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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For Claims 1 and 9, each of the claims define that there are “at least two discrete slopes formed between the first and second region, and wherein at least two discrete slopes extend from the first region at the first distance to the second region at the second distance such that the at least two discrete slopes transition from the first region downward into the second region”. However, the specification does not define this limitation. While the first and second regions appear to be straight lines having discrete slopes this is not defined in the specification and it appears that the Applicant is arguing and attempting the claim that those slopes are straight lines. The specification only states that that the first and second region slope away from one another. For example paragraph [0048] of the current specification states, “a slope 210 is provided between the first region 206 and the second region 208. The slope 210 may be formed as a part of the first region 206 and/or second region 208. The slope 210 transitions from the first region 206 and downwards into the second region 208. In this manner, the head of the child may first come into contact with the material of the first region 206, travel down the slope 210, and eventually come into contact with the second region 208. Thus, the head of the child travels down the sidewall 212 during a crash event and the time during which energy dissipation occurs is extended”. Figures 95-96 of Sjodell ‘339 clearly show to distinct slopes, one for the first region and one for the second region that meet at a transition point. These two slopes create the desire effect of what the Application defines in paragraph [0048]. Figure 95 of Sjodell ‘339 clearly discloses the desired “the head of the child may first come into contact with the material of the first region 206, travel down the slope 210, and eventually come into contact with the second region 208. Thus, the head of the child travels down the sidewall 212 during a crash event and the time during which energy dissipation occurs is extended”. As such the claims are unclear and therefore indefinite. Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are indefinite as being dependent on Claims 1 and 9.
For Claim 17, the claim defines “a second region having a second slope that is discrete from the first slope”. However, the specification does not define this limitation. While the first and second regions appear to be straight lines having discrete slopes this is not defined in the specification and it appears that the Applicant is arguing and attempting the claim that those slopes are straight lines. The specification only states that that the first and second region slope away from one another. For example paragraph [0048] of the current specification states, “a slope 210 is provided between the first region 206 and the second region 208. The slope 210 may be formed as a part of the first region 206 and/or second region 208. The slope 210 transitions from the first region 206 and downwards into the second region 208. In this manner, the head of the child may first come into contact with the material of the first region 206, travel down the slope 210, and eventually come into contact with the second region 208. Thus, the head of the child travels down the sidewall 212 during a crash event and the time during which energy dissipation occurs is extended”. Figures 95-96 of Sjodell ‘339 clearly show to distinct slopes, one for the first region and one for the second region that meet at a transition point. These two slopes create the desire effect of what the Application defines in paragraph [0048]. Figure 95 of Sjodell ‘339 clearly discloses the desired “the head of the child may first come into contact with the material of the first region 206, travel down the slope 210, and eventually come into contact with the second region 208. Thus, the head of the child travels down the sidewall 212 during a crash event and the time during which energy dissipation occurs is extended”. As such the claims are unclear and therefore indefinite. Claims 18-20 are indefinite as being dependent on Claim 17.
PNG
media_image1.png
636
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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)(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) 1-6, 8-14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated as best understood by Sjodell (US PgPub #2025/0326339).
For Claims 1 and 9, figures 53, 67-69, and 95-96 of Sjodell ‘339 disclose a child restraint system comprising: a seat; a headrest (2300) comprising a rear portion (2322), a first sidewall (2538), and a second sidewall (2536), wherein the headrest further comprises: a first region protruding a first distance from the first sidewall; and a second region protruding a second distance from the first sidewall, wherein the second distance is less than the first distance, wherein the first region is provided between the rear portion and the second region, wherein at least two discrete slopes are formed between the first region and the second region, and wherein the at least two discrete slopes extend from the first region at the first distance to the second region at the second distance such that the at least two discrete slopes transition from the first region downward into the second region.
PNG
media_image2.png
408
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For Claims 2 and 10, figures 53, 67-69, and 95-96 of Sjodell ‘339 disclose that the first region comprises a first material of a first firmness, wherein the second region comprises a second material of a second firmness, and wherein the first firmness is greater than the second firmness.
For Claims 3 and 11, figures 53, 67-69 and 95-96 of Sjodell ‘339 disclose that the first and second material are the same material.
For Claims 4 and 12, paragraph [0703] of Sjodell ‘339 discloses that different materials can be used.
For Claims 5 and 13, figures 53, 67-69 and 95-96 of Sjodell ‘339 disclose that the first region comprises a sold material and the second region comprises a hollow material (2328 or 2530).
For Claims 6 and 14, figures 53 and 95-96 of Sjodell ‘339 disclose that the second region comprises a void (2328 or 2530).
For Claims 7 and 15, paragraph [0703] of Sjodell ‘339 disclose
For Claims 8 and 16, paragraph [0189] of Sjodell ‘339 discloses that the headrest can be made of EPP.
For Claim 17, figures 53, 67-69 and 95-96 of Sjodell ‘339 disclose a child restraint system comprising: a seat; a headrest (2300) comprising a rear portion (2322), a first sidewall (2332), and a second sidewall (2334), wherein the headrest further comprises: a first region having a first slope; and a second region having a second slope that is discrete from the first slope, wherein the first region is provided between the second region and a rea portion, wherein the first region comprises a first material of a first firmness, wherein the second region comprises a second material of a second firmness, wherein the first firmness is greater than the second firmness, and wherein a transition between the first firmness and the second firmness causes a motion of a vehicle occupant to be directed from the first region and into the second region during an impact event.
For Claim 18, figures 53, 67-69 and 95-96 of Sjodell ‘339 disclose that the first region comprises a solid material and the second region comprises a hollow material (2328).
For Claim 20, paragraph [0189] of Sjodell ‘339 discloses that the headrest can be made of EPP.
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) 7, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjodell (US PgPub #2025/0326339).
For Claims 7, 15, and 19, while Sjodell ‘339 discloses varying the reinforcing strength and firmness of the headrest, it is silent about ribbing elements within the material of the first region of the headrest, it teaches in paragraph [0690] using ribs in the seat structure so as to provide reinforcing strength. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to use ribbing elements in a headrest as they would provide an optional known way to provide reinforcing strength to the headrest.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the first argument that the newly amended language is not disclosed in the Sjodell ‘339 reference, the Examiner holds that the newly amended language is not specifically taught by the figures and the specification as such it is unclear as rejected above in the 112 rejection. As such as best understood the Examiner holds the Sjodell ‘339 still teaches the claims as defined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 7/16/2026
Prosecution Insights