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 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,262. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite a backrest with a headrest and side support whereby a rod portion coupled thereto via spring-biased connection (linking mechanism) is configured to move along a ramped slot relative to the one of the headrest and the side support in response to a transversal movement of the side support occurring while the headrest remains in position relative to the backrest portion.
Claims 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-7 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,208,713. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite a backrest with a headrest and side support whereby a rod portion coupled thereto via spring-biased connection (linking mechanism) is configured to move along a ramped slot relative to the one of the headrest and the side support in response to a transversal movement of the side support occurring while the headrest remains in position relative to the backrest portion.
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.
Claim 16 is 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. Claims 6 and 16, are unclear and confusing as the claim recites that “the carrier part and rod portion (are) being slidable tranversally along the guide slot as the rod portion slides along the second slot portion” (of the ramped slot). Applicant must clarify as to how the rod portion is sliding in both the guide and ramped slots.
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) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guoping (CN202439584U). Guopin discloses a child safety seat (Fig. 1) comprising: a headrest (1) and a backrest portion (4) slidably connected with each other; a side support (3) connected with the backrest portion, the side support portion being connected to the headrest via linking mechanism (2,12,31,32). The linking mechanism comprising and a ramped slot (12) provided on the headrest and a rod portion (31) coupled to the other one of the side support and headrest via a spring-biased connection part (2,13,21,32) that applies a biasing force on the rod portion and that is adapted opposes an inward movement of the side support by applying a biasing force. Regarding claim 13, the spring-biased connection comprises a carrier part (the transverse portion of that couples the side support to the backrest) and a resilient part (32) whereby the rod portion is fixedly connected to the carrier part. The resilient part has two ends one connected indirectly with the carrier part and the other one of the side support and headrest (indirectly via the backrest).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are allowed over the prior art made of record as the applicant as disclosed the use a child safety seat comprising: a backrest portion and a headrest slidably connected with each other; and a side support slidably connected with the backrest portion, the side support being connected with the headrest via a linking mechanism, wherein the linking mechanism includes: a ramped slot provided on one of the side support and the headrest; and a carrier part and at least one guide slot provided on the other one of the side support and the headrest, wherein the carrier part is configured to slide transversally along the at least one guide slot, and is fixedly connected with a rod portion that is slidable along the ramped slot The most pertinent prior art Reference CN202439584U shows the use of a ramped slot and rod but fails to teach the use of a guide slot on the other of the side support and headrest and that the carrier part is fixedly connected with the rod portion to slide along the guide slot as the rod portion slides along the ramped slot.
Claims 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd 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 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
Prosecution Insights