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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/16/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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) 1-5, 7-11, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Karremans (US PgPub #2010/0207436).
For Claim 1, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose a child seat base (2) for receiving a seat element (3) of a child seat system and for mounting in a motor vehicle, comprising several fastening devices (14) for fastening the seat element to the child seat base, the several fastening devices configured to be brought from a locking position into a release position, wherein the several fastening device comprise: at least one first fastening device defining a first latching area, the at least one first fastening device configured to engage with an engagement device; and at least one second fastening device configured differently from the at least one first fastening device with respect to rotatability, wherein the at least one first fastening device is in the locking position when the engagement device is positioned at the first latching area.
For Claim 2, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose that the at least one second fastening device is not locked in a second locking position.
For Claim 3, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose at least one of the several fastening devices comprises a hook.
For Claim 4, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose that at least one first fastening device is rotatable.
For Claim 5, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose that the at least one first fastening device is arranged further back than the at least one second fastening device.
For Claim 7, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose that several second fastening devices are coupled to each other.
For Claim 8, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose that several first fastening devices interact with each other via a control device (41), wherein the control device can be moved into at least one first position and at least one second position by rotation, wherein the control device in the at least one first position locks the locking position of the several first fastening devices.
For Claim 9, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose that the several fastening devices are connected to each other at least in section, via a connecting device (31), wherein the connecting device: is connected to a control device (41).
For Claim 10, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose an actuating device (41) is provided, wherein by an actuation of the actuating device all fastening devices are transferable into the release position.
For Claim 11, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose that at least one spring device (26) is provided, which urges at least on of the several fastening devices in a direction of the release position.
For Claim 14, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose an actuating device (41) is provided, wherein by an actuation of the actuating device at least one of the several fastening devices are transferable into the release position, wherein the several fastening devices are connected to each other and to the actuating device, at least in sections, via a connecting device (42), wherein the connecting device is flexible.
For Claim 15, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose a child seat system for mounting in a motor vehicle, comprising the seat element as well as the child seat base according to Claim 1.
For Claim 16, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose that the at least one first fastening device is rotatable around an axis from the locking position to the release position.
For Claim 17, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose that the one first fastening device defines a second latching area, wherein the at least one first fastening device is in the release position when the engagement device is positioned at the second latching area.
For Claim 18, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose that the engagement device (28) is rotatable around a second axis to engage with the first latching area in the locking position, and to engage with the second latching area in the release position.
For Claim 19, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose that the first fastening device is blocked against rotation in both directions when the engagement device (28) is positioned at the first latching area.
For Claim 20, the figures of Karremans ‘436 disclose that the first spring device is configured to bias the first fastening device to the release position.
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) 6 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karremans (US PgPub #2010/0207436).
For Claim 6 and 12, while Karremans ‘436 discloses a control device (41), it is silent about an indicating device coupled to it. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to have indication devices on a child seat connected to the control device to indicate if the seat is locked into the base for safety reasons. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Karremans ‘436 with a known indicating device. The motivation to do so would be to increase safety of the seating system.
For Claim 13, while Karremans ‘436 discloses an actuating device (42) is designed in such a way that the at least one first fastening device is transferred to its release position, it is silent about it being coordinated with an indicating device. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to have an indication device that coordinates with the system to indicate if the seat is securely locked. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Karremans ‘436 with a known indicator device. The motivation to do so would be to increase the safety of the seating system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-16, filed 2/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Karremans ‘436.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 4/20/2026
Prosecution Insights