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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The “first locking means” and “second locking means” as claimed in claim 28 are interpretated under U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hartenstine et al. (12,508,960).
Regarding claim 1, Hartenstine et al. disclose a juvenile restraint 300 comprising a seat base adapted to be mounted to a vehicle seat 302, a child vehicle seat 306 adapted to secure a child for transportation in a vehicle, and a seat-configuration controller 310 configured to change the child vehicle seat between a transportation configuration in which the child faces the front or rear of the vehicle (figures 1 and 2), a lateral-retracted configuration (figure 3A) in which the child faces a lateral side of the vehicle, and a lateral-extended configuration (figure 3B) in which the child vehicle seat is translated towards a door of the vehicle, the seat-configuration controller including a seat mount 314 configured to couple with the child vehicle seat for movement therewith, a seat-pivot unit 312 configured to rotate the child vehicle seat about a center pivot axis between the transportation configuration and the lateral-retracted configuration, and a seat-slide unit (314 is slidable which means there is a slide unit between 312 and 314) configured to slide the child vehicle seat relative to the seat base between the lateral-retracted configuration and the lateral-extended configuration, wherein the child vehicle seat, the seat mount, and a first portion of the seat-slide unit extend laterally away from the seat base, the seat-pivot unit (figure 3B), and a second portion of the seat-slide unit when the child vehicle seat is in the lateral-extended configuration so that the seat base, the seat-pivot unit, and the second portion of the seat-slide unit are secure to the vehicle seat while the child is moving into or out of the child vehicle seat or a caregiver is placing or removing the child vehicle seat on or from the seat mount (figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, Hartenstine et al. disclose a juvenile restraint 300 comprising a seat base adapted to be mounted to a vehicle seat 302, a child vehicle seat 306 adapted to secure a child for transportation in a vehicle, and a seat-configuration controller 310 configured to allow the child vehicle seat to rotate about a center pivot axis between a transportation configuration in which the child faces the front or the rear of the vehicle and a lateral-retracted configuration (fig. 3A) in which the child faces a lateral side of the vehicle, wherein the seat-configuration controller further allows the child vehicle seat to slide relative to the seat base between the lateral-retracted configuration and a lateral-extended configuration (fig. 3B) in which the child vehicle seat and a first portion of the seat-configuration controller is translated towards a door of the vehicle so that the seat base and a second portion of the seat-configuration controller are secure to the vehicle seat while a child moves in and out of the child vehicle seat or a caregiver is placing or removing the child vehicle seat on or from the seat-configuration controller.
Regarding claim 20, Hartenstine et al. disclose the seat-configuration controller includes a seat mount 314 configured to couple with the child vehicle seat for movement therewith, a seat-pivot unit 312 configured to position the child vehicle seat in one of the transportation configuration and the lateral-retracted configuration, and a seat-slide unit (314 is slidable which means there is a slide unit between 312 and 314) configured to position the child vehicle seat in one of the lateral-retracted configuration and the lateral-extended configuration.
Claim(s) 28, 32, 37, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wilson (7,073,859).
Regarding claim 28, Wilson discloses a juvenile restraint comprising a seat base 20 detachably connectable to a vehicle seat 2, a rotating part 22 being rotatable with respect to the seat base about a rotation axis from at least a forward facing position or a rearward facing position seen in a driving direction of the vehicle in use to a side facing position directed to a door of the vehicle and vice versa, a sliding part 32 being slidable with respect to the seat base in a sliding direction substantially perpendicular to the driving direction of the vehicle, a child vehicle seat 10 connected to the seat base via the sliding part and the rotating part, wherein the child vehicle seat and the sliding part are slidable together with respect to the rotating part, wherein the juvenile restraint further comprises first locking means 60 to detachably lock the rotating part to the seat base in the at least forward facing position or rearward facing position, as well as second locking means 64 to detachably lock sliding of the sliding part with respect to the rotating part.
Regarding claim 32, Wilson discloses first locking means 60 detachably lock the rotating part to the seat base in the at least forward facing position as well as the rearward facing position.
Regarding claim 37, Wilson discloses the sliding part 32 is slidable in the sliding direction from a start position via at least one intermediate position to an end position.
Regarding claim 38, Wilson discloses the at least at one of the start position, the at least one intermediate position or the end position, the sliding part overcomes a predetermined force (force to unlock the lock 64) before being able to slide from its current position to a next position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 2, 10, 11, 21, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartenstine et al. in view of Young (4,936,629).
Regarding claim 10, Young discloses the seat-pivot unit includes a hub mount 288 coupled to the seat base, a pivot hub 254 coupled to the hub mount, the pivot hub being configured to rotate relative to the hub mount about the center pivot axis, and a pivot controller 233 configured to selectively allow rotation of the pivot hub relative to hub mount to change the child vehicle seat between the transportation configuration and the lateral-retracted configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Young and use the hub with a mount and controller in the invention of Hartenstine et al. because it is simple, efficient and inexpensive.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 21, Young discloses the seat-slide unit includes an arm frame 273 coupled to the seat-pivot unit 254 for movement therewith, a slidable arm 273 movable relative to the arm frame, and a slide controller configured to block movement of the slidable arm relative to the arm frame when the child vehicle seat is in the transportation configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Young and use a slide arm and arm frame with the invention of Hartenstine et al. because it is simple, efficient and inexpensive.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Young discloses the seat-slide unit further includes a slide controller 81 configured to block movement of the slidable arm relative to the arm frame when the child vehicle seat is in the transportation configuration, wherein the seat-slide unit further includes a slide controller 81 configured to selectively guide movement of the slidable arm relative to the arm frame when the child vehicle seat is moved between the lateral-retracted configuration and the lateral-extended configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Young and use a slide controller in the invention of Hartenstine et al. in order to prevent any damages or injuries.
