, duplication as well as reversal or rearrangement of components require 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 arrangements as claimed based on normal variation to improve function or operation for various users.
Claim(s) 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bearup in view of Yoshida et al. (US Patent Number 7029068). Bearup discloses a system as explained above but does not provide details of the support mechanism. Yoshida discloses a related device including a support mechanism incorporating a screw pressure driver (32, 26, etc.) comprising a torque indicator and/or a torque limiting mechanism (see lines 16-43 of column 9). 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 support mechanism as taught by Yoshida in Bearup’s system because this could ensure safety and security for various users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Vaishnav does not disclose a free-standing base and that Bearup does not disclose a supportable base mountable to a support structure or elements mountable to the base in more than one orientation. Applicant further argues that the 35 USC 103 rejections in view of Vaishnav do not amount to a prima facie case of obviousness and that Bearup further fails to disclose a release pad positioned as claimed.
Regarding the disclosure of Vaishnav, the tray assembly would be viewed as a free-standing base as claimed as it would be functional as such.
Regarding the disclosure of Bearup, the base and coupling element mountings are disclosed as claimed as explained above. That is, supportable base 60 is mountable to support structure 5, which is viewed as such a structure as it provides support. Further, the coupling elements would be capable of multiple orientations independently as well as along with the seat (via the recline and height adjustment, etc.). As to the positioning of a release pad, it is acknowledged that such may not be clearly disclosed by Bearup but would have nevertheless been obvious as set forth above.
Regarding the obviousness rejections in view of Vaishnav, it is noted that Applicant has not pointed out any specific failures of the rejection. An analysis of how Vaishnav would appear to provide the relevant limitations is provided and an explanation of how any minor adjustments (such as duplication or changes in shape or arrangement) would have been obvious is also set forth. To the extent that a mention of features as “old and well-known” may appear to Applicant as a deficiency in the rejection, Applicant is directed to Bearup whose disclosure of the relevant features is set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights