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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 7-Jul-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 (pp 4-6) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference to Johnson applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant’s argument (pp 6-7) that the reference to Rumack fails to cure the defects of the reference to Chi with respect to claim 1, Rumack has been relied upon for teaching the positions at which a child’s shoulder may be located in a child seat relative to the structural cooperative orientations of the seat’s backrest sidewalls and adjacent seat elements (like Chi’s headrest and buffering parts, and Rumack’s neck and shoulder rest).
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 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 sets forth that the buffering part is arranged on the sidewall between the front surface of the backrest and the “shoulder plane of the child”. This limitation renders the claims indefinite because it sets forth the structural feature of the buffering part’s position relative to the front surface based on a physical feature of a user that is variable and temporary, due to the fact that the size of the child (including the depth of torso against the front surface) is not constant (with respect to growth) and that body dimensions differ from child occupant to child occupant. Since the mounting of the buffering part to the sidewall does not appear to be variable, it is unclear how the buffering part is arranged on the sidewall based on a child occupant’s shoulder plane.
In light of the specification (¶ [0019], figure 5) and in order to render the claim limitation definite, the Office suggests amending the claim to include language from the specification, or to define the shoulder plane as a second vertical plane (or a forward vertical plane) because the aforementioned sections of the specification provide implicit support for the terminology “second vertical plane” (or “forward vertical plane”). For example, the limitation in line 8 may recite “front surface is arranged between said front surface and a shoulder plane that is a second vertical plane relative to the front surface,” or the limitations in lines 8-10 may recite “front surface is arranged within a region extending between said front surface and a shoulder planewherein said shoulder plane is a vertical plane being parallel to the front surface and spaced from the front surface by a distance up to 75mm.”
Claims 3 and 5-14 are also indefinite, being dependents of the above rejected claim.
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 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi (US 2020/0017062) in view of Rumack (US 2011/0252566).
Claims 1 and 14- Chi shows a child safety seat comprising structure as claimed:
a seat shell (shown in figs. 1 and 3) including a backrest portion having a front surface and a pair of opposing sidewalls extending forward therefrom and arranged at the sides of said front surface; and
a buffering part (3, 4) arranged on each sidewall (also shown in figs. 1 and 3), said buffering part being arranged at a upper distance from a support surface of the child safety seat on which the child sits, wherein the distance is proximal to the upper end of the front surface, such that an image of said buffering part projected on a vertical plane perpendicularly intersecting said front surface would be arranged between said front surface and a second vertical plane (“shoulder plane”) spaced forward from the front surface (fig. 3) by a front distance, said second vertical plane being parallel to the front surface.
The difference between Chi and the claimed invention is Chi does not teach specific dimensions such that the buffering part is “arranged between about 280mm and about 370mm” from the sitting surface and is “spaced from the front surface by a distance up to 75mm” with respect to “a shoulder plane”, or is “in a region that extends forward within about 75 mm” (as recited in claim 14).
While Chi does not disclose information on the dimensions of the backrest and sidewalls, Chi does show a headrest on the upper end of the backrest’s front surface, which suggests a range of upper distances associated with an occupant’s shoulder since the lower edge of the headrest is proximal to the neck and shoulders of the child using the headrest. Thus, the upper distance of the buffering part is in approximate alignment with the headrest lower edge (fig. 1), according to the lower edge’s positions in the range of upper distances. Additionally, Chi’s illustrations of the buffering part’s location on the sidewall, relative to the backrest, would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the buffering part can be positioned near a vertical plane that is parallel and slightly forward of the front surface (fig. 3).
Rumack provides a teaching of suitable dimensions and positions for child seat components, relative to children of various sizes, through its disclosure of a child positioning insert configured for placement and use in a child seat (¶ [0002], [0006]); namely, Rumack teaches the common position of the occupant’s shoulders relative to a backrest portion and backrest sidewalls. Rumack’s insert is configured with a neck and shoulder roll (1) coupled to and between a pair of opposing side rolls (2, 2), which is analogous to the structural cooperative relationship of Chi’s headrest lower edge disposed between the sidewalls. Since Rumack’s shoulder roll is disposed at an upper distance that is about 370 mm above a sitting plane (taught in figs. 12-15, ¶ [0083]- [0084]), Rumack teaches that a seat element (like Chi’s headrest) that is proximal to an occupant’s shoulder would also be about 370 mm above a sitting plane. Furthermore, Rumack teaches that the shoulder roll (1) projects forward from the back support (51) to a distance less than 75 mm (taught in figs. 12-15, ¶ [0083]- [0084]) such that the occupant’s shoulder would be disposed forward from the back support at a distance proximal to the shoulder roll’s distance. In figures 8-9, it is also shown that the shoulders of the occupant are displaced forward by the shoulder roll; therefore, the occupant’s shoulder plane when resting on the front surface (fig. 8) is substantially spaced from the front surface by a distance close to the thickness of the shoulder roll (fig. 9).
