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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) “preferred” should be removed. 2) EACH use of “first and second part” should be “each of the two parts”. 3) “the first part” and “the second part”. 4) “comprising of a” should recite “comprising a”. 5) “the first and second waist latch devices” should recite “a first and a second waist latch device”. 6) “the shopping cart seat” should recite “the seat of the shopping cart”. 7) “the seat” should recite “a seat”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: Capital letters should be removed e.g. “A”, “S”, “C”, “I” and “T”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: It recites “looped end crotch portion strap material” but should recite “a looped end crotch portion strap material”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 7 recites “of vehicle” but should recite “of the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "other said end" and “both first and second ends”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “a vehicle, specifically a shopping cart” at line 2. The use of “specifically” makes it unclear if a shopping cart is or is not a required limitation.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Naurois (US PG PUB 2002/00158433) in view of Divoky (US 6,186,521).
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, de Naurois discloses a child safety apparatus using the preferred method of transportation LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children) system (Restraints are conventional in the art of shopping carts and carriers and include tethers and anchors to attach to the cart frame members) while in the seat of a shopping cart comprising: a waist portion of strap material (de Naurois, FIG 6) having two parts, with first and second part (de Naurois, FIG 6 is exemplary and teaches portions that selectively connect to restrain the rider) respectively attached through an adjustable slide buckle mechanism (Restraints are conventionally adjustable. Regarding making adjustable, see In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified de Naurois with a reasonable expectation of success in order to adjust for plural sized children).
-However, de Naurois fails to disclose the other said end (See 112b rejection above) extending through crotch portion loop strap.
-Nevertheless, Divoky discloses a cart crotch strap (50) in FIG 1.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified de Naurois to have torso/crotch securement as taught by Divoky with a reasonable expectation of success in order to
Prevent falling.
-Regarding the remaining limitations: both first and second ends (See 112b rejection above and the combination of de Naurois/Divoky show exemplary restraint connections which can include any known fasteners and connectors) respectively comprising of a LATCH hooked end snap clip (de Naurois, FIG 6 is exemplary and teaches portions that selectively connect to restrain the rider); and a crotch portion of strap material (Divoky, FIG 1, 50 is an exemplary strap/belt) having two parts (Each strap inherently has a first and a second end), with first and second part (112b rejection above) respectively attached through an adjustable slide buckle mechanism (Restraints are conventionally adjustable and belts are conventionally adjustable for different users. Regarding making adjustable, see In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified de Naurois with a reasonable expectation of success in order to adjust for different sized children); the first part opposite end comprising of a closed loop fixed to said waist portion of strap material (Loops are conventional to secure belt segments); the second part (See 112b rejection above) comprising of a LATCH hooked end snap clip (de Naurois paragraph [0011] discloses exemplary use of conventional clips and fasteners which can be employed on any cart structure) extended perpendicular (Orientation is a matter of design choice); and the LATCH system of fastening the first and second waist latch devices (de Naurois, FIG 6) being releasably securable to a wire portion (de Naurois, FIG 6) of the shopping cart seat to anchor the child within (de Naurois, FIG 6), and the crotch latch device (52) extended downward between the child's legs (Divoky, FIG 1) to be releasably securable to the lower middle wire portion of the shopping cart (de Naurois FIG 6 and Divoky FIG 1 are exemplary and can connect to any desired structure) to anchor a child within the shopping cart (Divoky, FIG 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
751
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
772
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, de Naurois/Divoky disclose a method of enhancing the safety of a seated child comprising the steps of: identifying a child seated in a vehicle, specifically a shopping cart seat; and applying a child safety restraint apparatus upon the child's lap; and connecting the hooked end snap clips from waist portion of strap material according to claim 1 (de Naurois, FIG 1) to the closest portion of vehicle nearest child's hips: and connecting the hooked end snap clips from crotch portion of strap material according to claim 1 to the closest portion of vehicle between child's legs (User can adjust the straps as desired for the infant’s comfort. Regarding adjustable, restraints are conventionally adjustable. Regarding making adjustable, see In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified de Naurois with a reasonable expectation of success in order to adjust for plural sized children) and securing a proper fit by adjusting the strap materials from both waist and crotch portions by way of adjustable slide buckles respectively (User can adjust the straps as desired for the infant’s comfort. de Naurois/Divoky are exemplary and as modified can be sized for a particular child); wherein, a proper fit of anchoring a child in a shopping cart by means of tethers and anchors (de Naurois, FIG 1) , secured at the hips with the use of the same hooked end snap clips used for transportation safety in automobiles to provide comfort for all children riding in a shopping cart seat (de Naurois/Divoky are exemplary and as modified can be secured for any child) and fully adjustable (The adjustable rejection above is incorporated herein), with ease of portability to carry by caretakers, this child safety apparatus for shopping carts will enhance security of children by providing safety from falls out of shopping cart seats and lessens the possibility of passerby abductions (de Naurois/Divoky are exemplary and provide safety in any seating device such as a cart, stroller, et and prevent abduction and falling).
1. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Divoky (US 6,186,521).
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Divoky discloses a child safety restraint apparatus which is portable, compact, and easy to care for comprising: a padded cover apparatus to encase the system of waist portion strap material extended through (Divoky, panels 32-34 in FIG 2 can be formed of any known materials including a material that provides padding which can be positioned as desired. Regarding material choice, see In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Divoky to have any desired material with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide comfort) and looped end crotch portion strap material extended downward through (Divoky FIG 2 illustrates a harness including crotch and body portions), comprising of fabric quilting sewn inside luxury fabric cover comprising; and a stain resistant, water resistant, odor resistant, antimicrobial treated textile fabric cover (Each of these treatments are conventional and can be selectively applied to a child harness and can include “luxury materials” which are sewn quilting).
PNG
media_image3.png
702
733
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571)270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614B
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614