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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 10 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species Group XXXI in the reply filed on 10 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all dependent claims are generic and that a search of Group XXXI would include a search of the features of Groups XXXII-LVII. This is not found persuasive because all dependent claims are in fact not generic to multiple species. This is reinforced by the fact that Applicant withdrew claims 13-17, which are specific to non-elected species. Regarding the search, while a search of one species may very well overlap to some degree with that of another, this does not change the fact that different fields of search may be required and that prior art applicable one would not necessarily be applicable to others.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 21-41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 August 2026.
Claims 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10 August 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive as it includes various details not relevant to the claimed invention. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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) 2-7, 10-12, and 17-20is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer (US Patent Number 8141950) in view of Mo (US Patent Number 9102249).
Regarding claim 2, Boyer discloses an infant car seat system for installation on a vehicle seat, the system comprising: an infant car seat having a seat shell including a seat back (at 17), a seat pan (at 18), a first side with a first seat shell rail (62), and a second side with a second seat shell rail (63); and a seat front that faces a vehicle seat back of the vehicle seat when the infant car seats is installed on the vehicle seat (see Figure 5 for instance), the infant car seat being portable; wherein the first seat shell rail and the second seat shell rail extend from the seat shell in a direction away from the seat pan, wherein the first seat shell rail and the second seat shell rail directly support the infant car seat on the vehicle seat without using an infant car seat detachable base arranged between the first and second seat shell rails and the vehicle seat (see again at least Figure 5); and an anchor system coupled to the seat shell and configured to attach the infant car seat directly to the vehicle seat without using an infant car seat detachable base, the anchor system comprising: a first infant car seat anchor (38) coupled to the infant car seat via a first belt portion (of 35), the first car seat anchor being mechanically engageable with a first vehicle anchor (14) of the vehicle seat; and a second infant car seat anchor (39) coupled to the infant car seat via a second belt portion (other portion of 35), the second car seat anchor being mechanically engageable with a second vehicle anchor (other member 14) of the vehicle seat. Boyer does not disclose a handle. Such arrangements are well-known as shown by Mo who discloses a related device including an infant car seat that is portable via a carrying handle (see Figure 1) while an infant is in the infant car seat, the carrying handle being attached to a first side of a seat shell via a first carrying handle attachment mechanism and a second side of the seat shell via a second carrying handle attachment mechanism (hubs as lower portions of the handle form such mechanisms); wherein the first carrying handle attachment mechanism and the second carrying handle attachment mechanism are disposed above portions of the seat shell in contact with a vehicle seat. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a handle as taught by Mo in Boyer’s device because this could improve comfort and convenience for various users. Note that the combination would provide the handle attached as claimed based on the arrangement of the reference devices (i.e. a handle as taught by Mo would be mounted on Boyer’s sides above the rails as claimed).
Regarding claim 3, Boyer, modified as described, further discloses the first belt portion extends from an area of the first side proximate a front of the seat shell, and wherein the second belt portion extends from an area of the second side proximate a front of the seat shell (while depending on the frame of reference any portion could be broadly viewed as proximate a front, see at least the arrangement of Figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Boyer, modified as described, further discloses the first belt portion and the second belt portion are a single belt (member 35).
Regarding claim 5, Boyer, modified as described, further discloses the single belt includes an intermediate portion that extends between the first belt portion and the second belt portion, the intermediate portion being disposed within at least one of the seat shell and a space between the first seat shell rail and the second seat shell rail (much as seen in Figure 2 for instance).
Regarding claim 6, Boyer, modified as described, further discloses the first belt portion extends from the first seat shell rail of the first side of the seat shell, and wherein the second belt portion extends from the second seat shell rail of the second side of the seat shell (see figures).
Regarding claim 7, Boyer, modified as described, further discloses the first belt portion and the second belt portion are adjustable (via 32 for instance).
Regarding claims 10-12, Boyer, modified as described, further discloses the first side of the seat shell defines a first opening (65), and the second side of the seat shell defines a second opening (64), the first belt portion extending through the first opening to the area outside of the space, and the second belt portion extending through the second opening to the area outside of the space (much as in Figure 2), wherein the first belt portion and the second belt portion compose a single belt (member 35), the single belt extending from the first infant car seat anchor to the second infant car seat anchor through both of the first opening and the second opening, and wherein a portion of the single belt that extends between the first opening and the second opening is positioned within an interior of the infant car seat (see again Figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Boyer, modified as described, further discloses a center of gravity of the infant car seat system is disposed proximate an axis passing through the first carrying handle attachment mechanism and the second carrying handle attachment mechanism (this would be the case in the combination based on the arrangement of the reference devices). Note that even in the case that this were not clear, changes in size, shape, and arrangement of components require only routine skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the device as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort and safety for various users.
Regarding claim 18, Boyer, modified as described, further discloses the second seat shell rail is spaced from the first seat shell rail to define a space therebetween (see figures).
Regarding claim 19, Boyer, modified as described, further discloses the first infant car seat anchor extends from the first side of the seat shell to an area outside of the space via the first belt portion, and the second infant car seat anchor extends from the second side of the seat shell to an area outside of the space via the first belt portion (at least in part and/or based on the definitions of the various portions).
Regarding claim 20, Boyer, modified as described, further discloses the seat shell, the first seat shell rail, and the second seat shell rail form a unitary and non-separable structure, positions of the first seat shell rail and second seat shell rail being fixed relative to a remainder of the seat shell (this is the general arrangement).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer in view of Mo and further in view of Cohen et al. (US Patent Number 9616782). Boyer, modified as described, discloses a system as explained above including a pair of system lower anchors; the first infant car seat anchor includes a first infant car seat system connector; the first vehicle anchor is a first vehicle system anchor of the pair of system lower anchors of the vehicle seat; the second infant car seat anchor includes a second infant car seat system connector; and the second vehicle anchor is a second vehicle system anchor of the pair of system lower anchors of the vehicle seat (the connections at 14, 38, 39 form these components) but does not specifically describe LATCH or ISOFIX systems. Such systems are well-known however as shown by Cohen who discloses a related device including the use of LATCH and ISOFIX systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide LATCH and/or ISOFIX systems as taught by Cohen in Boyer’s device as previously modified because this could help ensure user safety, convenience, and comfort.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-12 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12036902. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangements as claimed.
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 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
