Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/734,026

CHILD SAFETY SEAT STABILIZING DEVICE AND METHOD OF USE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jun 05, 2024
Examiner
WHITE, RODNEY BARNETT
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1790 granted / 2169 resolved
+30.5% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
2206
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.9%
-5.1% vs TC avg
§102
34.2%
-5.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 2169 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
February 12, 2026 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 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 1-12 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. In claim 1, line 13 and Claim 12, line 13, Applicant uses the word “it” in the claim language. The use of pronouns in claims is prohibited. Applicant needs to replace each instance of the word “it” with the actual structure that is being described or referenced. The aforementioned problem renders the claims vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (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. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HALAND et al. (GB 2270834 A). PNG media_image1.png 214 248 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 192 319 media_image2.png Greyscale As for claim 1, HALAND et al. teach a child safety seat stabilizing assembly comprising: a shell 15 defining an interior space, the shell being rigid, the shell having opposed sides, a rear facet, and a front facet, the opposed sides being substantially triangular (when the shell is rotated in the position shown in annotated Fig. 2 above), the rear facet and the front facet being substantially trapezoidal, the rear facet and a lower edge of each opposed side forming a first angle, the first angle being substantially complementary to a second angle defined by a rear surface of a passenger seat and a cargo bed of a vehicle, the front facet and the lower edge of each opposed side forming a third angle, the third angle being substantially complementary to a fourth angle defined by a bottom face and a rear surface of a child safety seat, wherein the shell is configured to be positioned between the passenger seat of the vehicle and the child safety seat to stabilize the child safety seat such that it can be securely fastened (see the shape of the shell 15 shown in Figures 1-2 above), using one or more straps 4, to anchors integral to the vehicle, thereby enabling use of the child safety seat to transport a child in a cargo area of the vehicle. As for claim 2, HALAND et al. teach that the base, the rear facet, and the front facet are each substantially rectangular shaped. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 13-14 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: HALAND et al. (GB 2270834 A) fails to teach opposed sides extending past the base defining a pair of bottom rails and a bottom recess, the bottom recess facilitating access to the one or more straps used in fastening the child safety seat to the anchors; the shell having a void extending into said rear facet and said base, the void defining a vertical section and an angular section of the rear facet, such that a space exists between the vertical section and the rear surface of the passenger seat of the vehicle upon positioning of the angular section against the rear surface of the passenger seat, the space facilitating access to the one or more straps used in fastening the child safety seat to the anchors; and a connector attached to the rear facet of the shell and being configured to removably attach the shell to the rear surface of the passenger seat, wherein the connector is configured to limit movement of the shell relative to the passenger seat during attachment of the child safety seat to the anchors, the connector comprising a hook element of a hook and loop fastener, wherein the hook element is configured to reversibly attach to a loop element of a hook and loop fastener or to loop carpeting attached to the rear surface of the passenger seat, as defined in claim 12. HALAND et al. (GB 2270834 A) fails to teach a ratcheting strap comprising a first section fitted with a first hook and a second section fitted with a second hook and a ratchet; positioning the shell between the passenger seat of the vehicle and the child safety seat to stabilize the child safety; attaching the first hook to one of the anchors and the second hook to another of the anchors; positioning the rear facet of the shell against the rear surface of the passenger seat; positioning the rear face of the child safety seat against the front facet of the shell; passing the first section of the ratcheting strap through a channel in the child safety seat; feeding the first section of the ratcheting strap into the ratchet; and manipulating the ratchet to tighten the ratcheting strap so that the child safety seat and the shell are fixedly positioned relative to the passenger seat., as defined in claim 13. 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 Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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 R. 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. /Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 05, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594862
BABY CARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593917
FOLDING RECLINER WITH GUIDE MECHANISMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588769
CONVERTIBLE INFANT CHAIR ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588763
SEATING FURNITURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589683
SEAT PAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.7%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 2169 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month