Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/983,400

CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Dec 17, 2024
Priority
Jan 10, 2019 — provisional 62/790,707 +2 more
Examiner
BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Wonderland Switzerland AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
989 granted / 1233 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1249
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
62.4%
+22.4% vs TC avg
§102
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§112
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1233 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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. Claim 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 194,899. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite a child restraint system comprising: a main body; and an adjustable headrest assembly installed on the main body, the adjustable headrest assembly comprising: at least one rail movably disposed on the main body and movable between a lower position and an upper position relative to the main body; and a head support portion connected to the at least one rail and slidable relative to the at least one rail. Claim 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,155,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite A child restraint system comprising a main body; and an adjustable headrest assembly installed on the main body, the adjustable headrest assembly comprising: at least one rail disposed on the main body; a head support portion movably disposed on the at least one rail; and a locking assembly for restraining or allowing movement of the head support portion relative to the main body, the locking assembly comprising a rack disposed on the main body and a locking component disposed on the head support portion for detachably engaging with the rack, the locking component engaging with the rack for restraining the movement of the head support portion relative to the main body, the locking component disengaging from the rack for allowing the movement of the head support portion relative to the main body. 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 13, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 17, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12679260
SEAT SUPPORT ELEMENT COMPRISING A VENTILATION DEVICE FOR A BEARING SURFACE
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12674501
DAMPER FOR VEHICLE SEAT
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12662025
ADJUSTABLE PROTECTOR AND SAFETY SEAT
4y 5m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12662026
CHILD SAFETY SEAT
4y 0m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12662036
SEAT FOR VEHICLE
3y 11m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+13.8%)
2y 3m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1233 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month