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 Interpretation
It is noted that the applicant used the term ‘about’. This term has a special definition defined in the specification of the application: “As used herein, the terms “substantially” and “about” mean within ± 5% of an indicated value.” (¶18)
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.
(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) 7-10, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frank (US 20230226957 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Frank (US 20230226957 A1) discloses a car seat comprising:
a seat shell comprising:
a seat bottom (Frank, figure 2, item 11, seat with bottom), and
a seat back extending upwardly away from the seat bottom (Frank, figure 2, item 11, seat with back extending upwards from the bottom); and
a base (Frank, figure 2, item 12) including a receiving portion that interfaces with a lower side of the seat shell (Frank, figure 4a-b, item 29), the base including one or more engagement members (Frank, figure 4a, item 35) at a central area of the receiving portion and movable between a locking position where the seat shell is secured to the receiving portion of the base (Frank, figure 4a, item 35) and an unlocking position where the seat shell is removable from the base (Frank, figure 4b, item 35), wherein when the one or more engagement members are in the locking position, the seat shell is rotatable relative to the base (Frank, ¶2),
wherein in the locking position, the one or more engagement members are engaged with the seat shell through one or more lock openings on a lower side of the seat bottom (Frank, figure 4a, item 30), and in the unlocking position, the one or more engagement members are disengaged from the seat shell (Frank, figure 4b, item 30).
Regarding claim 8, Frank discloses the car seat of claim 7, wherein the one or more engagement members comprises a first hook and a second hook (Frank, figure 4b, item 35, first and second hooks).
Regarding claim 9, Frank discloses the car seat of claim 8, wherein the one or more lock openings comprises a single lock opening defined by an opening edge, the single lock opening configured to receive the first hook and the second hook together, wherein when in the locking position, the first hook engages with a first portion of the opening edge, and the second hook engages with a second portion of the opening edge (Frank, figure 6, item 41, lock opening on the underside and has pins for engaging with hooks).
Regarding claim 10, Frank discloses the car seat of claim 9, wherein the first portion of the opening edge is opposite the second portion (Frank, figure 6, item 41, pins on opposite first and second edges).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank (US 20230226957 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Henery (US 7575276 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Frank discloses the car seat of claim 7, wherein the base comprises an actuator for moving the one or more engagement members between the locking position and the unlocking position, except:
the actuator being exposed through an actuator opening in an exterior surface of the base, the size of the actuator being no greater than 280 square millimeters.
Henery (US 7575276 B1) teaches an actuator opening that exposes a portion of the actuator (Henery, figure 7, item 37, actuating arm fits into a channel with top and bottom edges being straight edges).
Frank and Henery are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of child car seats. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the car seat lock actuator of Frank with the actuator opening of Henery with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the complexity of the provide a means for actuating the actuator.
Henery does not teach a particular size of the actuator opening, however given the figures and the relative size of the seats on a passenger vehicle, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the particular area of an actuator opening to be in a similar range to the claimed 280 square millimeters and thus it would be obvious as a matter of design choice to modify the size of the opening to be less than 280 square millimeters in order to prevent unintended objects from being lodged into the opening.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 3-6, and 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 12-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, Longenecker (US 11584267 B2) discloses a car seat comprising:
a base having a receiving portion (Longenecker, figure 1, item 10);
a seat shell (Longenecker, figure 1, item 30) being rotatable relative to the base within the receiving portion (Longenecker, abstract, seat shell is rotatable);
a lock for securing the seat shell to the base (Longenecker, figure 13, item 124), wherein the seat shell is not removable from the base when the lock is in a lock configuration and is removable from the base when the lock is in an unlock configuration (Longenecker, figure 13, item 124, col 8 lines 38-48);
an actuator for changing the lock from the lock configuration to the unlock configuration (Longenecker, figure 13, item 126); and
an actuator opening in an outer-facing surface of one of the base or the seat shell (Longenecker, figure 3, item 126, opening for actuator surrounds actuator),
the actuator opening exposing a press portion of the actuator and being sized to receive at least a first end of a tongue of a vehicle safety belt for applying force to the press portion (Longenecker, figure 3, item 126, actuator can be depressed and the related press portion can receive an end of a tongue of a safety belt to apply force to the press portion), except:
wherein the actuator opening has a height that is less than about 10 millimeters.
Thus, the prior art fails to teach the claimed matter alone and it would not have been obvious to meet the claims either without undue hindsight based on the applicant' s disclosure.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are allowed for depending on an allowed claim.
Regarding claim 12, Frank as modified by Henery teaches the car seat of claim 11, except:
wherein the actuator comprises a press button.
Claims 13-14 are indicated for depending on an allowable claim.
Regarding claim 15, Frank (US 20230226957 A1) discloses a car seat comprising:
a base having a receiving portion (Frank, figure 1, item 12);
a seat shell being rotatable relative to the base within the receiving portion (Frank, figures 1-2, item 11);
a lock for securing the seat shell to the base, wherein the seat shell is not removable from the base when the lock is in a lock configuration and is removable from the base when the lock is in an unlock configuration;
an actuator for changing the lock from the lock configuration to the unlock configuration, the actuator movable from a lock position corresponding to the lock configuration and an unlock position corresponding to the unlock configuration; except:
an actuator locking arm having a first end, a second end, and a pivot point between the first end and the second end (Frank, figure 10, item 46), the second end aligning with a feature in one of the seat shell or the base when the seat shell is rotated to a first position (F Frank, figure 10-12, item 45), except:
wherein the feature is a recess; and
wherein when the actuator moves to the unlock position and the second end of the actuator locking arm aligns with the recess, the actuator locking arm pivots until the first end interferes with the actuator moving back to the lock position.
Thus, the prior art fails to teach the claimed matter alone and it would not have been obvious to meet the claims either without undue hindsight based on the applicant' s disclosure.
Claims 17-20 are allowed for depending on an allowable claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 of applicant’s reply, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and its dependents under 35 USC 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6 of applicant’s reply, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 15 and its dependents under 35 USC 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Frank fail to teach “the one or more engagement members are engaged with the seat shell through one or more lock openings on a lower side of the seat bottom” in claim 7 because the notches 30 are not lock openings on a lower side of the seat bottom and the engagement members do not engage the seat shell through any lock openings in the seat bottom.
The notches are part of the opening feature as whole and cited as part of the lock opening for the rotatory element to engage the pins; the overall recessed part of the seat bottom and/or the paths for the engagement members act as lock openings under the language of claim 7.
The engagement members of Frank do engage the shell through via a lock opening in the seat bottom. The pins of Frank are located in a recessed cavity of the seat bottom that meets the claim language as presented in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (DE 102017012413 B4) teaches an infant seat with an actuator opening
Boegge (EP 0791499 A2) teaches a car seat with a front seat belt/tongue for deactivating airbag
Gibson (US 6050640 A) teaches a car seat with a seat belt tongue retainment mechanism
Williams (US 20200391627 A1) teaches a spin lock mechanism, but this does not take the form of an actuator locking arm
McHugh (US 20230045540 A1) teaches a detachable seat/shell system where the shell can rotate
Larrison (US 20240116409 A1) teaches a tethered base and seat
Oltman (US 20240116412 A1) teaches a seat belt and tongue retained in a slot of the shell
Williams (US 11420540 B2) teaches a pivoting infant seat with a locking mechanism
Williams (US 11878609 B2) teaches a pivoting infant seat with a locking mechanism
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 RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights