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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the IDS filed March 26, 2025 has been considered.
Specification
The status of any related application must be updated on page 1 of the specification where appropriate.
Drawings
The drawings filed March 26, 2025 are approved.
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 17-20 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.
In claim 17, it is unclear if Applicant intends to positively claim the subcombination of a seat adjustment structure for use with a child safety seat, or the combination of a seat adjustment structure and a child safety seat. The preamble appears to set forth the subcombination. Note the phrase “for a child safety seat”. Line 4 appears to set forth the combination. Note the phrase “fixed to the seat”. Clarification in the claim language is required. Claims 18-20 are rejected since each depends from an indefinite claim. Applicant is advised that for the purposes of examination, claims 17-20 have been treated in terms of the combination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young (US4936629).
Note a child safety seat comprising: a seat (12); a base (16) configured to fix the child safety seat to a vehicle; and a seat adjustment structure (73) disposed between the seat and the base, the seat adjustment structure configured to adjust a relative position between the seat and the base along a longitudinal direction of the seat; wherein: the seat includes a rotating disk (54, 72) arranged on a side of the seat facing the base, the rotating disk being rotatable with respect to the base via a vertical pivoting shaft (88); and the seat adjustment structure is connected to the rotating disk and slidably engaged with the rotating disk along the longitudinal direction (see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 2, note the rotating disk is positioned below the seat adjustment structure and above the base, the vertical pivoting shaft extending through the rotating disk and the base, as shown in Figure 2.
Regarding claim 3, note the seat adjustment structure includes a seat support (73) extending arcuately from a bottom to a backrest of the seat, the seat support being slidably coupled to the rotating disk.
Regarding claim 5, note the rotating disk is configured to rotate relative to the base, enabling the seat to face forward or rearward, as discussed in the abstract.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (US7073859).
Note a child safety seat comprising: a seat (10); a base (20) configured to fix the child safety seat to a vehicle; and a seat adjustment structure (32) disposed between the seat and the base, the seat adjustment structure configured to adjust a relative position between the seat and the base along a longitudinal direction of the seat; wherein: the seat includes a rotating disk (22, 28) arranged on a side of the seat facing the base, the rotating disk being rotatable with respect to the base via a vertical pivoting shaft (40); and the seat adjustment structure is connected to the rotating disk and slidably engaged with the rotating disk along the longitudinal direction (see Figures 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 3, note the seat adjustment structure includes a seat support (32) extending arcuately from a bottom to a backrest of the seat, the seat support being slidably coupled to the rotating disk.
Regarding claim 6, note the rotating disk includes an arc-shaped surface (28) extending between (see Figures 6 to 7) a bottom portion and a backrest portion of the seat, the arc-shaped surface comprising a substantially horizontal section (at the front end of 28, at the “T” shape, as shown in Figure 4) and a substantially vertical section (at the front end of 28, at the “T” shape, as shown in Figure 4).
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 1 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,850,976. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation in the instant claims is presented in the patented claim.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,850,976. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation in the instant claims is presented in the patented claim.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,850,976 in view of Young (US4936629).
Claim 12 of the patent shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of the rotating disk being configured to rotate relative to the base to enable the seat to face forward or rearward.
Young conventionally teaches configuring a child safety seat with a rotating disk that is configured to rotate relative to a base to enable the seat to face forward or rearward. Note as discussed in the rejection based on Young under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the primary reference in view of the teachings of Young by configuring the rotating disk to rotate relative to the base, thereby enabling the seat to face forward or rearward. This modification conventionally enhances selective use of the seat in different orientations for child safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9-16 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.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not show singly or by obvious modification, a child safety seat wherein the seat support comprises two parallel tubular members fixed to the seat and configured to slide along the rotating disk, in combination with all specifically claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 9-16, the prior art of record does not show singly or by obvious modification, a child safety seat including a pair of engaging pins movable laterally to engage or disengage with engaging holes formed in the engaging members, in combination with all specifically claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 17-20, the prior art of record does not show singly or by obvious modification, a seat adjustment structure for a child safety seat including a rotating disk, and a locking assembly fixed to the seat and configured to engage or disengage with the engaging members; and a crossbar slidably passing through sliding slots formed in the engaging members to guide longitudinal movement of the seat relative to the base, in combination with all specifically claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON NELSON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30am-1:30pm.
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.
mn /MILTON NELSON JR/August 7, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights