Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/817,121

INFANT CAR SEAT SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 27, 2024
Examiner
BRINDLEY, TIMOTHY J
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Strolleazi Group Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
958 granted / 1180 resolved
+29.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1231
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§102
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1180 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-14 have been examined. 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 locking hinge of claim 2 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. Claims 1-14 are 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. Claim 1 recites wherein the rotation stop is compressible in a direction of rotation about the rotation axis. This limitation is unclear as the rotation stop of fig. 4 compresses linearly, not rotationally, as such it is unclear exactly what direction or limitations are associated with the stop being “compressible in a direction of rotation.” 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, 3-5, 7-9, 13 and 14, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Longenecker et al. (US 2023/0014310) (“Longenecker”). Longenecker discloses an infant car seat system comprising: a docking module (fig. 1: 10) configured to be securable to a vehicle seat; an infant carrier module (fig. 1: 30) configured to receive an infant therein, the infant car seat system configured such that the infant carrier module is rotatable within the docking module about a rotation axis (as shown in fig. 2); and a rotation stop (fig. 11: 92, 94) selectively operable to restrict rotation of the infant carrier module relative to the docking module about the rotation axis; wherein the rotation stop is compressible in a direction of rotation (fig. 11: 96 allows compression) about the rotation axis (fig. 11: it compresses about the rotation axis by rotation bar 94). As concerns claim 3, Longenecker discloses 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, Longenecker discloses wherein the infant car seat system is configured such that the infant carrier module is releasably dockable within the docking module (fig. 3, paragraph 0011). As concerns claim 5, Longenecker discloses wherein the system further comprises a docking lock mechanism (fig. 14: 425, 124) configured to selectively prevent undocking of the infant carrier module from the docking module. As concerns claim 7, Longenecker discloses 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: 60) attached to the backrest portion and releasably attachable to the docking module. As concerns claim 8, Longenecker discloses wherein the rotation stop is resilient (fig. 11: 96). As concerns claim 9, Longenecker discloses wherein the rotation stop comprises: a fixed portion (fig. 11: 95); a first moveable portion (fig. 11: 92) 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 (fig. 11 when 92 is pressed inward); and a first resilient (fig. 11: 96) 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. As concerns claim 13, Longenecker discloses 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 in at least fig. 15). As concerns claim 14, Longenecker discloses wherein the rotation stop is configured to be urged from the disengaged position to the engaged position (fig. 11: by 96), and the infant car seat system comprises an actuator (fig. 9: 99) operable to move the rotation stop from the engaged position to the disengaged position. 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longenecker in view of Edwards (US 10857917). Longenecker 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 Longenecker 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 Longenecker in view of Belramoul (WO 2004/034854). Longenecker 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. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 Longenecker, Edwards fails to teach: wherein the first moveable portion is positionable relative to the fixed portion in a first intermediate position between the first position and the second position, wherein the first resilient member is configured such that a greater force is required to move the first moveable portion from the first position to the first intermediate position than is required to move the first moveable portion from the first intermediate position to the second position. wherein the rotation stop further comprises: a second moveable portion configured to be moveable relative to the fixed portion (the same fixed portion of the first moveable portion) between a third position in which the second moveable portion is spaced a third distance from the fixed portion, and a fourth position in which the second moveable portion is spaced a fourth distance less than the third distance from the fixed portion; and a second resilient member positioned between the fixed portion and the second moveable portion, wherein the second resilient member is configured to urge the second moveable portion away from the fourth position and towards the third position; wherein a direction of movement of the first moveable portion from the first position to the second position is in a direction opposite to a direction of movement of the second moveable portion from the third position to the fourth position. Further, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art absent hindsight. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 27, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600478
RECLINING SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600277
BACKREST FOR A VEHICLE SEAT AND A METHOD FOR MOUNTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595060
SEAT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588766
SEAT COMPRISING A FRAME AND A COVER, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583366
VEHICLE SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+7.8%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1180 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month