DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Applicant’s Remarks Filed 6/30/26
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1-14 have been examined.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van der Veer et al. (US 2013/0154318) (“Van der Veer”). Van der Veer discloses a docking module configured to be securable to a vehicle seat (fig. 1: base 7); an infant carrier module received therein (fig. 1: 5), the infant car seat system configured such that the infant carrier is rotatable within the docking module about a rotation axis (fig. 1: 9) and a rotation stop (fig. 1: 9; paragraphs 0019-0020; claims 1 and 6) selectively operable to restrict rotation of the infant carrier module relative to the docking module about a rotation axis; wherein the rotation stop is compressible by rotation of the infant carrier module about the rotation axis (paragraphs 0019-0020: when collision forces are imparted to the carrier an energy absorbing element may be compressed to limit the rotation of the seat around pivot connection 9).
As concerns claim 8, Van der Veer discloses wherein the rotation stop is resilient (Van der Veer, paragraph 0020).
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, 3-5, 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh et al. (US 20230043067) (“McHugh”) in view of Van der Veer et al. (US 2013/0154318) (“Van der Veer”). McHugh teaches an infant car seat system comprising: a docking module configured to be securable to a vehicle seat (fig. 2: 12); an infant carrier module configured to receive an infant therein (fig. 2: 14), the infant car seat system configured such that the infant carrier module is rotatable within the docking module about a rotation axis (fig. 2: 24). McHugh does not teach a compressible rotation stop. However, Van der Veer teaches a docking module configured to be securable to a vehicle seat (fig. 1: base 7); an infant carrier module received therein (fig. 1: 5) and a rotation stop (fig. 1: 9) selectively operable to restrict rotation of the infant carrier module relative to the docking module about a rotation axis; wherein the rotation stop is compressible by rotation of the infant carrier module about the rotation axis (paragraphs 0019-0020: when collision forces are imparted to the carrier an energy absorbing element may be compressed to limit the rotation of the seat around pivot connection 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a collision energy absorption which compresses when the seat is rotated during an accident in order to provide additional safety to the occupant.
As concerns claim 3, McHugh, as modified, teaches wherein the infant car seat system is configured such that the infant carrier module is adjustable within the docking module (it rotates as shown in fig. 2).
As concerns claim 4, McHugh, as modified, teaches wherein the infant car seat system is configured such that the infant carrier module is releasably dockable within the docking module (fig. 2).
As concerns claim 5, McHugh, as modified, teaches wherein the system further comprises a docking lock mechanism (fig. 5: 44, 46) configured to selectively prevent undocking of the infant carrier module from the docking module.
As concerns claim 8, McHugh, as modified, teaches wherein the rotation stop is resilient (Van der Veer, paragraph 0020).
As concerns claim 13, McHugh, as modified, teaches wherein the rotation stop is configured to be moveable between: an engaged position in which the rotation stop is configured to restrict rotation of the infant carrier module relative to the docking module about the rotation axis; and a disengaged position in which rotation of the infant carrier module relative to the docking module about the rotation axis is unrestricted (as shown McHugh, fig. 5 by locks 44, 46).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh, as modified, in view of Edwards (US 10857917). McHugh, as modified, does not teach wherein the infant carrier module comprises a seat portion attached to a backrest portion via a locking hinge having two locking positions. However, Edwards teaches wherein the infant carrier module comprises a seat portion (fig. 3: 111) attached to a backrest portion (fig. 3: 112) via a locking hinge (fig. 3: 103) having two locking positions such that the infant carrier module is configurable in: an upright position (shaded position) in which the seat portion and the backrest portion are relatively inclined at a first angle; and a lie flat position (fig. 3: solid position of backrest) in which the seat portion and the backrest portion are relatively inclined at a second angle, greater than the first angle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the prior art of McHugh, as modified, to include a locking hinge between the backrest and seat in order to provide a lie flat position for the child.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Veer in view of Edwards (US 10857917). Van der Veer does not teach wherein the infant carrier module comprises a seat portion attached to a backrest portion via a locking hinge having two locking positions. However, Edwards teaches wherein the infant carrier module comprises a seat portion (fig. 3: 111) attached to a backrest portion (fig. 3: 112) via a locking hinge (fig. 3: 103) having two locking positions such that the infant carrier module is configurable in: an upright position (shaded position) in which the seat portion and the backrest portion are relatively inclined at a first angle; and a lie flat position (fig. 3: solid position of backrest) in which the seat portion and the backrest portion are relatively inclined at a second angle, greater than the first angle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the prior art of Van der Veer to include a locking hinge between the backrest and seat in order to provide a lie flat position for the child.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh, as modified, in view of Belramoul (WO 2004/034854). McHugh, as modified, teaches wherein the infant carrier module comprises a seat portion attached to a backrest portion, but does not teach the infant carrier module further comprises a detachable carrier handle configured to be securable to the seat portion and/or the backrest portion. However, Belramoul teaches a detachable carrier handle (fig. 1: 20) configured to be securable to the seat portion and/or the backrest portion (by 25). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a detachable handle in order to assist in carrying the seat when not attached to the docking module.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Veer in view of Belramoul (WO 2004/034854). Van der Veer teaches wherein the infant carrier module comprises a seat portion attached to a backrest portion, but does not teach the infant carrier module further comprises a detachable carrier handle configured to be securable to the seat portion and/or the backrest portion. However, Belramoul teaches a detachable carrier handle (fig. 1: 20) configured to be securable to the seat portion and/or the backrest portion (by 25). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a detachable handle in order to assist in carrying the seat when not attached to the docking module.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh, as modified, in view of Longenecker et al. (US 2023/0014310) (“Longenecker”). McHugh, as modified, teaches wherein the infant carrier module comprises a seat portion attached to a backrest portion (shown in fig. 1), and the system further comprises a headrest (fig. 1: shown) attached to the backrest portion, but does not expressly teach wherein the headrest is releasably attached. However, Longenecker teaches a releasably attachable headrest (fig. 1: 60) for the backrest of a child seat. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a releasable headrest in order to allow adjustment or changing of the headrest device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Veer in view of Longenecker et al. (US 2023/0014310) (“Longenecker”). Van der Veer teaches wherein the infant carrier module comprises a seat portion attached to a backrest portion (shown in fig. 1), and the system further comprises a headrest (fig. 1: shown) attached to the backrest portion, but does not expressly teach wherein the headrest is releasably attached. However, Longenecker teaches a releasably attachable headrest (fig. 1: 60) for the backrest of a child seat. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a releasable headrest in order to allow adjustment or changing of the headrest device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art references of McHugh, Van der Veer and Longenecker fail to teach:
wherein the rotation stop comprises: a fixed portion; a first moveable portion configured to be moveable relative to the fixed portion between a first position in which the first moveable portion is spaced a first distance from the fixed portion, and a second position in which the first moveable portion is spaced a second distance less than the first distance from the fixed portion member positioned between the fixed portion and the first moveable portion, wherein the first resilient member is configured to urge the first moveable portion away from the second position and towards the first position; or
wherein the rotation stop is configured to be urged from the disengaged position to the engaged position, and the infant car seat system comprises an actuator operable to move the rotation stop from the engaged position to the disengaged position.
Further, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art absent hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Longenecker reference as a primary reference. As discussed above, Van der Veer (and the combination of McHugh and Van der Veer) teaches a resilient rotation stop for an infant carrier seat rotating about a vertical pivot axis which is compressible by the infant carrier in the direction of the axis of rotation, as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights