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 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, 5-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Genoway (US 2018/0050615). The reference to Lombardi (US 2017/0259720) is incorporated-by-reference to Genoway (¶ 44).
Claim 1- Genoway discloses a booster seat for supporting a child in a vehicle, the booster seat comprising:
a lower base (100) having a pair of sidewalls (112, 114) extending on opposing sides of a central axis (X), and a pair of narrowing walls (127, 131) also extending on opposing sides of the central axis (fig. 1D), each of the pair of narrowing walls including at least one segment that is positioned between a pair of planes defined by the pair of sidewalls (fig. 1A shows the narrowing belt sides 127, 131 are disposed inboard of the sidewalls, wherein the lateral surfaces of the sidewall define the pair of planes);
a seatback frame (200) connectable to the lower base (figs. 3A-C) and having a pair of opposed side edges (define by the lateral supports 232- only one of the pair of supports being shown, fig.3A), each side edge having a lower narrow segment and an upper wide segment extending laterally outward from the lower narrow segment (shown best in fig. 3A); and
at least one pad engageable to the seatback frame (the booster seat includes padding and soft goods for the seatback frame 200 and for the lower base 100, ¶ 71).
Claim 5- Genoway discloses the booster seat recited in claim 1 wherein the lower base (100) includes a pair of armrests (108, 110) coupled to respective ones of the base pair of sidewalls (112, 114).
Claim 6- Genoway discloses the booster seat recited in claim 5, wherein the lower base (fig. 1A) includes a pair of armrest supports (126, 130), each armrest support extending between a respective one of the base pair of sidewalls (112, 114) and a respective one of the pair of armrests (108, 110).
Claim 7- Genoway discloses the booster seat recited in claim 6, wherein the lower base (fig. 1D) includes a bottom edge (shown not designated), and each armrest support (126, 130) includes a rear edge extending at an angle relative to a bottom edge (the bottom edge being horizontal), the angle being between 30-60 degrees (fig. 1D clearly shows that the rear edge is angled approximately 60 degrees relative to the horizontal base bottom edge).
Claim 9- Genoway discloses a booster seat for supporting a child in a vehicle, the booster seat comprising: a lower base (100), a seatback frame (200), and at least one pad (¶ 71).
Genoway discloses the lower base (100) having:
a bottom edge (shown not designated, fig. 1D);
a pair of sidewalls (112, 114) extending from the bottom edge on opposing sides of a central axis (X);
a pair of narrowing walls (127, 131) also extending on opposing sides of the central axis (figs. 1A & 1D), each of the pair of narrowing walls including at least one segment that is positioned between a pair of planes defined by the pair of sidewalls (fig. 1A shows the narrowing belt guides 127, 131 are disposed inboard of the sidewalls, wherein the lateral surfaces of the sidewall define the pair of planes);
a pair of armrest supports (126, 130), each armrest support extending from a respective one of the base pair of sidewalls (112, 114) and including a rear edge extending at an angle relative to the base bottom edge (the bottom edge being horizontal), the angle being between 30-60 degrees (fig. 1D clearly shows that the rear edge is angled approximately 60 degrees relative to the horizontal base bottom edge);
and a pair of armrests (108, 110) coupled to respective ones of the pair of armrest support (126, 130).
Genoway discloses the seatback frame (200) connectable to the lower base (figs. 3A-C); and at least one pad engageable to the seatback frame (the booster seat includes padding and soft goods for the seatback frame 200 and for the lower base 100, ¶ 71).
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) 2, 10, 14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genoway (US 2018/0050615) in view of Rumack (US 20110252566).
Claims 2 and 10 (recite the same claim limitations)- Genoway discloses the booster seat recited in claims 1 and 9 respectively, wherein the seatback frame defines: a longitudinal axis positioned between the pair of opposed side edges (the frame inherently possesses at least a vertical central axis parallel to the longitude of the rear seatback surface 237, fig. 3A); and a maximum width along an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (the lateral supports 232 inherently define a maximum width between their outer edges).
Genoway does not disclose the maximum width being no greater than 17 inches; however selecting the specific dimension(s) for the support components of a booster seat is considered an obvious matter of design choice since configuring the seatback frame with the claimed maximum width would still yield the predictable result of providing a seatback that can comfortably and safely support a child user, and not yield a structure or function that is patentably distinct from what is shown and taught by Genoway.
Moreover, Rumack discloses a positioning insert in the field of child safety seats (¶ [0002], [0006]). Rumack teaches a child seat insert for installation in a variety of child seats (including booster seats, ¶ [0006]), the insert comprising; and a lower base having a pair of sidewalls, a seatback having a pair of opposing sidewalls; wherein the maximum width between the outer edges of the seatback sidewalls is 13.5 inches (fig. 15), which is not greater than 17 inches.
Rumack teaches that the seatback width is one of many suitable measurements according to the size of the child occupant to be supported (¶ [0082]), and Rumack’s teaching would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a dimension of 17 inches or less is a suitable maximum width for a seatback frame of a child safety seat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a seatback maximum width not greater than 17 inches for Genoway’s seatback frame, since the selection involves only routine skill in the art as evidenced by Rumack’s teaching, in order to provide a suitably dimensioned seatback frame for the child supported in the booster seat.
Claim 14- Genoway discloses a booster seat for supporting a child in a vehicle, the booster seat comprising:
a lower base (100);
a seatback frame (200) connectable to the lower base (figs. 3A-C) and having: a pair of opposed side edges (define by the lateral supports 232- only one of the pair of supports being shown, fig.3A), each side edge having a lower narrow segment and an upper wide segment extending laterally outward from the lower narrow segment (shown best in fig. 3A); and a longitudinal axis positioned between the pair of opposed side edges (the frame inherently possesses at least a vertical central axis parallel to the longitude of the rear seatback surface 237, fig. 3A); the seatback frame defining a maximum width along an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (the lateral supports 232 inherently define a maximum width between their outer edges); and
at least one pad engageable to the seatback frame (the booster seat includes padding and soft goods for the seatback frame 200 and for the lower base 100, ¶ 71).
Genoway does not disclose the maximum width being no greater than 17 inches; however selecting the specific dimension(s) for the support components of a booster seat is considered an obvious matter of design choice since configuring the seatback frame with the claimed maximum width would still yield the predictable result of providing a seatback that can comfortably and safely support a child user, and not yield a structure or function that is patentably distinct from what is shown and taught by Genoway.
Moreover, Rumack discloses a positioning insert in the field of child safety seats (¶ [0002], [0006]). Rumack teaches a child seat insert for installation in a variety of child seats (including booster seats, ¶ [0006]), the insert comprising; and a lower base having a pair of sidewalls, a seatback having a pair of opposing sidewalls; wherein the maximum width between the outer edges of the seatback sidewalls is 13.5 inches (fig. 15), which is not greater than 17 inches.
Rumack teaches that the seatback width is one of many suitable measurements according to the size of the child occupant to be supported (¶ [0082]), and Rumack’s teaching would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a dimension of 17 inches or less is a suitable maximum width for a seatback frame of a child safety seat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a seatback maximum width not greater than 17 inches for Genoway’s seatback frame, since the selection involves only routine skill in the art as evidenced by Rumack’s teaching, in order to provide a suitably dimensioned seatback frame for the child supported in the booster seat.
Claim 17- Genoway and Rumack teach the booster seat recited in claim 14, wherein Genoway further teaches that the lower base (100) includes a pair of armrests (108, 110) coupled to respective ones of the base pair of sidewalls (112, 114).
Claim 18- Genoway and Rumack teach the booster seat recited in claim 17, wherein Genoway further teaches that the lower base (fig. 1A) includes a pair of armrest supports (126, 130), each armrest support extending between a respective one of the base pair of sidewalls (112, 114) and a respective one of the pair of armrests (108, 110).
Claim 19- Genoway and Rumack teach the booster seat recited in claim 18, wherein Genoway further teaches that the lower base (fig. 1D) includes a bottom edge (shown not designated) and each armrest support (126, 130) includes a rear edge extending at an angle relative to a bottom edge (the bottom edge being horizontal), the angle being between 30-60 degrees (fig. 1D clearly shows that the rear edge is angled approximately 60 degrees relative to the horizontal base bottom edge).
Claim(s) 3-4, 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genoway (US 2018/0050615) in view of Mitchell (US 2017/0282758).
Claim 3- Genoway discloses the booster seat recited in claim 1, wherein the seatback frame defines a first maximum width (via the spacing between the outer edges of the seatback’s lateral supports 232) and the lower base defines a second maximum width (determined by the outer surfaces of the base sidewalls, fig. 1C).
The difference between Genoway and the instant claim is Genoway does not show or teach that the base second maximum width is less than the seatback first maximum width.
Mitchell discloses a booster seat in the field of child safety seats. Mitchell discloses a booster seat comprising: a lower base (210), and a seatback frame (212) connectable to the lower base (fig. 4A); wherein the seatback frame defines a first maximum width, and the lower base defines a second maximum width (shown best in fig. 2).
Mitchell teaches that the seatback frame has a pair of opposed side edges provided by a pair of lateral supports (16) that define a maximum width (figs. 2 & 4A); and in figure 2, the lateral supports (16) appear to extend beyond the sidewalls of the lower base, which would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the base second maximum width can be less than the seatback first maximum width. The knowledge of a seat occupant commonly having a generally greater shoulder and arm width compared to a hip and thigh width, such that it is suitable to provide a seatback width greater than lower base width, is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and corresponds to Mitchell’s illustration of a greater seatback width.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a maximum width for Genoway’s lower base that is less than the seatback maximum width, as suggested by Mitchell’s teaching, in order to provide suitably dimensioned booster seat components for a seat occupant.
Claim 4- Genoway and Mitchell teach the booster seat recited in claim 3, wherein the base second maximum width is suitable for receiving and support a child occupant.
Genoway and Mitchell do not teach the base second maximum width is no greater than 16 inches. However, selecting the specific dimension(s) for the support components of a booster seat is considered an obvious matter of design choice since configuring the lower base with the claimed maximum width would still yield the predictable result of providing a lower base that can comfortably and safely support a child user, and not yield a structure or function that is patentably distinct from what is shown and taught by Genoway and Mitchell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a lower base maximum width not greater than 16 inches for Genoway’s lower base, since the selection involves only routine skill in the art, in order to provide a suitably dimensioned lower base for the child supported in the booster seat.
Claim 8- Genoway discloses the booster seat recited in claim 7, wherein the pair of armrests (108, 110) are connected to the respective ones of the pair of armrest supports (126, 130).
Genoway does not teach wherein the pair of armrests are detachably connectable to the respective ones of the pair of armrest supports.
Mitchell discloses a booster seat in the field of child safety seats. Mitchell discloses a booster seat comprising: a lower base (210), and a seatback frame (212) connectable to the lower base (fig. 4A), and a pair of armrests (204a, b) coupled to respective ones of a pair of lower base sidewalls (shown not designated, fig. 4A-B); wherein the lower base includes a pair of armrest supports (230a, b) extending between the base sidewalls and the armrests; and wherein the pair of armrests (204a, b) are detachably connectable to the respective ones of the pair of armrest supports (230a, b).
Mitchell teaches configuring the lower base sidewalls with armrest supports (230a, b) that are protrusions insertable to vertical support cavities (228a, b) extending from the armrests (204a, b), for facilitating removable attachment of the armrests (figs. 7-8). The removable attachment provides alignment for proper assembling and disassembling into a non-use state (¶ 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide detachable connection of Genoway’s armrests, as taught by Mitchell, in order to facilitate selective assembling and disassembling for supporting a child or compact portability.
Claim 11- Genoway discloses the booster seat recited in claim 9, wherein the seatback frame defines a first maximum width (via the spacing between the outer edges of the seatback’s lateral supports 232) and the lower base defines a second maximum width (determined by the outer surfaces of the base sidewalls, fig. 1C).
The difference between Genoway and the instant claim is Genoway does not show or teach that the base second maximum width is less than the seatback first maximum width.
Mitchell discloses a booster seat in the field of child safety seats. Mitchell discloses a booster seat comprising: a lower base (210), and a seatback frame (212) connectable to the lower base (fig. 4A); wherein the seatback frame defines a first maximum width, and the lower base defines a second maximum width (shown best in fig. 2).
Mitchell teaches that the seatback frame has a pair of opposed side edges provided by a pair of lateral supports (16) that define a maximum width (figs. 2 & 4A); and in figure 2, the lateral supports (16) appear to extend beyond the sidewalls of the lower base, which would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the base second maximum width can be less than the seatback first maximum width. The knowledge of a seat occupant commonly having a generally greater shoulder and arm width compared to a hip and thigh width, such that it is suitable to provide a seatback width greater than lower base width, is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and corresponds to Mitchell’s illustration of a greater seatback width.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a maximum width for Genoway’s lower base that is less than the seatback maximum width, as suggested by Mitchell’s teaching, in order to provide suitably dimensioned booster seat components for a seat occupant.
Claim 12- Genoway and Mitchell teach the booster seat recited in claim 11, wherein the base second maximum width is suitable for receiving and support a child occupant.
Genoway and Mitchell do not teach the base second maximum width is no greater than 16 inches. However, selecting the specific dimension(s) for the support components of a booster seat is considered an obvious matter of design choice since configuring the lower base with the claimed maximum width would still yield the predictable result of providing a lower base that can comfortably and safely support a child user, and not yield a structure or function that is patentably distinct from what is shown and taught by Genoway and Mitchell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a lower base maximum width not greater than 16 inches for Genoway’s lower base, since the selection involves only routine skill in the art, in order to provide a suitably dimensioned lower base for the child supported in the booster seat.
Claim 13- Genoway discloses the booster seat recited in claim 9, wherein the pair of armrests (108, 110) are connected to the respective ones of the pair of armrest supports (126, 130).
Genoway does not teach wherein the pair of armrests are detachably connectable to the respective ones of the pair of armrest supports.
Mitchell discloses a booster seat in the field of child safety seats. Mitchell discloses a booster seat comprising: a lower base (210), and a seatback frame (212) connectable to the lower base (fig. 4A), and a pair of armrests (204a, b) coupled to respective ones of a pair of lower base sidewalls (shown not designated, fig. 4A-B); wherein the lower base includes a pair of armrest supports (230a, b) extending between the base sidewalls and the armrests; and wherein the pair of armrests (204a, b) are detachably connectable to the respective ones of the pair of armrest supports (230a, b).
Mitchell teaches configuring the lower base sidewalls with armrest supports (230a, b) that are protrusions insertable to vertical support cavities (228a, b) extending from the armrests (204a, b), for facilitating removable attachment of the armrests (figs. 7-8). The removable attachment provides alignment for proper assembling and disassembling into a non-use state (¶ 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide detachable connection of Genoway’s armrests, as taught by Mitchell, in order to facilitate selective assembling and disassembling for supporting a child or compact portability.
Claim(s) 15, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genoway and Rumack as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Mitchell (US 2017/0282758).
Claim 15- Genoway and Rumack teach the booster seat recited in claim 14, wherein the seatback frame of Genoway defines a maximum width (via the spacing between the outer edges of the seatback’s lateral supports 232) and the lower base of Genoway defines a maximum width (determined by the outer surfaces of the base sidewalls, fig. 1C).
The difference between Genoway and the instant claim is Genoway does not show or teach that the base maximum width is less than the seatback maximum width.
Mitchell discloses a booster seat in the field of child safety seats. Mitchell discloses a booster seat comprising: a lower base (210), and a seatback frame (212) connectable to the lower base (fig. 4A); wherein the seatback frame defines a maximum width, and the lower base defines a maximum width (shown best in fig. 2).
Mitchell teaches that the seatback frame has a pair of opposed side edges provided by a pair of lateral supports (16) that define a maximum width (figs. 2 & 4A); and in figure 2, the lateral supports (16) appear to extend beyond the sidewalls of the lower base, which would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the base maximum width can be less than the seatback maximum width. The knowledge of a seat occupant commonly having a generally greater shoulder and arm width compared to a hip and thigh width, such that it is suitable to provide a seatback width greater than lower base width, is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and corresponds to Mitchell’s illustration of a greater seatback width.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a maximum width for Genoway’s lower base that is less than the seatback maximum width, as suggested by Mitchell’s teaching, in order to provide suitably dimensioned booster seat components for a seat occupant.
Claim 16- Genoway, Rumack and Mitchell teach the booster seat recited in claim 15, wherein the maximum width of the lower base is suitable for receiving and support a child occupant.
Genoway does not teach the maximum width of the base is no greater than 16 inches. However, selecting the specific dimension(s) for the support components of a booster seat is considered an obvious matter of design choice since configuring the lower base with the claimed maximum width would still yield the predictable result of providing a lower base that can comfortably and safely support a child user, and not yield a structure or function that is patentably distinct from what is shown and taught by Genoway.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a lower base maximum width not greater than 16 inches for Genoway’s lower base, since the selection involves only routine skill in the art, in order to provide a suitably dimensioned lower base for the child supported in the booster seat.
Claim 20- Genoway and Rumack teach the booster seat recited in claim 17, wherein the pair of armrests (108, 110) taught by Genoway are connected to the respective ones of the pair of armrest supports (126, 130).
Genoway does not teach wherein the pair of armrests are detachably connectable to the respective ones of the pair of armrest supports.
Mitchell discloses a booster seat in the field of child safety seats. Mitchell discloses a booster seat comprising: a lower base (210), and a seatback frame (212) connectable to the lower base (fig. 4A), and a pair of armrests (204a, b) coupled to respective ones of a pair of lower base sidewalls (shown not designated, fig. 4A-B); wherein the lower base includes a pair of armrest supports (230a, b) extending between the base sidewalls and the armrests; and wherein the pair of armrests (204a, b) are detachably connectable to the respective ones of the pair of armrest supports (230a, b).
Mitchell teaches configuring the lower base sidewalls with armrest supports (230a, b) that are protrusions insertable to vertical support cavities (228a, b) extending from the armrests (204a, b), for facilitating removable attachment of the armrests (figs. 7-8). The removable attachment provides alignment for proper assembling and disassembling into a non-use state (¶ 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide detachable connection of Genoway’s armrests, as taught by Mitchell, in order to facilitate selective assembling and disassembling for supporting a child or compact portability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2635. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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 571-272-6670. 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.
/T.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636