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 .
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 1-8, 10-12, and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-13 and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,194,901. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Both disclosed the use of backrest having a side impact protection with a self-locking member and self-locking reset member that apply a force to the self-locking member to maintain it in an extended position.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,865,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Both disclosed the use of backrest having a side impact protection with a self-locking member and self-locking reset member that apply a force to the self-locking member to maintain it in an extended position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 15-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cui (10,933,779). Cui shows an apparatus comprising a backrest, a side impact protection block (100) movably fitted to the backrest and having a folding position and an unfolding, a self-locking structure (112,120) fitted to the side impact protection block or the backrest, the self-locking structure configured to block the side impact protection block in the unfolding position from switching to the folding position, when the side impact protection block is switched from the folding position to the unfolding position, and the backrest and the side impact protection block shields the self-locking structure to block a release operation of the self-locking structure by an operator (see Figs. 2 and 5). The self-locking structure comprises a self-locking member (120) and self-locking reset member comprising an elastic member (160) in regards to claim 2. Cui shows the use of an inclined surface (via the rib (112) as shown in Fig. 7) angled relative to an extending direction of the self-locking member in regards to claims 3 and 12. Regarding claims 4-5, Cui shows the use of a stopper (130) having a lock fitting part (131) enclosed therein and configured to engage the self-locking member when the side impact protection block is in the unfolding position (see Figs. 6-7). Regarding claim 9, the self-locking member comprises a block member (122) that engages a groove structure (132), (the arc shaped recess) in the backrest (via the mounting structure (170). Regarding claim 10 and 16 the side impaction protection block has a side impact protection block body (110) and a blocking member (the engagement surface for the self-locking member) coupled to the side impact protection block body. Regarding claim 11 and 16, the self-locking structure comprises a self-locking member (120) that slides into extended position to block the side impact protection block and a self-reset member (160) configured to apply a force to the self-locking member. The self-locking member is fitted to the blocking member as it telescopically slides into contact with the blocking member (see Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 1-12,14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CA 3077919A1). Zhang shows a backrest (130), a side impact protection block (11) movably fitted to the backrest and having a folding position and an unfolding position, a self-locking structure (12) fitted to the side impact protection block or the backrest, the self-locking structure automatically moves to a position that blocks the side impact protection block in the unfolding position from switching to the folding position when the side impact protection block is switched from the folding position to the unfolding position, and the backrest and the side impact protection block shields the self-locking structure to block a release operation of the self-locking structure by an operator (see Figs. 2). The self-locking structure comprises a self-locking member (41) and self-locking reset member comprising an elastic member (43) in regards to claim 2. Zhang shows the use of an inclined surface (via the recess (411) as shown in Fig. 9) angled relative to an extending direction of the self-locking member in regards to claims 3 and 12. Regarding claims 4-5, Zhang shows the use of a stopper (45) having a lock fitting part (541) enclosed therein and configured to engage the self-locking member when the side impact protection block is in the unfolding position (see para[0045]). Regarding claim 9, the self-locking member comprises a block member (41) that engages a groove structure (1315). Regarding claim 10, the side impaction protection block has a side impact protection block body (11) and a blocking member (73) coupled to the side impact protection block body. Regarding claim 11, the self-locking structure comprises a self-locking member (41) that slides into extended position to block the side impact protection block and a self-reset member (43) configured to apply a force to the self-locking member. Regarding claim 11, the self-locking structure comprises a self-locking member (41) that slides into extended position to block the side impact protection block and a self-reset member (43) configured to apply a force to the self-locking member. Regarding claim 14, the blocking member is configurable between a blocking position and an avoidance position (Figs. 7-8).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang. Zhang shows all of the teachings of the claimed invention except the use of the self-locking member being inserted through a metal sheet of the backrest. Zhang has disclosed that backrest can be made of any materials therefore it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mount (131) of the backrest to be from a metal sheet in order to provide a more deformable material while providing stability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D BARFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6852. 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.
/ANTHONY D BARFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
adb
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights