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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word - - the - - appears to be missing prior to “shuttle-guide” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lady et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0178669).
Regarding claim 1, Lady discloses a child restraint comprising a juvenile seat (at least 10) formed to include a child-receiving space configured to hold a child for transportation in a vehicle, a seat base (at least 20) configured to be secured to a vehicle seat to mount the juvenile seat to the vehicle seat during transportation in the vehicle, and a translation system (of 18) configured to support the juvenile seat on the seat base and allow movement of the juvenile seat relative to the seat base between a transportation position (much as in Figure 5), in which the juvenile seat lies along a front-to-back centerline of the seat base, and an ingress-egress position (much as in Figure 4 either with or without the seat rotated as shown) in which a front-to back centerline of the juvenile seat is offset from the front-to-back centerline of the seat base to facilitate placement or removal of a child into or out of the child-receiving space, or installation or removal of the juvenile seat to or from the seat base (it would generally facilitate these operations), wherein the translation system includes a juvenile-seat shuttle (including 28 and/or 32 for instance) coupled to the seat base and configured to engage with the juvenile seat to support the juvenile seat on the seat base for movement between the transportation position and the ingress-egress position, a shuttle-guide system (including 24, 24’) coupled between the juvenile-seat shuttle and the seat base and configured to guide sliding movement of the juvenile-seat shuttle and the juvenile seat relative to the seat base in a lateral direction between the transportation position and the ingress-egress position, and a shuttle lock (36 and/or 40) configured to block selectively movement of the juvenile-seat shuttle relative to the seat base between the transportation position and the ingress-egress position (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 9, Lady further discloses the shuttle-guide system includes a plurality of rails (members 24) coupled to an upper end of the seat base and a plurality of shuttle anchors (members 24’) coupled to the juvenile-seat shuttle and configured to engage with at least one of the rails included in the plurality of rails to retain the juvenile-seat shuttle to the seat base.
Regarding claim 11, Lady further discloses the shuttle-guide system further includes a plurality of rollers coupled to the juvenile-seat shuttle and configured to engage the seat base and roll along the seat base as the juvenile-seat shuttle changes from the transportation position to the ingress-egress position (see paragraph 25 describing rollers associated with 24, 24’, which would provide the claimed arrangement at least indirectly).
Regarding claim 13, Lady further discloses the shuttle-guide system further includes a translation limiter spaced apart from the shuttle lock and configured to engage the seat base when the juvenile-seat shuttle is in the ingress-egress position to block further translation of the juvenile-seat shuttle relative to the seat base (see paragraph 25 describing stops associated with 24, 24’, which would provide the claimed arrangement at least indirectly).
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) 10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lady.
Regarding claim 10, Lady discloses a device a explained above including the rails in guide slots engaging to block separation of the juvenile-seat support from the seat base but may not clearly disclose the arrangement as claimed (i.e. Lady appears to show members 24 forming guide slots for receiving “rails” 24’ rather than the reverse). However, reversal of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement as claimed (by reversing glide members 24, 24’ for instance to provide slots on the shuttle rather than the base) based on normal variation to improve manufacture or operation for various users.
Regarding claim 12, Lady discloses a device a explained above including a first rail located between a rear end of the seat base and a side-to-side centerline of the seat base extending perpendicular to the front-to-back centerline and a second rail located between a front end of the seat base and the side-to-side centerline of the seat base, as well as shuttle anchors configured to interlock with the rails and extending toward the side-to-side centerline, but may not clearly disclose the arrangement as claimed with a third rail and anchor. Duplication and rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement as claimed (by including another, more central glide for instance) based on normal variation to improve operation or safety for various users.
Regarding claim 14, Lady discloses a device as explained above but does not disclose details of the translation limiter. Conventional stop arrangements as disclosed in paragraph 25 would typically provide an arrangement as claimed, and at the very least are old and well-known. Accordingly, even if it were not inherently provided, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cavity and limiter arrangement as claimed because this could ensure proper operation for user comfort and safety.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lady in view of Keegan et al. (US Patent Number 11427114).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Lady discloses a device as explained above but does not disclose a position indicator. Keegan discloses a related device including a position indicator (303 and/or 305) configured to visually indicate when a juvenile-seat shuttle is in a transportation position and when the juvenile-seat shuttle is not in the transportation position, wherein the position indicator includes an indicator mount (a base of 303, 305) coupled to the juvenile-seat shuttle (at least indirectly), an indicator panel (for the color as described in the third full paragraph of column 9 for instance) coupled to the indicator mount and configured to display a first visual indication when the juvenile-seat shuttle is in the transportation position and a second visual indication when the juvenile-seat shuttle is not in the transportation position (e.g. the red and green display as noted above), and a panel actuator coupled to the indicator panel and movable from an actuated position, in which the juvenile-seat shuttle is in the transportation position and urges the indicator panel to display the first visual indication, and an unactuated position when the juvenile-seat shuttle is not in the transportation position and the panel actuator urges the indicator panel to display the second visual indication (this would at least be inherent based on the disclosed arrangement). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an indicator as taught by Keegan in Lady’s device because this could improve user safety, comfort, and security.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Lady, modified as described, further discloses a plurality of rails coupled to the seat base, and wherein one of the rails is formed to include a slot but does not disclose details of the indicator panel actuator arrangement. While the Keegan device would be viewed as providing the limitations as claimed at least inherently based on typical indicator construction, at the very least such arrangements are old and well-known. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide panel actuation as claimed in Lady’s device as previously modified because this could ensure proper operation to improve user safety, comfort, and security.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 15, and 16 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.
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
Prosecution Insights