Regarding claim 25, Hartenstine et al. disclose the slidable arm 314 is movable between a retracted position in which the child vehicle seat is in the lateral-retracted configuration and an extended position in which the child vehicle seat is in the lateral-extended configuration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9, 12-18, 22, 26, 27, 29-31, 33-36, 39-40 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
There are many similarities between applicant’s invention and the invention of Hartenstine et al., Wilson and Young.
Regarding claim 3, no prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can disclose the slidable arm is movable between a retracted position in which the child vehicle seat is in the lateral-retracted configuration, an extended position in which the child vehicle seat is in the lateral-extended configuration, and one or more intermediate positions between the retracted position and the extended position in which the child vehicle seat is being moved between the lateral-retracted configuration and the lateral-extended configuration.
Regarding claims 6 and 27, no prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can disclose the arm frame includes a frame plate and at least one bearing coupled to the frame plate, the at least one bearing being configured to engage the slidable arm to encourage movement of the slidable arm relative to the arm frame.
Regarding claim 7, no prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can disclose the slide controller includes a slide lock movable between a slide-locked position in which the slidable arm is blocked from moving relative to the arm frame when the child vehicle seat is in the transportation configuration and a slide-unlocked position in which the slidable arm is allowed to move relative to the arm frame when the child vehicle seat is in one of the lateral-retracted configuration and the lateral-extending configuration, an upper slide-lock receiver formed in the slidable arm, the upper slide-lock receiver being configured to receive the slide lock in the slide-locked position, and a lower slide-lock receiver formed in the seat-pivot unit, the lower slide-lock receiver being configured to receive the slide lock in the slide-unlocked position, and wherein the lower slide-lock receiver is formed in a hub mount of the seat-pivot unit, the hub mount including an upper surface facing the seat-slide unit to engage the slide lock, push the slide lock upward and into the upper slide-lock receiver when the slide lock is in the slide-locked position.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, no prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can disclose the seat mount includes a seat retainer configured to engage the child vehicle seat, a retainer-rotation stop configured to block movement of portions of the seat retainer which engage the child vehicle seat, and a stop release configured to move the retainer-rotation stop away from the seat retainer to allow movement of portions of the seat retainer, wherein the seat retainer includes one or more rear retainers configured to engage a rear end of the child vehicle seat and one or more front retainers configured to engage a front end of the child vehicle seat, the one or more rear retainers and the one or more front retainers each having a stop-engagement surface configured to engage with the retainer-rotation stop, wherein the one or more rear retainers are biased to rotate away from the rear end of the child vehicle seat about a rear pivot axis in a first direction and the one or more front retainers are biased to rotate away from the front end of the child vehicle seat about a front pivot axis in a second direction opposite the first direction.
Regarding claim 12, no prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can disclose the slidable arm is movable between a retracted position in which the child vehicle seat is in the lateral-retracted configuration, an extended position in which the child vehicle seat is in the lateral-extended configuration, and one or more intermediate positions between the retracted position and the extended position in which the child vehicle seat is being moved between the lateral-retracted configuration and the lateral-extended configuration and, wherein the slide controller is further configured to guide movement of the slidable arm between the retracted position, the extended position, and the one or more intermediate positions.
Regarding claim 14, no prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can disclose the pivot controller includes a pivot lock coupled to the pivot hub, the pivot lock being movable between a pivot-locked position in which the pivot hub is blocked from rotation about the center pivot axis when the child vehicle seat is in the transportation configuration and a pivot-unlocked position in which the pivot hub is allowed to rotate about the center pivot axis to change the child vehicle seat from the transportation configuration to the lateral-retracted configuration, a pivot-lock receiver formed in the hub mount, the pivot-lock receiver being configured to engage the pivot lock in the pivot-locked positon, and a pivot-lock actuator configured to move the pivot lock from the pivot-locked position to the pivot-unlocked position.
Regarding claim 12, no prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can disclose the child vehicle seat, the seat mount, and the slidable arm are at least partially translated towards the door of the vehicle when the child vehicle seat is in the lateral-extended configuration and the seat base, the seat-pivot unit, and the arm frame are secure to the vehicle seat when the child vehicle seat is in the lateral-extended configuration.
Regarding claim 26, no prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can disclose the slide controller includes an end retainer formed at a first end of the arm frame and the slidable arm includes a soft lock extending between the slidable arm and the arm frame and having a bias force, the end retainer being configured to receive the soft lock when the slidable arm is in the retracted positon, and wherein the slidable arm is movable from the retracted position when a predetermined force that overcomes the bias force is applied to the soft lock.
Regarding claim 29, no prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can disclose by unlocking the first locking means the rotating part together with the sliding part and child vehicle seat are rotatable to the side facing position, whereby near or at the side facing position the second locking means will be automatically unlocked to allow the sliding part together with the child vehicle seat to slide in the sliding direction.
Regarding claim 30, no prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can disclose the first locking means comprises a first and second handle located on opposite sides of the child vehicle seat, whereby a locking pin is moved out of a locking hole by moving the first handle in clockwise direction about the rotation axis or moving the second handle in counter clockwise direction about the rotation axis.
Regarding claim 33, no prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can disclose the second locking means comprises at least one engagement element movably extending through an opening in the rotating part, which engagement element is movable through the opening from a first position wherein the engagement element is located in an engagement hole of the sliding part and the opening to lock the sliding part with respect to the rotatable part, to a second position wherein the engagement element is located in an engagement hole of the seat base and the opening to limit rotation of the rotatable part with respect to the seat base to a predetermined angle.
Regarding claim 39, no prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can disclose the sliding part or the rotating part is provided with a pin being located under the predetermined force in a dent located in the other of the sliding part or the rotating part.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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.
/SYED A ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights