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 .
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 10 and 11 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 10 recites “a fastening member.” It is unclear if this is intended to differ from the “fastening component” previously recited.
Claim 11 is deemed indefinite because it is dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102, 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 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.
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) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mason et al. (US Patent Number 10040377).
Regarding claim 1, Mason discloses a rotary top rod (112) mounted on a safety seat, comprising: a top rod body rotatably mounted on the safety seat and comprising: two rotating arms (120) respectively disposed on both sides of the safety seat; and a mounting rod (at least portions of 122) connected to a bending part of each of the rotating arms (at an upper portion and/or at least indirectly); and a locking assembly comprising: a locking component (including 132); and a fastening component (including 136, 138 for instance); wherein one of the locking component and the fastening component is mounted on the mounting rod (132 is mounted on 122), the other one of the locking component and the fastening component is mounted on the safety seat (see figures), the locking component is engaged with the fastening component to fasten the top rod body to a predetermined position (this is the general manner of operation).
Regarding claim 2, Mason further discloses when the top rod body is disposed at the predetermined position, an end of the top rod body extends to an outer side of the safety seat to form a blocking portion protruding out of the safety seat (see Figures 1 and 4; while the top rod body would appear to extend beyond the seat longitudinally, it at least extends beyond vertically and would form a portion as recited).
Regarding claim 3, Mason further discloses the top rod body further comprises: a rotation portion (at 120A) mounted on the safety seat, wherein the two rotating arms are connected to the rotation portion; and a blocking transverse arm (118) connected to an end of each of the two rotating arms.
Regarding claim 4, Mason further discloses the blocking portion is formed by the blocking transverse arm and the ends of the two rotating arms (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 6, Mason further discloses the end of each of the rotating arms is inclined upward to form the bending part (see figures), and two ends of the mounting rod are respectively connected to the bending part of each of the rotating arms (at least indirectly).
Regarding claim 7, Mason further discloses the locking component comprises a clamping part (of 132) and an elastic part (140), the clamping part is movably mounted on the top rod body or the safety seat and is engaged with the fastening component, the elastic part provides an elastic force for the clamping part to engage the clamping part with the fastening component in a locked position (this is the general arrangement; see the first full paragraph of column 5).
Regarding claim 8, Mason further discloses the fastening component is a fastening groove (at least 138), and the locking component comprises a hook to be engaged with the fastening groove for a snap connection (this is the general arrangement as the fastening could function as such).
Regarding claim 9, Mason further discloses the top rod body is detachably mounted on the safety seat (at least via the fastening arrangement).
Regarding claim 10, Mason further discloses a rotary top rod according to claim 1, and the safety seat is provided with a fastening member (136 for instance) matched with the locking component for a snap connection (this is the general arrangement as the fastening could function as such).
Regarding claim 11, Mason further discloses the safety seat comprises a seat body (104) and a base (102), the seat body is mounted on the base, and the rotary top rod is rotatably mounted on the base (see figures).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mason.
Regarding claim 5, Mason discloses an arrangement as explained above and further discloses the mounting rod is disposed in parallel with the blocking transverse arm (at least in part based on how the rod is defined), and the locking component or the fastening component is mounted at a middle or a side of the mounting rod (see figures). While Mason is thus viewed as disclosing the claimed arrangement, the parallel arrangement may not be clear. However, changes in shape and arrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the mounting rod parallel with the blocking transverse arm based on normal variation to improve function and safety for various users.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12208712 and claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11584266. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to provide the components arranged as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it shows a range of related devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights