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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Knoedler, applicant argues that Knoedler is directed toward a car seat. Therefore, Kneodler is non analogous art because applicant’s invention is directed toward a swing seat.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Both the applicant’s invention and Knoedler are directed toward seats. Furthermore, both applicant’s invention and Knoedler are classified under A47D. Therefore, they are considered analogous arts.
Applicant also argues that Knoedler’s seat protects user in a moving vehicle and the applicant’s invention protects the user while in swinging motion. Therefore, they are non-analogous.
Both the seats are directed towards protecting user. Therefore, they are considered related.
Applicant argues that Knoedler’s car seat cannot be used as swing as it will depart from the scope of the invention.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees Kneodler has no limitations that prevents from using the seat outside of a car. It is well known in the art that car seat can be carried outside the car while a child being protected on it. Some child seats can be attached to strollers or benches. Therefore, using the seat outside the car would not depart from the scope of Knoedler.
Applicant also argues that the mounting element of Weisz would prevent the restraint from being in open position.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The mounting elements of Weisz will be attached to top most portion of the back. The arm restraints of Knoedler do not extend all the way to the top most portion of the back. Therefore, the combination will not alter the function of the Knoedler.
Applicant also argues that Knoedler does not teach the arms rotate about substantially vertical axis.
However, the arms 32, 34 of Knoedler clearly rotates in left and right direction about a vertical axes.
All dependent claims stand rejected.
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) 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoedler et al. (4,662,683) in view of Weisz et al. (7,892,101).
Regarding claim 1, Knoedler et al. disclose a swing seat configured for use by children with disabilities, the swing seat comprising: a rigid seat 10 having at least a bottom support 14 and a back support 16; first and second rotating arms 34, 32 (attached to 30), each of the first and second rotating arms being configured to rotate about a substantially vertical axis between an open position (figure 1) in which a user can exit the seat in a forward direction, and a closed position (figure 2) in which the first and second rotating arms prevent a user from exiting the seat in a forward direction; and a latch 76 configured to secure the first and second rotating arms in the closed position.
However, Knoedler et al. fail to disclose a plurality of mounting elements by which the rigid seat can be suspended from an overhead support bar.
Instead, Weisz et al. disclose a plurality of mounting elements 116, 96 by which the rigid seat can be suspended from an overhead support bar.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Weisz et al. and use mounting elements to hang the child seat of Knoedler et al. in order to assist a user putting the child to sleep by motion.
Regarding claim 2, Knoedler et al. disclose the first and second rotating arms 32, 34 (attached to 30) extend frontward from the back support of the seat and rotate outward to the open position and inward to the closed position.
Regarding claim 3, Knoedler et al. disclose each of the first and second rotating arms comprises a first end 30 that is rotatably mounted to the back support.
Regarding claim 5, Knoedler et al. disclose the latch comprises first 72 and second 74 latch elements, the first latch element being positioned at a second end of the first rotating arm and the second latch element being positioned at a second end of the second rotating arm.
Regarding claim 6, Knoedler et al. disclose the second ends of the first and second arms 32, 34 are positioned directly in front of the back support when in the closed position and to the sides of the back support when in the open position.
Regarding claim 7, Knoedler et al. disclose rotation of each of the first and second arms from the closed position to the open position is controlled by one or more springs 55, 56.
Regarding claim 8, Knoedler et al. disclose the latch comprises a male element 72 and a female element 74 that operate as a buckle to secure the first and second rotating arms in the closed position, and a button 82 that, when pressed, releases the male element from the female element.
Regarding claim 9, Knoedler et al. disclose the male element 72 extends from the second rotating arm and wherein a portion of the second rotating arm extends behind the male element to prevent pinching (see figure 6 where a portion arm 32 is behind 72).
Regarding claim 10, Knoedler et al. disclose the rigid seat further includes one or more side restraints 18, 20.
Regarding claim 12, Knoedler et al. disclose a transition between the bottom support and the back support is rounded (se figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, Knoedler et al. disclose a cushioning bumper 114 attached to the bottom of the rigid seat.
Regarding claim 14, Knoedler et al. disclose the cushioning bumper 114 extends across the entire side-to-side width of the rigid seat.
Regarding claim 15, Weisz et al. disclose each of the plurality of mounting elements 96, 116 is exterior to the rigid seat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Weisz et al. and place the mounting elements outside the seat of Knoedler et al. because it is simple and inexpensive to attach and detach.
Regarding claim 16, Weisz et al. disclose at least two of the plurality of mounting elements are secured to the rigid seat by rods 114, and wherein the rods also serve as axles for the first and second rotating arms 100.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Weisz et al. and use a shaft to connect the chains and rotating arms in the invention of Knoedler et al. because it is efficient and inexpensive.
Regarding claim 19, Weisz et al. disclose a plurality of chains 22, 24, each chain being affixed to at least one of the plurality of mounting elements and to an overhead support bar 10, such that the swing seat is suspended from the overhead support bar and operable to move in a to and from swinging motion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Weisz et al. and use mounting elements to hang the child seat of Knoedler et al. in order to assist a user putting the child to sleep by motion.
Regarding claim 20, Weisz et al. disclose the plurality of chains 22, 24 comprises front chains and rear chains and wherein the first and second rotating arms 100, 102 do not extend forward of the front chains in either the open or closed position or when moving between the open and closed position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Weisz et al. and use mounting elements to hang the child seat of Knoedler et al. in order to assist a user putting the child to sleep by motion.
Claim(s) 4, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoedler et al. (4,662,683) in view of Weisz et al. (7,892,101), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Sedlack (4,909,574).
Regarding claim 4, Sedlack discloses the back support 6 comprises a lower portion and an upper portion and wherein the first end 14 of each of the first and second rotating arms is rotatably mounted at a side of the upper portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Sedlack and attach the arms in the upper portion of the seatback in the invention of Knoedler et al. in order to prevent any damage or injury.
Regarding claim 17, Sedlack discloses the first and second rotating arms 12 is rigid and wherein each of the first and second rotating arms is rotatably mounted to an axle (point 14 is pivotally attached to the seat, therefore the pivot joint must extends in the seat) that extends through a portion of the rigid seat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Sedlack and use an axle to mount the arms in the invention of Knoedler et al. because it simple, efficient and inexpensive.
Regarding claim 18, Sedlack discloses the first and second rotating arms 12 is curved downward so as to extend over a seat occupant's shoulders and down to a midsection of the seat occupant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Sedlack and a downward curved arms in the invention of Knoedler et al. in order to prevent any damage or injury.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoedler et al. (4,662,683) in view of Weisz et al. (7,892,101), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of McNeill (10,478,736).
Regarding claim 11, McNeill discloses the rigid seat 100 (col. 2, lines 25-30) is an integral molded component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of McNeill and molded seat in the invention of Knoedler et al. because it is lightweight, durable and inexpensive.
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 SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights