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.
Claim 10 is 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. The expressions “the first side pocket” and the “second side pocket” have no definite antecedent basis in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by James et al (20030090134). The reference to James et al teaches structure as claimed including a child restraint system comprising: a seat (1); a headrest (26); a first sidewall and a second sidewall; and a plurality of internal side impact surfaces (8, 8, 7, 7) including at least a first internal side impact surface that is removably inserted into the first sidewall or is formed as a raised portion of the first sidewall and a second internal side impact surface that is removably inserted into the second sidewall or is formed as a raised portion of the second sidewall, wherein a first void is formed above or below the first internal side impact surface and the first sidewall and a second void is formed above or below the second internal side impact surface and the second sidewall, and wherein at least one of: the first void or the second void are configured to receive, during a crash event, an elbow or an arm of a vehicle occupant seated in the child restraint system, a third internal side impact surface provided at the first sidewall and a fourth internal side impact surface provided at the second sidewall, wherein the first void is formed between the first internal side impact surface, the first sidewall, and the third internal side impact. With respect to claim 8, the reference to James et al teaches structure as claimed including a first zone including a seat; a second zone including a first sidewall and a second sidewall; and a third zone including a headrest, wherein at least one of the first zone or the second zone are offset from the second zone; wherein the second zone includes a first void or a first compressible material and the second zone includes a second void or a second compressible material, and wherein the second zone is configured to receive, during a crash event, an elbow or an arm of a vehicle occupant seated in the child restraint system, at least one of the first zone or the third zone, includes a first side impact surface and a second side impact surface, wherein the plurality of internal side impact surfaces, further comprises a third internal side impact surface provided at the first sidewall and a fourth internal side impact surface provided at the second sidewall, wherein the first pocket is formed between the first internal side impact surface, the first sidewall, and the third internal side impact surface, and wherein the second pocket is formed between the second internal side impact surface, the second sidewall, and the fourth internal side impact surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
695
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werschmidt et al (D636190). The reference to Werschmidt et al teaches structure substantially as claimed including a child restraint system comprising: a seat; a headrest; a first sidewall and a second sidewall; and a plurality of internal side impact surfaces including at least a first internal side impact surface that is adjustable between the headrest and the first sidewall and a second internal side impact surface that is adjustable between the headrest and the second sidewall, wherein a first void is formed above or below the first internal side impact surface and the first sidewall or the headrest and a second void is formed above or below the second internal side impact surface and the second sidewall or the headrest, and wherein at least one of: the first void or the second void are configured to receive, during a crash event, an elbow or an arm of a vehicle occupant seated in the child restraint system, the only difference being that the reference teaches through figures only and does not explicitly recite such structures. However, the reference teaches through the figures as shown in the annotated figure below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use conventional knowledge in the art to learn from the figures to provide teachings as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
789
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al (20030090134) in view of Werschmidt et al (D636190). The reference to James et al teaches structure substantially as claimed, as discussed above including side impact structures, the only difference being that the surface structure does not include a front surface that slopes inward. However, the reference to Werschmidt et al (at least fig 2) teaches the use of providing sloped structures for ergonomics to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of James et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include sloped surfaces, as taught by Werschmidt et al since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al (20030090134) in view of Kou et al (20190031960). The reference to James et al teaches structure substantially as claimed, as discussed above including side impact structures, the only difference being that the materials of the side impact surfaces and the use of different compressibilities of such. However, the reference to Kou et al teaches the use of providing side impact structures of different materials (, at 50, at least paragraph 3) to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of James et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include different materials including foam, as taught by Kou et al since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, including using different compressibilities for different structures, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al (20030090134) in view of Gillett et al (20240123877). The reference to James et al teaches structure substantially as claimed, as discussed above including side impact structures, the only difference being that the side impact structures are not removably inserted. However, the reference to Gillett et al teaches the use of providing removably inserted side impact structures( at least fig 12) to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of James et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include removably inserted side impact structures, as taught by Gillett al since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al (20030090134) in view of Gillett et al (20240123877) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Werschmidt et al (D636190). The reference to James et al in view of Gillett et al teaches structure substantially as claimed, as discussed above including side impact structures, the only difference being that the surface structure does not include a front surface that slopes inward. However, the reference to Werschmidt et al (at least fig 2) teaches the use of providing sloped structures for ergonomics to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of James et al in view of Gillett et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include sloped surfaces, as taught by Werschmidt et al since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al (20030090134) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Amirault et al (20030155797). The reference to James et al teaches structure substantially as claimed, as discussed above including side impact structures, the only difference being that the surface structure does not include ribbed structures. However, the reference to Amirault et al (at least fig 10) teaches the use of providing ribbed structures for lightweight strength to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of James et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include ribbed structures at the rear portion, as taught by Amirault et al since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited teach structure similar to applicant’s including safety structures for car seats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571 270 3742. 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.
/JOSE V CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637