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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE202022100380.7, filed on January 24, 2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
in figure 5d, reference character 16 is used to designate the adjustment device, however, the adjustment device is labeled as reference character 15 in figure 5a;
in the paragraph of the specification regarding figure 8, line 12 on page 18 of the provided specification, a third control section is distinguished by reference character 26, however, a reference character 26 is not shown in figure 8.
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. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length and the inclusion of legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprising” and “wherein,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification. In light of the specification, the term “adjustment device” is defined to also mean “control device” or “drive device” in line 1 on page 2 of the provided specification.
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 3-5, and 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 3 recites:
the broad recitation “at least one rail control section extends non-straight”, and the claim also recites “preferably” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
the broad recitation “at least in sections, curved”, and the claim also recites “in particular arcuate” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 4 recites:
the broad recitation “at least one control section”, and the claim also recites “preferably co-operating with a rail control section” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
the broad recitation “is designed as a running control section”, and the claim also recites “preferably in the form of a projection” and “in particular a pin or an arcuate projection” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation,
In the present instance, claim 5 recites:
the broad recitation “for adjusting the inclination of a part of a seat”, and the claim also recites “in particular a backrest and/or a seat section” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
the broad recitation “for adjusting the extension length of a locking system”, and the claim also recites “in particular an Isofix system” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
the broad recitation “for adjusting a locking of a frame”, and the claim also recites “in particular of a pram” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
the broad recitation “for adjusting the locking of an extension length and/or inclination of a push bar or push bar section”, and the claim also recites “in particular of a pram” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
the broad recitation “for adjusting a locking of a height position and/or depth position of a seat element”, “and/or of a backrest element”, “or of a footrest”, and the claim also recites “in particular of a high chair” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 14 recites:
the broad recitation “the adjustment device is such”, and the claim also recites “in particular actuated such” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 14 is indefinite as it is directed to a “method” however the claim does not have any method steps; it appears to be directed to an end result that happens when the adjustment device is “transferred from the first to the second adjustment device position.”
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Mitigation of the issue of indefiniteness would include either removing the narrower statement per limitation, or further narrowing each offending limitation to solely pertain to the content of the narrower statement.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN-107199924-B).
Liu discloses a child safety seat that features a locking device that locks the seat framework to the base.
Claim 1 – Liu teaches a child-accommodation device, in particular child seat for mounting on a motor vehicle seat, pram or child-accommodation device for such a seat, and/or high chair (elements 1 and 4 in figure 1), comprising:
a first part (element 4) and a second part movable relative to the first part for adjusting the child-accommodation device and which can be locked relative to the first part by a locking device of the child-accommodation device (element 1), and
an adjustment device which can be transferred from a first adjustment device position to a second adjustment device position for transferring the locking device from a first locking device position to a second locking device position, wherein one of the first and second locking device positions is a release position in which the first and second parts are not locked against each other, and the other of the first and second locking device positions is a locking position in which the first and second parts are locked against each other (element 5 in figure 3),
wherein the adjustment device comprises at least one first control section and the locking device comprises at least one second control section, wherein the first and second control sections interact with each other such that they cause a transfer of the locking device from the first to the second locking device position when the adjustment device is transferred from the first to the second adjustment device position,
wherein the adjustment device comprises at least a third control section and the locking device comprises at least a fourth control section, wherein the third and fourth control sections interact with each other such that they cause a transfer of the locking device from the second to the first locking device position when the adjustment device is transferred from the second to the first adjustment device position,
wherein
i) at least one control section designed as a rail control section is a part of the adjustment device and at least one further control section designed as a rail control section is a part of the locking device and/or wherein
ii) at least one control section is designed as a rail control section, along which at least one further control section runs when the locking device is transferred from the first to the second locking device position, wherein the rail control section is not defined by a recess or is at least not defined by a slot-shaped recess or is at least not defined by a slot-shaped recess which defines a further control section designed as a rail control section and which is located between said rail control sections.
Liu teaches that the adjustment device is made up of four main parts, or control sections (elements 52, 53, 54, and 562 in figure 5), where elements 52-54 are mirrored within, that ultimately transfers the device from either a locking or unlocking position. This transfer is caused by one section interacting with a second section, which interacts with a third section, which then interacts with a fourth section. At least one control section can be defined as a rail control section along which a further control section runs when the locking device is transferred from the first to the second locking device positions. Element 54 in figure 5 runs along element 562, where element 562 is not defined by a recess or a slot-shaped recess.
Claim 2 – Liu teaches that the child accommodation device has at least one control section designed as a rail control section and at least one further control section designed as a rail control section point at least in sections in the same direction and/or at least one control section designed as a rail control section and at least one further control section designed as a rail control section point at least in sections away from each other and/or at least one control section designed as a rail control section and at least one further control section designed as a rail control section point at least in sections towards each other.
Liu teaches the adjustment device within the child accommodation device has multiple rail control sections mirrored within and therefore has rail control sections pointing in the same directions.
Claim 3 – Liu teaches that at least one rail control section runs straight and/or at least on rail control section extends obliquely in relation to a direction of movement of the adjustment device and/or obliquely in relation to a direction of movement of the locking device. Each of the adjustment or locking rail control sections run either straight or extend obliquely in relation to the direction of its counterpart.
Claim 4 – Liu teaches that at least one control section, preferably co-operating with a rail control section, is designed as a running control section, preferable in the form of a projection, in particular a pin or an arcuate projection. Element 54 in figure 5 features a pin that runs along element 53 in the same figure.
Claim 6 – Liu teaches that the adjustment device has an actuation device and/or is actively connected to such an actuation device, wherein the actuation device is manually operable or includes a handle. In figure 5, element 51 is an actuation device and features a handle (element 511 in figure 6). Claim 7 – Liu teaches that the adjustment device is movable in a first direction and the locking device is movable in a second direction, wherein the first and second directions are different from each other, are perpendicular to each other, and/or wherein the second direction is directed towards or away from the adjustment device. When the actuation device is pushed or pulled, the adjustment, or drive, device (element 512 in figure 5) is pushed or pulled in the same direction, which moves the locking device (element 54 in figure 5) in a direction perpendicular to that of the motion of the adjustment device.
Claim 8 – Liu teaches that the adjustment device and/or locking device and/or actuation device is pre-tensioned in at least one position by means of at least one spring device (element 57 in figure 5).
Claim 9 – Liu teaches that at least one rail control section is designed as a control edge and/or as a control surface and/or in at least one projection as a control curve. Rail control section (the hole in element 562) is designed as a control surface which guides rail control section element 54.
Claim 10 – Liu teaches that at least or exactly two locking devices are assigned to at least one adjustment device. Being that rail control section element 54 in figure 5, as well as all rail control sections interacting with it, are mirrored within the adjustment device element 5 in figure 3, exactly two locking devices are assigned to one adjustment device.
Claim 11 – Liu teaches that the adjustment device is guided in an adjustment device guiding device, wherein the adjustment device guiding device is preferably guided in a corresponding guiding device, and/or the locking device is guided in a locking device guiding device, wherein the locking device guiding device is preferably guided in a corresponding guiding device. The locking device (element 54 in figure 5) is guided by a locking device guiding device (element 53 in figure 5), wherein the locking device guiding device is guided by a corresponding guiding device (element 52).
Claim 12 – Liu teaches that the adjustment device is transferable from the first adjustment device position to the second adjustment device position by rotation and/or by translation and/or the locking device is transferable from the first locking device position to the second locking device position by rotation and/or by translation. Element 52 in figure 5 transfers from the first adjustment position to the second adjustment position by rotation, pivotally, on element 51 in figure 5, and element 53 in figure 5 transfers from the first adjustment position to the second adjustment position by rotation, pivotally, at a common point from element 52 in figure 5. Element 54 in figure 5 transfers from the first adjustment position to the second adjustment position by translation along element 53 in figure 5, and element 54 in figure 5 transfers from the first adjustment position to the second adjustment position by translation along element 562 in figure 5.
Claim 13 – Liu teaches that at least one control section designed as a rail control section and at least one further control section designed as a rail control section point away from each other and/or are formed on the locking device, and/or at least one control section designed as a rail control section and at least one further control section designed as a rail control section point away from each other and/or are formed on the adjustment device. Element 54 in figure 5 is mirrored about the device, where each of the two element 54 rail control sections point away from each other.
Claim 14 – Liu teaches that the adjustment device is such, in particular actuated such, that it is transferred from the first to the second adjustment device position and thereby transfers the locking device from the first to the second locking device position. When the actuation handle is pushed or pulled, the adjustment device transfers from first to second adjustment positions, thereby transferring the locking device from the first to the second locking device 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN-107199924-B).
Liu, disclosed above, teaches first and second parts movable relative to each other for adjusting a locking of a frame in a use position or storage position for that of a child safety seat in a vehicle. Liu does not explicitly define the use in a pram; however, the structure of Liu inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus and it would have been obvious to use the same structure when locking a child safety seat to a pram frame as opposed to that of a vehicle seat frame. See MPEP section 2114, subsection I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:00 AM - 2:30 PM EST.
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.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636