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 .
This office action replaces the previous office action mailed 14 April 2026, which mistakenly indicated a non-final status.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 41 and 42 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: they are drawn to combinations restrictable in view of the originally filed subcombination (i.e. the new claims include additional components while not requiring the details of the subcombination previously examined).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 41 and 42 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 24 March 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. They have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has been considered only as noted in the attached copies (that is, while Appilcant has provided several of the cited foreign documents, no copy of the 13 July 2023 publication to Squires is present).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the linear actuator and solenoid (of claims 8 and 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102, 103
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.
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) 1-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gandhi et al. (US Patent Number 6390560).
Regarding claim 1, Gandhi discloses a system for mounting a child seat or another removable item in a vehicle, the child seat or removable item comprising a first hook and a second hook (even if not explicitly described, the system is intended for a child seat, which would inherently include such hooks), the system comprising: an anchor (20) configured and arranged to connect to the first hook and being movable between a retracted position and an extended position (this is the general arrangement; see figures and at least the second full paragraph of the “Detailed Description…”). While Gandhi is at least inherently viewed as providing a second anchor as claimed (and thus anticipating claim 1) in conjunction with the first shown (as any typical vehicle seat anchor system includes at least two anchors), this may not be explicit. Even in this case, duplication of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a second lower anchor as claimed based on normal variation to improve safety and convenience for various users.
Regarding claim 2, Gandhi further discloses a seat and a seatback of the vehicle, wherein the first lower anchor and the second lower anchor are at least partially disposed between the seat and seatback when in the extended and retracted positions (see at least Figure 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Gandhi further discloses a switch configured to be activated by a user, wherein activation of the switch moves at least one of the first lower anchor or the second lower anchor between the extended and retracted positions and/or a controller, the controller being configured to move at least one of the first lower anchor or the second lower anchor between the extended and retracted positions (see at least the fourth full paragraph of column 3; the control described would be viewed as a “controller” and/or a “switch” as claimed as a control for selectively driving the anchor would necessarily function as such). Note that even in the case that this were not considered sufficient to meet the claimed limitations, switches and controllers are old and well-known in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a controller or switch as claimed to allow a user to operate the device as intended and ensure safety and convenience.
Regarding claim 5, Gandhi further discloses a tether anchor, the tether anchor being configured to secure a strap extending from the removable item (as above, multiple anchors are inherent and/or obvious, and any typical child seat includes a strap extending and secured as claimed; note that even typical lower hooks/anchors would be viewed as such). Note that even in the case that this were not considered sufficient to meet the claimed limitations, tether anchors and straps are old and well-known in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an arrangement as claimed to allow a user to operate the device as intended and ensure safety and convenience.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 10, Gandhi further discloses an actuator (including 64) configured to move at least one of the first lower anchor or the second lower anchor between the retracted position and the extended position, the actuator is a gear drive actuator (64 includes gear reduction), wherein the actuator is a linear actuator (the arrangement at 62 functions as such), and wherein a seat and a seatback of the vehicle are provided, wherein at least a portion of the actuator is disposed below the seat (see at least Figure 1 showing the actuator below a seat at least in part).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Gandhi further discloses each of the first lower anchor and the second lower anchor comprises a wire having a curved shape about an axis, wherein the axis is perpendicular to a direction of travel for the first and second lower anchors when moving between the retracted and extended positions (see at least Figures 1 and 2 showing a shape with a curve about an axis perpendicular to “A”).
Claim(s) 9, 13-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi.
Regarding claim 9, Gandhi discloses a system as explained above, but may not disclose a solenoid. Electromechanical solenoids are old and well-known in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a solenoid as claimed to improve manufacture or operation for various users.
Regarding claims 13-19 and 21, Gandhi discloses a system as explained above, but may not specifically disclose controller sequencing, triggering or associated signal providers, or processing details of the removable item. These claim limitations (including all controller sequencing, triggering and associated signal providers, and processing details of removable items) are old and well-known in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide details as claimed to improve user comfort, convenience, and safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment, filed 20 March 2026 has been fully considered. The 35 USC 112 rejections and drawing objection related to clarity have been withdrawn. Note that the drawing objection related to the details of claims 8 and 9 has not been addressed and this objection has been maintained
Applicant's arguments filed 20 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Gandhi does not disclose or render obvious a second lower anchor. While it is acknowledged that Gandhi’s figures may show only a single anchor, as explained in the rejection, any typical vehicle seat anchor system in common use includes pairs of anchors for each seat (see any standard for LATCH, ISOFIX, etc.). Moreover, Gandhi appears to disclose paired anchors in the description of the preferred embodiment (see the third full paragraph of column 2 describing anchors provided “at the left and right edges of the seat” (emphasis added). Even ignoring this, Applicant’s assertion that the additional 35 USC 103 rejection fails to provide an explanation of how the Gandhi device could be modified to include two anchors is not persuasive. As set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a second lower anchor to improve safety and convenience for various users, and such an anchor would be provided much as Gandhi suggests (i.e. at left and right edges of the seat). The rejections have accordingly been maintained.
Conclusion
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 PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights