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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,983. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are fully recited by the claims of the patent, or are obvious variants thereof.
Claim 1 is fully recited by the patent claims 1 and 7. Claim 1 of the patent recites the seat shell and the retractable front end part, and claim 7 recites the profile extension and front surface forming an angle.
Claim 3 is recited in claim 7 of the patent.
Claims 4, 5, 8, and 11 are recited in claims 1, 5, and 8 of the patent.
Claims 6 and 7 are recited in claims 2 and 3 of the patent.
Claims 9 and 10 are recited in claims 6 and 8 of the patent.
Claims 12-16 are recited in claims 9-13 of the patent.
Claims 17 and 18 are recited in claims 14-18 of the patent.
The method claims 19 and 20 are obvious in view of the structural limitations of claims 1 and 7 of the patent.
Claim 2 is obvious in view of claim 6 of the patent; while the location of the edge is not recited, this would have been an obvious modification to claim 6.
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) 1, 6-7, 9, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mason (US 11,447,047).
Claim 1- Mason discloses a child safety seat comprising:
a seat shell (106), including a front end (106A), a seat portion (108) and two sidewalls (shown in figs. 2-3, not designated), wherein each of the two sidewalls includes two opposite sidewall surfaces that respectively face an interior space (126) of the seat shell and an outer side (not designated) of the seat shell (figs. 2-3), and a sidewall edge (adjacent the shell front end 106A) connected with the two sidewall surfaces (figs. 2-3 show that the inner sidewall surface 126 is connected at its front end to the outer sidewall surface by a front-facing intermediate structure, wherein the sidewall edge is formed by said intermediate structure and is also adjacent the front of the seat portion, fig. 2, col. 4: 18-21); and a retractable front end part (120), connected with the seat shell, the front end part (120) including a transversal portion (120A) and two side portions (120B) connected with the transversal portion, wherein the front end part (120) has a retracted position (fig. 5) and a deployed position (fig. 4);
wherein each of the two side portions (120B) has a front surface (shown in figs. 1 & 4-5) that forms a profile extension from the sidewall edge of the sidewall adjacent thereto in the deployed position (with reference to figs. 1 & 4, the side portion’s 120B front surface is shown to comprise an upper horizontal portion formed with a substantially vertical surface, and with reference to figs. 4-5, the profile of the shell front end 106A is shown to be extended by the distance between the side portion’s front surface and the sidewall edge disposed at the front end);
and wherein the front surface of the side portions (120B) forms an angle with respect to the sidewall edge of the sidewall adjacent thereto in the retracted position (figs. 3 & 5 show that in the retracted position, with the front surface directly next to the sidewall edge, the slight rearward curve of the front surface’s lower end forms an acute angle with respect to the sidewall edge).
Although it is held that the limitations of claim 1 are anticipated by the description of the seat shell structure (col. 4: 7-8, 18-29) and the retractable front part structure (col. 4: 30-61, col. 5: 6-30), in combination with the illustrated structures in figures 1-5, it is noted that the description does not explicitly define a sidewall edge and does not explicitly define an angle formed by the side portion’s front surface with respect to said sidewall edge. In light of the absence of an explicit recitation of these structures, it is determined that descriptions and figures of the seat shell and the retractable front part would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that it would have been obvious to configure the seat shell and retractable front part as claimed.
Mason discloses each side portion (120B) having the front surface (shown best in fig. 1) and each sidewall surface (126) connected to a front-facing intermediate structure (not designated, fig. 2), as explained above. Figures 1-5 suggest that the forward end (120C) of the transversal portion (120A) is substantially coplanar with the front surface of each side portion (120B). Figure 2 shows the retractable front part (120) deployed to an intermediate position (disclosed in col. 4: 55-64), wherein the frontmost aperture (128) corresponds to the deployed first position (col. 4: 57-59) and the rearmost aperture (128) corresponds to the retracted second position (col. 4: 59-61), and wherein the side portion (120B) front surface is adjacent the front-facing intermediate structure. Figure 2 also shows that the front-facing intermediate structure has a substantially rectangular cross-section, which suggests the structure comprises a transverse edge connecting the inner sidewall surface (126) with the outer sidewall surface. Based on these figures and descriptions, it is obvious that the front surface of the side portion (120B) would be adjacent to a sidewall edge of the sidewall in the retracted position (second/rearmost position).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mason does not explicitly define the front surface as “forming an angle with respect to the sidewall edge of the sidewall adjacent thereto in the retracted position.”
However, the retracted position shown in figure 5, which shows that the lower end of the front surface slightly curves rearward, suggests that the front surface forms an angle that slopes in a downward and rearward direction with respect to the sidewall edge (which is adjacent to the front surface of the side portion 120B).
Based on the structural cooperative relationships between the sidewall and the retractable front part that are described and shown, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the front surface of the retractable front part of Mason to be adjacent the sidewall edge of the shell sidewall, in the part’s retracted position, in order to allow the part to be retracted into the seat shell to a second position where its forward end lies adjacent to the front end of the seat shell (col. 4: 59-61).
Claim 6- Mason discloses the child safety seat according to claim 1, wherein the retractable front part (120) including the transversal portion (120A) and the two side portions (120B) is formed integrally as a single part (col. 4: 7-8).
Claim 7- Mason discloses the child safety seat according to claim 1, wherein the two side portions (120B) bend from the transversal portion (120A) symmetrical to each other (col. 4:41-43).
Claim 9- Mason discloses the child safety seat according to claim 1, wherein each of the two sidewalls has an inner cavity (housing the mount portion 120D) that is delimited at least partially by the two sidewall surfaces (126, 126) and the sidewall edge thereof (fig. 2, col. 5: 12-19).
Claim 12- Mason discloses the child safety seat according to claim 1, further comprising a latching mechanism (130) for locking the retractable front part (120) to the seat shell (figs. 2-3).
Claim 19- Mason teaches a method of operating a child safety seat, comprising:
providing a seat shell (106) having a front end (106A), a seat portion (108) and two sidewalls, each of the two sidewalls including a sidewall edge (as explained in the rejection of claim 1) connected with two opposite sidewall surfaces that respectively face an interior space of the seat shell (126) and an outer side of the seat shell (col. 4: 5-11);
providing a front-end part (120) movably connected with the seat shell (col. 4: 30-34), wherein the front-end part includes a transversal portion (120A) and two side portions (120B) connected with the transversal portion (col. 4: 34-40), the two side portions being respectively disposed adjacent to the two sidewalls of the seat shell (figs. 1-3);
moving the front-end part (120) to a deployed position (fig. 4) relative to the seat shell so that a front surface of each of the two side portions forms a profile extension from the sidewall edge of the sidewall adjacent thereto (as explained in the rejection of claim 1); and
moving the front-end part to a retracted position (fig. 5) relative to the seat shell so that the front surface of each of the two side portions forms an angle with respect to the sidewall edge of the sidewall adjacent thereto (as explained in the rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (US 11447047) in view of Wilson (US 7073859).
Claim 17- Mason discloses the child safety seat according to claim 1, further comprising: a support base (102) adapted to be installed on a vehicle seat; wherein the seat shell (106) is positionable on the support base (col. 4: 9-11, figs. 4-5); and wherein the seat is in a rearward facing position.
The difference between Mason and the instant claim is Mason does not teach wherein the support base includes a 15shell body and a rotary platform pivotally connected with each other, the seat shell and the rotary platform being rotatable in unison relative to the shell body so that the seat shell is positionable in different orientations, including a forward-facing position, a rearward facing position and a sideways facing position.
Wilson teaches a child safety seat comprising: a support base (20); a seat shell positionable on the support base, the seat shell (10) having a front end (fig. 3-4), a seat portion (14), a backrest portion (12) and two sidewalls (13); wherein the support base includes a 15shell body (shown not designated, fig. 4) and a rotary platform (22) pivotally connected with each other (about a vertical axis, 40), the seat shell (10) and the rotary platform (22) being rotatable in unison relative to the shell body so that the seat shell is positionable in different orientations, including a forward facing position, a rearward facing position and a sideways facing position (col. 5: 18-24). Wilson provides these positions via a rotary platform (22) included on the support base in order to achieve improved placement and removal of a child from the seat installed on the vehicle seat (col. 1: 43-46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the child safety seat of Mason with a support base providing multiple facing positions, as taught by Wilson, in order to improve the placement and removal of a child from the seat when installed on a vehicle seat.
Claim 18- Mason and Wilson teach the child safety seat according to claim 17, wherein the retractable front part (120) taught by Mason sideways 20protrudes a first distance from the support base (102) when the seat shell (106) is in the sideways facing position on the support base and the retractable front part (120) is in the deployed position (fig. 4), and the retractable front part (120) sideways protrudes a second distance (fig. 5) from the support base when the seat shell is in the sideways facing position on the support base and the retractable front part is in the retracted position, the second distance being smaller than about half the 25first distance.
Figures 2-4 suggest that Mason’s seat shell (106) is slightly wider and longer than its support base (102). Figures 5 suggest that the retractable front part (120) in its retracted position has a general front-surface alignment with the front surface of the cupholder on the lateral guard portion (116), wherein the front surface of the lateral guard portion is shown to be disposed slightly forward beyond the edge of the support base in figure 4. These figures teach that the retractable front part (120) in its retracted position would protrude a certain distance beyond an edge of the support base (102). Accordingly, in the sideways facing position of the modified seat, the retractable front part would protrude a second distance slightly forward from the edge of the support base.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-11, 13-16 and 20 are would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and upon the filing of a proper Terminal Disclaimer as noted above.
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 TANIA ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2635. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 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 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.
/T.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636