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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the IDS filed February 6, 2025 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed October 24, 2024 are approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an orientation indicator configured to change between a first appearance in which the orientation indicator indicates that the juvenile seat is in the forward-facing orientation or the rearward-facing orientation, and a second appearance in which the orientation indicator indicates that the juvenile seat is not in the forward-facing orientation or the rearward-facing orientation” in lines 9-13. It cannot be ascertained whether the “not in the forward-facing orientation or the rearward-facing orientation” is intended to represent another orientation, e.g. a sideways or third orientation. It is not clear from the written description or the drawings whether this is the intent. Similarly note line 4 of claim 12, and lines 9-10 of claim 14. As such, enablement has been hindered.
The remaining claims are rejected as each depends from a rejected claim.
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 1-20 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 the limitation “when the juvenile seat is in the forward-facing orientation and the rearward-facing orientation, each cam engages a corresponding one of the pair of retractable protrusions to displace the pair of retractable protrusions so that the orientation indicator displays the first appearance” in line lines 16-19. It appears from this recitation that both the forward-facing “and” rearward-facing orientations are obtained simultaneously. It is unclear how this is achieved. Similarly note lines 3-4 in claim 7, lines 13-14 and 17-18 in claim 14, and lines 3-4 in claim 18. Clarification in the claim language is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an orientation indicator configured to change between a first appearance in which the orientation indicator indicates that the juvenile seat is in the forward-facing orientation or the rearward-facing orientation, and a second appearance in which the orientation indicator indicates that the juvenile seat is not in the forward-facing orientation or the rearward-facing orientation” in lines 9-13. It cannot be ascertained whether the “not in the forward-facing orientation or the rearward-facing orientation” is intended to represent another orientation, e.g. a sideways or third orientation. Such renders the claim as vague. Similarly note line 4 of claim 12, lines 9-10, 7-18 and 20 of claim 14, and lines 3-4 in claim 18,
Claim 2 recites the limitation “each orientation indicator” in line 1, although only a singular orientation indicator has been previously set forth. See claim 1. This recitation appears to suggest plural orientation indicators, which proper antecedence is lacking for. Similarly note line 1 of claim 5, line 3 of claim 8, line 1 of claim 9, and line 1 of claim 10. Clarification in the claim language is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “rear-ward facing orientation” in lines 4 and 8. It is unclear if the limitation is intended to represent the same feature as the previously set forth “rearward facing orientation”. Similarly note lines 4 and 9 in claim 18.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “formed in seat-base foundation”. This limitation is grammatically vague. It appears that “the” should appear after “in”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the attachment post cavity" in lines 5 to 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All remaining claims are indefinite as each depends from an indefinite claim.
Conclusion
Applicant is advised that although the claims have not been rejected in view of the prior art or record, the claims are not considered allowable as rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first and second paragraphs are present.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record singly or in union does not show a child restraint including an orientation indicator configured to change between a first appearance in which the orientation indicator indicates that the juvenile seat is in the forward-facing orientation or the rearward-facing orientation, and a second appearance in which the orientation indicator indicates that the juvenile seat is not in the forward-facing orientation or the rearward-facing orientation, wherein the orientation indicator includes a pair of retractable protrusions and the seat-orientation controller includes a pair of fixed cams, in combination with all other specifically claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record singly or in union does not show a child restraint including an orientation indicator configured to change between a first configuration in which the orientation indicator indicates that the juvenile seat is in the forward-facing orientation or the rearward-facing orientation, wherein, when the juvenile seat is in the forward-facing orientation and the rearward-facing orientation, the actuator mover engages the actuator to cause the orientation indicator to assume the first configuration and indicate that the juvenile seat is in the forward-facing orientation or the rearward-facing orientation, and wherein, when the juvenile seat is not in the forward-facing orientation and the rearward-facing orientation, the actuator mover is spaced apart from the actuator to cause the orientation indicator to assume the second configuration and indicate that the juvenile seat is not in the forward-facing orientation or the rearward-facing orientation, in combination with all other specifically claimed limitations.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A child safety seat having an indicator device represented different orientations of the seat is shown by each of Lhomme et al (20080054694), Resch et al (US11597304), and Zhang (12434606).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON NELSON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30am-1:30pm.
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.
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.
mn /MILTON NELSON JR/August 14, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights