June 10, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 1 of the specification, in paragraph [0001] under “CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS “, Applicant needs to insert “now U.S. Patent No. 12,194,898 B2- - after “This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/481,361, filed October 5, 2023,.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “canopy unit being rotatable relative to the seat main body about the first axis and a second axis, the second axis being offset from the first axis”, as defined in Claim 28, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 28-35 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 28, Applicant defines that “the canopy unit being rotatable relative to the seat main body about the first axis and a second axis, the second axis being offset from the first axis.”. However, there is no mention of this feature in the specification. Claim 28 requires that the canopy unit is rotatable relative to the seat main body about two axes: a first axis (the mounting axis of the handle, as described in the spec) and a second axis, offset from the first axis (i.e., a different, non-coincident axis. The description does allow for the canopy bow to be mounted at a location “spaced apart from the handle mount” (see paragraphs [0028] and [0030]), but this does not teach or suggest a second, offset axis of rotation. It simply describes the mounting location along the handle, not a different axis. There is no teaching of any other structure that would provide two distinct, offset axes of rotation for the canopy unit relative to the seat main body. There is absolutely no mention of a “second axis” in the specification. The only axis described in the specification is when Applicant describes in paragraphs [0022] and [0023] that “Referring specifically to FIG. 8, each of the handle mounts 21 is formed with a limiting groove 211 that extends about a mounting axis (A)…..” and “Referring to FIGS. 3 and 4, the handle 3 is for carrying the infant car seat, and has two positioning ends 31 that are respectively mounted to and rotatable relative to the handle mounts 21 about the mounting axis (A). Each of the positioning ends 31 of the handle 3 is formed with a plurality of positioning grooves 311 that are disposed about the mounting axis (A).”. In paragraph [0025], Applicant describes “Referring to FIGS. 2 to 5, in one embodiment, the canopy bow 41 1s rotatable about the mounting axis (A) and has two ring portions 411 (only one is visible in FIG. 2), each of which surrounds the mounting axis (A)…..”. In paragraph [0026], Applicant describes “In another embodiment, the opposite ends of the canopy bow 41 may be respectively and magnetically coupled to the positioning ends 31 of the handle 3 for the canopy bow 41 to be positioned relative to the handle 3. In yet another embodiment, the canopy bow 41 is rotatable about the mounting axis (A),…..”. Finally, in paragraph [0028], Applicant describes “As a result, whenever the handle 3 rotates relative to the seat main body 2 about the mounting axis (A), the canopy bow 41 simultaneously rotates with the handle 3 about the mounting axis (A) as well.”). As a result, the “mounting axis (A)” and the rotational axis are one and the same and there are not a first and second axis, as defined in claim 28. As such, claim 28 contains NEW MATTER. As a result, the limitation “the canopy unit being rotatable relative to the seat main body about the first axis and a second axis, the second axis being offset from the first axis” is new matter in this instant application, since there is no mention of the subject matter in the specification and the aforementioned subject matter is also new matter as the Preliminary Amendment, which contains the subject matter of “the canopy unit being rotatable relative to the seat main body about the first axis and a second axis, the second axis being offset from the first axis”, was not filed with the original application. Furthermore, “the canopy unit being rotatable relative to the seat main body about the first axis and a second axis, the second axis being offset from the first axis” is considered new matter since the present invention has been filed as a Continuation of Application No. 18/481,361, which is a Continuation of Application No. 17/942,497, which is a Continuation of Application No. 16/868,640. This subject matter in question has not been described in any of the specifications of the aforementioned parent applications. It appears the present invention should have been filed as a Continuation-in-part. If this application had been filed as a Continuation-in-part, then the subject matter in question would not be new matter. If Application No. 18/980,699 had been filed as a Continuation-in-part, then the feature in question would not be considered new matter since that is the purpose of a Continuation-in-part, which is to claim new subject matter that was not described in the parent application(s) or new subject matter that had been added to the description of the instant application. To avoid the new matter rejection, Applicant should file the instant application as a Continuation-in-part.
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 20-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,472,317 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of claims 20-28 is claimed in claims 1, 11, and 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,472,317 B2. Claims 20-28 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,968 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of claims 20-28 is claimed in claims 1, 11, and 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,968 B2.
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.
Claims 28-30, so far as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0326474 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
282
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 28, Williams et al. teach an infant car seat comprising: a seat main body including a handle mount; a handle 112 mounted to the handle mount of the seat main body and rotatable relative to the handle mount about a first axis; and a canopy unit 115 operably coupled to the seat main body, the canopy unit being rotatable relative to the seat main body about the first axis and a second axis, the second axis being offset from the first axis.
As for claim 29, Williams et al. teach that that the canopy unit is located out of a path of rotational movement of the handle.
As for claim 30, Williams et al. teach that the canopy unit is rotatable about the first axis independently from the second axis.
Claims 28-30, so far as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Longenecker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,597,396 B2).
PNG
media_image2.png
240
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
192
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claim 28, Longenecker et al. teach an infant car seat comprising: a seat main body including a handle mount; a handle 404 mounted to the handle mount of the seat main body and rotatable relative to the handle mount about a first axis; and a canopy unit 580 operably coupled to the seat main body, the canopy unit being rotatable relative to the seat main body about the first axis and a second axis, the second axis being offset from the first axis.
As for claim 29, Longenecker et al. teach that that the canopy unit is located out of a path of rotational movement of the handle.
As for claim 30, Longenecker et al. teach that the canopy unit is rotatable about the first axis independently from the second axis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 R. Dunn can be reached on (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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights