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 § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maciejczyk (US 2003/0025369).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 19, Maciejczyk discloses a car seat comprising: a seat shell 3 having a bottom surface and a rotation locking arm 46 extending from the bottom surface; and a base 1 having a receiving portion, wherein the receiving portion comprises a receiving cavity surface (surface where the bottom of the seat shell is placed) configured to interface with the seat shell bottom surface, further comprising a first primary positioning cavity (between 32, see fig. 5) and a first secondary positioning cavity (on top of spring 60, see figure 6) extending through the receiving cavity surface into the receiving portion, wherein the first primary positioning cavity has a first side wall having a first angle (angle greater than 90 degrees between the walls 32) relative to the receiving cavity surface and the first secondary positioning cavity has a first side wall having a second angle (angle is 90 degree) relative to the receiving cavity surface, and wherein the second angle is less than the first angle, and wherein the first primary positioning cavity extends a first depth (the wall between 32 have a depth which is larger than the depth of cavity on top of the spring) into the receiving portion from the receiving cavity surface and the first secondary positioning cavity extends a second depth into the receiving portion from the receiving cavity surface, and wherein the first depth is greater than the second depth.
Regarding claim 2, Maciejczyk discloses the rotation locking arm has a first side, a second side, and a distal end extending between the first side and the second side, and wherein the rotation locking arm has a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion extends from the distal end to the second portion (46 has L shaped where the first portion extends from distal end second portion extend perpendicular from first portion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maciejczyk.
Regarding claim 13, Maciejczyk fail to disclose first angle of the first side wall of the first primary positioning cavity relative to the receiving cavity surface is greater than 265 degrees.
However, Maciejczyk has no limitations that prevent from using such angle and further discloses any modification without departing from the scope of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use angle to reduce cost, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Maciejczyk fails to disclose the second angle is less than 260 degrees.
However, Maciejczyk has no limitations that prevent from using such angle and further discloses any modification without departing from the scope of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use angle to reduce cost, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12, 15, 17, 18, 20 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.
Regarding claim 3, Maciejczyk fails to disclose the first portion of the locking arm is configured to engage with the first side wall of the first secondary positioning cavity, and wherein the second portion of the locking arm is configured to engage with the first side wall of the first primary positioning cavity.
Regarding claim 4, Maciejczyk fails to disclose the first side and the second side of the rotation locking arm converge in the first portion, and wherein the first side and the second side of the rotation locking arm are parallel in the second portion.
Regarding claims 5, 18, 20, Maciejczyk fails to disclose the base having a rotational axis extending through the receiving portion about which the seat shell rotates.
Regarding claim 9, Maciejczyk fails to disclose the receiving portion further comprises a second primary positioning cavity and a second secondary positioning cavity.
Regarding claim 12, Maciejczyk fails to disclose the first primary positioning cavity has the first side wall and an opposing second side wall, and wherein the first side wall is in a first rotational direction and the second side wall is in a second rotational direction.
Regarding claim 15, Maciejczyk fails to disclose the first primary positioning cavity and the first secondary positioning cavity pass through a first radial extending from a rotational axis.
Regarding claim 17, Maciejczyk fails to disclose the first primary positioning cavity has a base surface extending between a first side wall and a second side wall, wherein the first depth is measured from the base surface of the first primary positioning cavity to the receiving cavity surface, and wherein the first secondary positioning cavity has a base surface extending between a first side wall and a second side wall, and wherein the second depth is measured from the base surface of the first secondary positioning cavity to the receiving cavity surface.
No other prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can solve these dissimilarities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights