Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/048,280

INFANT CAR SEAT

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Feb 07, 2025
Priority
May 13, 2019 — provisional 62/846,887 +2 more
Examiner
ISLAM, SYED A
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Wonderland Switzerland AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
775 granted / 1147 resolved
+7.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
1176
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
86.8%
+46.8% vs TC avg
§102
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
§112
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1147 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 § 112 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. Claims 5 and 10 are 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. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the rotating link" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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, 7, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haut et al. (9,480,343). Regarding claim 1, Haut et al. disclose an infant car seat adapted for being installed on a seat carrier 12, the infant car seat comprising: a seat shell 20; a latch 68 operable to selectively engage the seat carrier, the latch being translatable between a rest position, in which a portion of latch protrudes from the seat shell (fig. 14) and a retracted position (FIG. 15) in which the latch is retracted within the seat shell; a resilient member 682 operable to bias the latch toward the rest position; and a release unit 70 operable to drive the latch from the rest position to the retracted position, the release unit including an actuating member 78 co-movably coupled to the latch and a connecting member (member connecting the 70 and 78) operably coupled to the latch via the actuating member. Regarding claim 7, Haut et al. disclose the latch 78 has a latching surface that is adapted for coupling with a ledge 74 of the seat carrier when the latch is at the rest position. Regarding claim 8, Haut et al. disclose the latch includes: an engaging end portion (end of 68), a pivot end portion 681 pivotably arranged within the seat shell, and a connecting portion (the portion between 681 and 68) interconnecting the engaging end portion and the pivot end portion. Regarding claim 11, Haut et al. disclose the resilient member 682 is connected between the seat shell and the latch. Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weber et al. (8,474,907) Regarding claim 1, Weber et al. disclose an infant car seat 20 adapted for being installed on a seat carrier 24, the infant car seat comprising: a seat shell 22; a latch 60 operable to selectively engage the seat carrier, the latch being translatable between a rest position, in which a portion of latch protrudes from the seat shell (fig. 10A) and a retracted position (FIG. 10B) in which the latch is retracted within the seat shell; a resilient member 138 operable to bias the latch toward the rest position; and a release unit 112 operable to drive the latch from the rest position to the retracted position, the release unit including an actuating member 134 co-movably coupled to the latch and a connecting member 130 operably coupled to the latch via the actuating member. Regarding claim 2, Weber et al. disclose the connecting member 130 is movable in a driving direction RD and the actuating member and latch are movable in a transverse direction LA, the transverse direction being arranged at an angle relative to the driving direction. Regarding claim 3, Weber et al. disclose the transverse direction LA is perpendicular to the driving direction RD. Regarding claim 6, Weber et al. disclose a release handle 121 connected to the connecting member to move the connecting member in a driving direction. Regarding claim 7, Weber et al. disclose the latch 60 has a latching surface 140 that is adapted for coupling with a ledge 161 of the seat carrier when the latch is at the rest position. Regarding claim 9, Weber et al. disclose the latch has a connecting portion engageable by the actuating member, the connecting portion having a wedge-shaped cross-section 147. Regarding claim 10, Weber et al. disclose the resilient member 138 is compressible via operation of the actuating member in a direction away from the wall with the opening. Regarding claim 11, Weber et al. disclose the resilient member 138 is connected between the seat shell and the latch. Regarding claim 12, Weber et al. disclose one of said actuating member 134 and said latch 140 has a contact surface being in sliding contact with the other one of said actuating member and said latch, the contact surface being inclined relative to the driving direction (figures 10 and 11). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4 and 5 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 4, Weber et al. fail to disclose the release unit further comprises a rotating link rotatably mounted to the seat shell, the rotating link being pivotally coupled to at least one of the connecting member and the actuating member. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 07, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12679257
INFANT CAR SEAT ANCHORING ASSEMBLY WITH RETRACTABLE FOOT
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673593
HEADREST STRUCTURE
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12667195
HEADREST
3y 4m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12668158
POWER SEAT FOR AUTOMOBILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12662028
SEAT BACK PANEL, SEAT BACK FRAME AND VEHICLE SEAT
3y 2m 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
68%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+22.6%)
2y 4m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1147 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