DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Applicant’s Remarks Filed 11/11/25
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 have been examined.
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 14-16 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 14 recites “the tether flange is part of the support bracket.” It is unclear how the tether flange may be considered part of the support bracket when claim 1 has been amended to state “a tether bracket attached to the support bracket, the tether bracket including a tether flange.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moegling et al. (US 8556350) (“Moegling”). Moegling discloses a tether structure comprising: a seat assembly having a frame structure (fig. 2: 26) and an outer cushion portion (fig. 2: 18); a support bracket (figs. 4, 5: 38 and 46 may be formed as a single monolithic element sharing face 42 and welded at 82 to the frame; Col. 3, lines 46-51) attached to an upper end of the frame structure of the seat assembly (fig. 2 shows that bar 30 is the upper end of the frame structure); a tether bracket (fig. 4: 60) attached to the support bracket, the tether bracket including a tether flange (fig. 4: @ 68) located rearward of the frame structure adjacent to a top surface of the outer cushion of the seat assembly, the support bracket disposed between the frame structure and the tether bracket (as shown in figs. 4 and 5).
As concerns claim 2, Moegling discloses wherein the tether bracket is attached to the support bracket proximate the upper end of the frame structure (as shown in fig. 4 and discussed in claim 1).
As concerns claim 7, Moegling discloses wherein the tether bracket that includes a main portion (fig. 4: 60) and the tether flange (fig. 4: portion having hole 68), the main portion of the tether bracket being upright and fixedly attached to the support bracket with the tether flange extending horizontally therefrom.
As concerns claim 8, Moegling discloses wherein the support bracket has a first portion fixed to a front side of the frame structure (fig. 4: front portion of groove 80) and a second portion is offset from the first portion (fig. 4: 42), the second portion extending along a rearward side of the upper end of the frame structure, the main portion of the tether bracket being attached to the second portion of the bracket (as shown in figs. 4 and 5).
As concerns claims 12 and 15, Moegling discloses wherein the seat assembly includes a head rest centrally located above the seat cushion portion (fig. 2: a headrest 32 is attached to each rod holder 34), the tether flange being located rearward of the head rest and is aligned with the head rest (as shown in fig. 2).
As concerns claim 14, as best understood, Moegling discloses wherein the tether flange is part of the support bracket with the tether flange extending horizontally therefrom (fig. 4: portion 68 may be considered part of the support bracket as they are joined through 76 to be one piece) adjacent to the top surface of the outer cushion portion of the seat assembly.
As concerns claim 18, Moegling discloses a seat assembly having a frame structure (fig. 2: 26) and an outer cushion (fig. 2: 18, 20), the outer cushion portion having a top surface, an upright portion, and a seat portion (shown in fig. 2), the seat assembly configured to receive a child’s seat having a strap including a hook (abstract); a tether bracket (fig. 5: 46 and 60 may be considered the tether bracket) attached to an upper end of the frame structure of the seat assembly (it is attached to upper bar 30), the tether bracket having at least one opening (fig. 5: 58) configured to receive the hook and being attached to a second strap (fig. 5: 66).
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) 3-6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moegling in view of Ando et al. (JP 2023047184) (“Ando”) or Ito (US 2017/0028880). As concerns claims 3 and 9, Moegling does not teach the support bracket extending from the first section toward or to the second section of the frame structure. However, Ando and Ito teach tether flanges (Ando, 80A-C; Ito, 1) which are attached to support brackets (Ando, 34A-C; Ito, F2) extending between the seat side frame members. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to extend the support bracket across the entirety of the frame of Moegling in order to provide additional support to the tether flange.
As concerns claims 4, Moegling, as modified, teaches wherein the support bracket has a first portion fixed to a front side of the frame structure (fig. 4: front portion of groove 80) and a second portion (fig. 4: 42) extending along a rearward side of the upper end of the frame structure.
As concerns claims 5 and 10, Moegling, as modified, teaches wherein the frame structure further includes a top section (Moegling, fig. 4: 30) that at least partially defines the upper end of the frame structure, the top section extending from the first side section to the second side section with the support bracket extending from the first side section toward to a central area of the top section between the first side section and the second side section (Moegling, fig. 4: 38 extends between the side sections, as discussed in the combination above, and Ando teaches a portions extending from a side toward the central area 66A), the support bracket being fixedly attached to the top section (as shown in Moegling).
As concerns claims 6 and 11, Moegling, as modified, teaches wherein the frame structure includes a top section (Moegling, fig. 4: 30) that at least partially defines the upper end of the frame structure, the top section extending from the first side section to the second side section with the support bracket extending from the first side section to the second side section and being fixedly attached to the top section and the second side section (as shown by the combination with Ando and Moegling)
.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moegling. As concerns claims 13 and 15, Moegling teaches wherein the seat assembly includes a head rest (fig. 4: 32, 34) centrally located above the seat cushion portion, the tether flange being located rearward of the headrest (as shown in fig. 2), but does not teach wherein the tether flange is offset from the headrest in the width direction of the seat. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try placing the tether flange offset from the headrest, as a simple rearrangement of parts, in order to allow easier access to the flange or to accommodate different types of seat layouts.In general, a mere rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553.).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moegling. Moegling teaches a seat assembly having a frame structure (fig. 2: 26) and an outer cushion (fig. 2: 18, 20), the outer cushion portion having a top surface, an upright portion, and a seat portion (shown in fig. 2), the seat assembly configured to receive a child’s seat having a strap including a hook (abstract); a tether bracket (fig. 5: 46 and 60 may be considered the tether bracket) attached to an upper end of the frame structure of the seat assembly (it is attached to upper bar 30), the tether bracket having at least one opening configured to receive the hook (fig. 5: 68 or 58), the opening being above the top surface of the outer cushion portion (58 is above the top surface of the cushion portion and although the exact position of opening 68 is not shown in the drawings with relation to the outer cushion portion, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide the opening 68 above the outer cushion in order to allow for easier attachment).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Moegling shows 38 connected below 30 of the frame and adjacent to tether bracket 46 rather than between the frame structure and the tether bracket. However, as discussed above, portion 60 may be considered the tether bracket (even though 36 is named as the tether bracket in Moegling, there are no limitations in claims or inherent to the term tether bracket which would prevent 60 from being considered as such as it has a flange 68 for attachment of tether 66) and portion 38/46 may be considered the support bracket (which may be made an integral piece as discussed in claim 1) which is attached between the tether bracket 60 and frame 30). The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are based on this contention.
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 TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636