March 6, 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “bomb bay doors” in Claim 9 and the “drawbridge type door” in Claims 10 and 13 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 § 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.
Regarding claims 10 and 13-14, the phrase "drawbridge type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schonfeld et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,796,303 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for Claim 1, Schonfeld et al. teach a vehicle safety system, comprising: a vehicle seat; and a child restraint system integrated with the vehicle seat.
As for Claim 2, Schonfeld et al. teach that the child restraint system includes an occupant detection system (see the specification at column 5, lines 24-37 where it reads “As part of the electronic, digital or other safety features, a scale 30 is supplied as part of a safety system in the Integrated Infant safety Car Seat to avoid infant left un-buckled while car is in motion, as well as infants left in unattended vehicles. If a pre-determined weight is detected by the scale 30, which has sensors all along the seat of the Integrated Infant Safety Car Seat, then the monitoring system is on alert and awaiting additional signals to avoid these risks. The weight needed to activate the scale may be estimated to be that of the infant plus any gear the infant is likely to have. It is generally more than a few pounds. When adjusting it may be better to err on the lighter side and risk a false alert of an infant improperly left in the vehicle than to not trigger and risk human injury.” and column 9, lines 9-17 where it reads “The scale 30 may provide data to the processor to aid in determining whether there is a child in the seat 26 or 24 or if the seat 26 or 24 is vacant. For example, infants with clothing may weigh from about three kilograms or more. Therefore, the processor and scale 30 combination is set to indicate an occupied seat if about two or more kilograms are detected on the scale 30. This would avoid having an occupied determination if a lighter blanket or some other gear is in the seat 26.”)).
As for Claim 3, Schonfeld et al. teach that the child restraint system includes one or more position sensors configured to determine seat bottom position (see the specification at column
As for Claim 5, Schonfeld et al. teach that the harness system includes one or more load sensors; and the load sensors work in combination with a motor to automatically adjust harness fit 9see the specification at column 10, lines 6-38 where it reads “If the car is on and moving then the processor can assume that the infant is buckled in an attended vehicle. Sensors may be attached to the engine control systems, speedometer, transmission or other car data source to determine with a reasonable degree of certainty whether the vehicle is attended or not when stopping or the ignition is turned off and therefore whether the infant is attended to or if they might be alone, INFANT IN CAR 55. The cameras 35 in hasps 46, 32, or anywhere in the integrated infant safety car seat or elsewhere inside the vehicle may also play a role in the system to prevent infant left in car situations. All cameras 35, connected to hasps or elsewhere in the integrated Infant Safety Car seat, or other parts of the vehicle, along with the processor, may detect infant via movement, heat, facial recognition or other sense recognition information to provide a reasonable probability that a child occupies the seat 24 or 26. These sensors will be reflected in the screen 52. Any individual or combination of the scale 30, camera 35 or hasp 32 and 46 sensors may be used to determine whether an infant is in the integrated infant safety seat. This information along with information from the vehicle indicating whether it is in motion, and therefore necessarily occupied by an infant attendant which could be the driver or a caregiver, is used to make a determination that the infant may be at risk of being unattended and at any other risk in the event of an abrupt stop, collision or accident. If a preset combination of parameters is determined to exist then an alert is generated to suggest to a driver or caregiver that the infant seat or other areas inside the vehicle where the infant might be should be examined to determine whether a risky situation is taking place.“).
As for Claim 8, Schonfeld et al. further comprises: an input/output (I/O) device configured to facilitate interactions with the child restraint system (see the specification for the description of multiple processors to which sensors send data to operate and/or control multiple systems and functions of the child restraint system.
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schonfeld et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,796,303 B1) in view of DE 10017215 A1.
Schonfeld et al. is silent as to whether or not the child restraint system is configured to automatically deploy and stow. However, DE 10017215 A1 teaches the concept of a vehicle safety system, comprising: a vehicle seat; and a child restraint system integrated with the vehicle seat in which the integrated child restraint system is configured to automatically deploy and stow (see under “ADVANTAGE” where it reads “Can be automatically deployed from the seating system or returned to it as required based on suitable signals while effectively preventing unwanted displacements.). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill n the art to modify the integrated child restraint system, as taught by Schonfeld et al. to be configured to automatically deploy, as taught by DE 10017215 A1, since Schonfeld et al. teaches that other aspects of the integrated child restraint system are operated and/or controlled using signals much like the integrated child restraint system of DE 10017215 A1.
Claims 3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schonfeld et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,796,303 B1) in view of PEDERSEN C D (WO 2008106969 A2).
Schonfeld et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed including a harness system but is silent on if the harness system is stored behind a door panel in a seat back of the vehicle seat.
PNG
media_image2.png
260
259
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
266
269
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, PEDERSEN C D teaches the concept of storing an integrated child restraint system stored behind a door panel in a seat back of the vehicle seat. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the integrated child restraint system, as taught by Schonfeld et al., to be stored behind a door panel in a seat back of the vehicle seat, as taught by PEDERSEN C D, since it would allow the vehicle seat to be more aesthetically pleasing when the integrated child restraint system is concealed from view when not in use.
Claims 11-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schonfeld et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,796,303 B1) in view of PEDERSEN C D (WO 2008106969 A2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method steps as recited as this would be the normal and logical manner of using the device as taught by the combination of references discussed above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention.
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