Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/542,011

CHILD SAFETY SEAT

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Dec 15, 2023
Examiner
BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Britax Römer Kindersicherheit GmbH
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
975 granted / 1218 resolved
+28.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1241
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
38.3%
-1.7% vs TC avg
§102
45.2%
+5.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1218 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,878,610 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite a child safety seat comprising: a seat shell comprising a seat portion and a back portion; and an adjustable backrest comprising a first end which is slidably and pivotally secured with respect to the back portion, and a second end configured to bear against a supporting surface provided on the seat shell, wherein the backrest is configured to be moveable with respect to the seat shell between a lowermost position, where the second end of the backrest is moved away from the back portion and closer to a front edge of the seat portion, reducing the available seating area for an occupant of the seat, and an uppermost position, where the second end of the backrest is moved away from the front edge of the seat portion and closer to the back portion of the seat shell, increasing the available seating area for the occupant of the seat, wherein the second end of the backrest comprises at least one projection configured to bear against the supporting surface provided on the seat shell. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-7, 9-10, 14-17 and 19-20 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D BARFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6852. 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. 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. /ANTHONY D BARFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636 adb January 24, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 15, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Oct 22, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600480
VEHICLE PASSENGER SEAT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594860
VEHICLE SEAT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594859
VEHICLE SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593921
SEAT SUPPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593918
CROSS-ELASTIC DIRECTOR'S CHAIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1218 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month