Accordingly, a child seat component (like Chi’s headrest) that is approximately aligned with or in proximity to a shoulder plane of an occupant would be positioned between about 280 mm and about 370 mm above a sitting surface of the child seat; also, a shoulder plane would be positioned forward from the backrest front surface of the child seat (figs. 8-9) by a distance up to 75 mm (i.e., equal to or less than 75 mm).
With Chi’s teaching of each buffering part being disposed on a sidewall at a position that is approximately aligned with the lower edge of a headrest on the backrest’s front surface (the lower edge being adjacent to a child occupant’s shoulder) and slightly forward relative to said front surface, and with Rumack’s teaching of a child’s shoulder support being positioned on side rolls within an upper distance range of 280-370 mm above a sitting surface and within a front distance range of up to 75 mm forward from a backrest front surface, it is obvious that a seat component mounted on a side roll or sidewall of the seat at a position approximately aligned with or in proximity to a shoulder plane would be in the distance ranges as claimed.
Under Rumack’s teaching that a “shoulder plane” would conventionally be disposed about 2 inches (about 50 mm) forward from the backrest front surface (¶ [0083]-[0084]), a second vertical plane (shown as a black line in the marked-up figure below) corresponding to a “shoulder plane” would suitably be 2 inches from the front surface and substantially in front of Chi’s buffering part (fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
149
198
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In other words, Rumack teaches that it would be obvious for Chi’s buffering parts, which are mounted on the sidewalls at a upper distance close to the headrest lower edge and at a distance forward of the front surface, to be between about 280 mm and about 370 mm upward from the sitting surface of the safety seat and to be up to 75 mm forwardly-spaced from the front surface of the backrest portion such that it is disposed in a forward region within about 75 mm from said front surface. Furthermore, Chi’s buffering parts would still function to provide buffering and effective energy absorption for greatly reducing injury to a child due to a side crash (Abstract).
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the buffering part arrangement of Chi with the positional dimensions taught by Rumack in order to yield the predictable result of arranging each buffering part on a sidewall proximal to a headrest for providing protection to a child during a side collision.
Claim 3- Chi and Rumack teach the child safety seat of claim 1, wherein said shoulder plane (the second vertical plane near which the buffering part is disposed on the sidewall) is oriented parallel to said front surface (fig. 3) and would be capable of intersecting the shoulder of the child received within the child safety seat of Chi.
Claim 5- Chi and Rumack teach the child safety seat of claim 1, wherein said buffering part taught by Chi is arranged at said sidewall such that during a sideways collision the buffering part urges the sidewall to bend inwardly (note: this is the general purpose of the buffering part of Chi - to protect the child seat; a collision would therefore inherently “urge” the sidewall to bend inwardly due to a force applied to the buffering part).
Claim 9- Chi and Rumack teach the child safety seat of claim 1, wherein said buffering part (3, 4) of Chi is mounted to said at least one sidewall forward of said front surface (shown in fig. 3).
Claims 10-13 - Chi and Rumack teach the child safety seat according to claim 1, wherein the buffering parts (3, 4) of Chi are disposed at a particular distance from the front surface in a depth direction of the seat (fig. 3). With respect to the limitations of these claims, the safety seat of Chi and Rumack do not teach that the particular distance is a smallest distance that is between about 1 mm and about 200 mm, or between about 5 mm and about 170 mm, or between about 10 mm and about 140 mm, or between about 15 mm and about 100 mm.
However, Chi teaches that the buffering parts are in close alignment with the headrest mounted on the front surface (fig. 3), which suggests a small distance is disposed between the front surface and a parallel plane of the buffering parts. While Chi does not disclose the dimensions of the seat structures, routine engineering design choice of the structural configurations taught by Chi (fig. 3) would be capable of yielding a small distance between the plane of the front surface and a parallel plane of the buffering part that ranges between about 1-15 mm and about 200-100 mm as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
149
198
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the buffering part of Chi to be disposed a small distance forward of the backrest front surface, according to the routine skill in the art, in order to yield the predictable result of arranging each buffering part on a sidewall proximal to a headrest for providing protection to a child during a side collision.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TANIA ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2635. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 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 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.
/T. A./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights