DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 18/962,549 filed 11/27/2024 which claims priority to CN 2023116498637 12/01/2023 and CN 2023118700981 12/29/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-9 and 12-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimoto et al. (US 2007/0108810 A1)(hereinafter Nishimoto).
RE Claim 1: Nishimoto discloses a seat cushion structure (Fig 4), applicable to a seat body of a child safety seat, and comprising:
a back cushion (30) configured to support a back of a child, the back cushion having a first surface (top) and a second surface opposite to the first surface (bottom), the first surface configured to face the child (child sits on top when in car seat); and
a seat cushion (50) configured to support a hip of the child, wherein the back cushion is provided with a pushing portion (bump as seen from side view in Fig 4), and the pushing portion makes the first surface of the back cushion push the back of the child, allowing the back and the head of the child tend to be in a same straight line (Figs 3-4).
RE Claim 2: Nishimoto discloses the seat cushion structure according to claim 1,
wherein the pushing portion is on one of the first surface (top) and the second surface of the back cushion, and an outer surface of the pushing portion forms at least a part of the first surface of the back cushion or at least a part of the second surface of the back cushion (Fig 4).
RE Claim 3: Nishimoto discloses the seat cushion structure according to claim 1,
wherein the seat cushion is integrally made with the pushing portion (Fig 4), and an outer surface of the pushing portion forms at least a part of the second surface of the back cushion (Fig 4).
RE Claim 4: Nishimoto discloses the seat cushion structure according to claim 3,
wherein the pushing portion is configured as a protrusion protruding in a direction away from the first surface of the seat cushion (compare Applicant’s 215 in Fig 4 with bump on 30 as seen in Nishimoto Fig 4).
RE Claim 5: Nishimoto discloses the seat cushion structure according to claim 1,
wherein the back cushion has a first end and a second end along an up-down direction, and the first end of the back cushion is away from the seat cushion relative to the second end of the back cushion (Figs 3-4);
the back cushion has a first thickness at the first end (upper), a second thickness at the second end (lower), and a third thickness at the pushing portion (in between upper and lower, approximately near 34 as seen in Fig 4), wherein the third thickness is greater than the second thickness (Fig 4), and the third thickness is greater than the first thickness (Fig 4).
RE Claim 6: Nishimoto discloses the seat cushion structure according to claim 5,
wherein the pushing portion is in a middle position between the first end and the second end of the back cushion (Fig 4), and extends at least a part of a left-right width of the back cushion along a left-right direction of the back cushion (Fig 3).
RE Claim 7: Nishimoto discloses the seat cushion structure according to claim 1,
wherein the seat cushion has a first end and a second end opposite to the first end (Figs 1-4);
the first end of the seat cushion is connected to a second end of the back cushion through an arc-shaped transition (Fig 1); and
the second end of the seat cushion extends forward and upward (Figs 1-2).
RE Claim 8: Nishimoto discloses the seat cushion structure according to claim 7,
wherein the seat cushion has a first surface (upper) and a second surface (lower) opposite to the first surface, and the first surface of the seat cushion is configured to face the child (Figs 1-4)(child’s body rest against upper surface); and
the first surface of the seat cushion comprises an arc segment connected to the second end of the back cushion and a straight segment connected to the arc segment (Figs 1-4).
RE Claim 9: Nishimoto discloses the seat cushion structure according to claim 1,
wherein the seat cushion has a first surface (upper) and a second surface (lower) opposite to the first surface, and the first surface of the seat cushion is configured to face the child(Figs 1-4)(child’s body rests against upper surface); and
the first surface of the seat cushion and the second surface of the seat cushion are inclined forward and upward (Figs 1-2), and a distance between the first surface of the seat cushion and the second surface of the seat cushion gradually increases in a forward and upward direction (Fig 4)(claim does not require over the entire seat cushion).
RE Claim 12: Nishimoto discloses the seat cushion structure according to claim 8,
wherein the seat cushion also has a third surface at the second end of the seat cushion, and the third surface connects the first surface of the seat cushion with the second surface of the seat cushion, and wherein a thickness of the back cushion at the second end is a second thickness, and a thickness between an end of the straight segment close to the arc segment and a second surface of the seat cushion is a fourth thickness, which is greater than the second thickness (compare Applicant’s Fig 4 with 50 in Nishimoto Fig 4).
RE Claim 13: Nishimoto discloses the seat cushion structure according to claim 12,
wherein a thickness between the first surface of the seat cushion and the second surface of the seat cushion and adjacent to the third surface of the seat cushion is a fifth thickness, which is greater than the fourth thickness (Figs 1-4).
RE Claim 14: Nishimoto discloses the seat cushion structure according to claim 1,
wherein the seat cushion is provided with a blocking portion configured to block the child from sliding down (compare 226 in Applicant’s Fig 6 with portion 50 in Nishimoto).
RE Claim 15: Nishimoto discloses a child safety seat, comprising a seat body and a support structure arranged on the seat body (Figs 1-4), wherein the support structure comprises:
a headrest (10) configured to support a head of a child; and
the seat cushion structure according to claim 1 (previously discussed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto in view of Edwards (US 10857917 B1)(hereinafter Edwards).
RE Claim 11: Nishimoto discloses the seat cushion structure according to claim 1.
Nishimoto discloses wherein the seat cushion has a first surface (upper) and a second surface (lower) opposite to the first surface, and the first surface of the seat cushion is configured to face the child(Figs 1-4)(child’s body rests against upper surface); and
a second angle is formed between a connection line of the first surface of the back cushion and a connection line of the first surface of the seat cushion (Figs 1-2).
Concerning “the second angle is not less than 101º and not greater than 110º”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nishimoto such that the second angle is not less than 101º and not greater than 110º, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involve routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) Routine Optimization citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). This would be done to improve comfort.
RE Claim 19: Nishimoto discloses a child safety seat according to claim 15,
wherein when a bottom of the seat body is placed on a horizontal plane, a third angle is formed between a second surface of the seat cushion and the horizontal plane (Figs 1-4).
Concerning the third angle “is not less than 25º and not greater than 55º”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nishimoto such that the third angle is not less than 25 and not greater than 55, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involve routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) Routine Optimization citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). This would be done to improve comfortability.
RE Claim 20: Nishimoto discloses a child safety seat, comprising:
a seat body (Figs 1-2); and
a seat cushion structure (Figs 1-4), removably arranged on the seat body and comprising a back cushion (30) and a seat cushion (50),
the seat cushion having a first surface configured to face a child (child’s body rests on upper surface of 50), wherein when a bottom of the seat body is placed on a horizontal plane, a fourth angle is formed between a first surface of the seat cushion and the horizontal plane (Figs 1-4).
Concerning the fourth angle “is not less than 33º and not greater than 80º” : it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nishimoto such that the fourth angle is not less than 33º and not greater than 80º, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involve routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) Routine Optimization citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). This would be done to improve comfort.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto in view of Edwards (US 10857917 B1)(hereinafter Edwards).
RE Claim 10: Nishimoto discloses the seat cushion structure according to claim 9.
Nishimoto teaches wherein a first angle is formed between a connection line of the first surface of the seat cushion and a connection line of the second surface of the seat cushion (Figs 1-4), but does not explicitly teach the first angle is not less than 8º and not greater than 25º.
However, Edwards teaches a seat cushion structure applicable to the seat body of a child safety seat (reclining child car seat) (analogous art) and further teaches a first angle is formed between a connection line of the first surface of the seat cushion and a connection line of the second surface of the seat cushion (Figs 1-3) and teaches adjustability of the first angle (col 2, ln 50-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nishimoto in view of Edwards such that the first angle is adjustable as taught by Edwards for the advantages of improving comfortability to the child.
RE “the first angle is not less than 8 and not greater than 25”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nishimoto such that the first angle is not less than 8 and not greater than 25, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involve routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) Routine Optimization citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). This would be done to improve comfort.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ragsdale (US 3,596,986)(hereinafter Ragsdale).
RE Claim 16: Nishimoto discloses the child safety seat according to claim 15,
wherein the headrest has a first end and a second end in an upper and down direction, and the first end of the headrest is away from the seat cushion structure relative to the second end of the headrest (Figs 1-4), and a side protrusion is provided at each of left and right sides of the headrest (Figs 1-4).
Nishimoto does not explicitly teach wherein an upper protrusion is provided at the first end of the headrest.
However, Ragsdale teaches a child safety seat with a cushion structure (analogous art) and further teaches wherein an upper protrusion (38) is provided at the first end of the headrest (Fig 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nishimoto in view of Ragsdale such that there is an upper protrusion at the first end of the headrest as taught by Ragsdale for the advantages of increased support.
RE Claim 17: Nishimoto as modified discloses the child safety seat according to claim 16,
wherein the headrest has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, and the first surface is configured to face the child (Figs 1-4);
a transition portion is provided at the second end of the headrest and is bent downwardly toward the second surface of the headrest relative to other portions of the headrest (Figs 1-4).
RE Claim 18: Nishimoto as modified discloses the child safety seat according to claim 17,
wherein a thickness of the headrest at the transition portion is a sixth thickness (Figs 1-4), which is less than a first thickness of the back cushion (not an entire thickness of the cushion at that point, merely “a thickness”) at a first end of the back cushion away from the seat cushion (Figs 1-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various car seat cushions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights