DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 19/129,818 filed 5/14/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The use of the term LATCH, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 4 and 19 contain the trademark/trade name LATCH. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a lower anchor and tether for children system in cars with built in metal anchors in the seat bight and a top tether anchor for forward facing seats and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 12-15, 23-25, 31-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doolan, III (US 2013/0082498 A1)(hereinafter Doolan).
RE Claim 1: Doolan discloses a child seat (1) mountable to a transportation device, the child seat comprising:
a seat body (101) including a seat shell having a child seat pan and a child seat back (body 101 with pan near 113 as seen in Fig 7A),
said seat body being securable to the transportation device (secures to vehicle seat 60)(abstract, also para 0050); and
at least one light mounted about said seat body (111, 113).
RE Claim 2: Doolan discloses the child seat of claim 1,
wherein said at least one light (111, 113) is positioned such that said at least one light is operable to illuminate an interface between the child seat and the transportation device (para 0082).
RE Claim 3: Doolan discloses the child seat of claim 2,
wherein the transportation device is an automobile including a vehicle seat (60)(para 0050).
RE Claim 4 (as best understood): Doolan discloses the child seat of claim 3,
wherein said seat body further comprises a connector of a LATCH system (105, 107; para 0065) and said at least one light is operable to illuminate said connector (para 0065).
RE Claim 5: Doolan discloses the child seat of claim 3,
wherein said seat body further comprises a vehicle belt path for a vehicle belt associated with the vehicle seat (Fig 7a), and
wherein said at least one light (111, 113) is operable to illuminate a portion of said vehicle belt path (para 0093).
RE Claim 8: Doolan discloses the child seat of claim 2,
wherein said child seat is connectable to the transportation device via a seat receiving member (2/102) and said at least one light (111, 113) is positioned about said child seat such that said at least one light (111, 113) is operable to illuminate an interface between said child seat and said seat receiving member (Fig 7A).
RE Claim 12: Doolan discloses the child seat of claim 8,
wherein said seat receiving member is a support base (2/102) and the transportation device is an automobile including a vehicle seat (60)(para 0050).
RE Claim 13: Doolan discloses the child seat of claim 1,
wherein said child seat is connectable to the transportation device via a seat receiving member (2/102), and
wherein said at least one light (111, 113) is positioned about said child seat to illuminate an interface between said seat receiving member and the transportation device (Fig 7A).
RE Claim 14: Doolan discloses the child seat of claim 13,
wherein said at least one light (111, 113) is oriented to emit light towards said seat receiving member (Fig 7A).
RE Claim 15: Doolan discloses the child seat of claim 1,
wherein said at least one light (111, 113) is oriented to emit light towards a portion of the transportation device (Fig 7A)(interior portion).
RE Claim 23: Doolan discloses a seat receiving member for mounting a child seat to a transportation device, the seat receiving member comprising:
a body (2/102) for receiving the child seat thereon (Fig 7A(,
wherein said body forms an interface between the child seat and the transportation device (with seat 60 of vehicle 62; see Fig 2; also see para 0050); and
at least one light (111, 113) associated with said body.
RE Claim 24: Doolan discloses the seat receiving member of claim 23,
wherein said body secures the child seat to the transportation device (2/102 secured to 60 of 62 via latch system).
RE Claim 25: Doolan discloses the seat receiving member of claim 24,
wherein the transportation device is one of a vehicle (62 per para 0050) and a stroller.
RE Claim 31: Doolan discloses the seat receiving member of claim 23,
wherein said at least one light (111, 113) is oriented toward the child seat (Fig 7A).
RE Claim 32: Doolan discloses the seat receiving member of claim 31,
wherein said at least one light (111, 113) is associated with said body to illuminate an interface between said the receiving member and the child seat (Fig 7A).
RE Claim 33: The seat receiving member of claim 23,
wherein the seat receiving member is a child seat underlay (Fig 2, 7A).
Claims 18-19 and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patterson et al. (US 7,224,270 B2)(hereinafter Patterson).
RE Claim 18: Patterson discloses a child seat (10) mountable to a transportation device (abstract), the child seat comprising:
a seat body including a seat shell (46; Fig 3); and
at least one light mounted about said seat body (col 12, ln 25-35), said at least one light being activatable in response to an input to said seat body (col 12, ln 25-35).
RE Claim 19: Patterson discloses the child seat of claim 18,
wherein said seat body further comprises a connector of a LATCH system and said at least one light is activatable in response to movement of said connector (col 12, ln 25-35).
RE Claim 21: Patterson discloses the child seat of claim 18,
wherein said seat body further comprises a release mechanism having an actuator (col 7, ln 60 – col 8, ln 2; col 8, ln 20-25),
said at least one light being activatable in response to application of a force to said actuator (col 7, ln 60 – col 8, ln 2; col 8, ln 20-25).
RE Claim 22: Patterson discloses the child seat of claim 18,
wherein said child seat is an infant child seat (Fig 3; col 5, ln 1-5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doolan as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Nagelski et al. (US 2009/0295128 A1)(hereinafter Nagelski).
RE Claim 9: Doolan discloses the child seat of claim 8, and further discloses connection to a transportation device as previously discussed.
Doolan does not explicitly teach wherein the transportation device is a stroller, and said seat receiving member is a support member of said stroller.
However, Nagelski teaches a child seat connectable to a transportation device (analogous art) and further teaches wherein the transportation device is a stroller (Fig 1)(para 0047 describes connection to both vehicle and stroller), and said seat receiving member is a support member of said stroller (para 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Doolan in view of Nagelski such that the transportation device is a stroller, and said seat receiving member is a support member of said stroller as taught by Nagelski for the advantages of versatility and convenience.
RE Claim 10: Doolan discloses the child seat of claim 8.
Doolan does not explicitly teach wherein said seat body further comprises a carrying handle movably mounted to said seat shell, said at least one light being positioned adjacent to said carrying handle.
However, Nagelski teaches a child seat connectable to a transportation device (analogous art) and further teaches wherein said seat body further comprises a carrying handle (134) movably mounted to said seat shell (para 0053), said at least one light being positioned adjacent to said carrying handle (on the left/right sides of the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Doolan in view of Nagelski such that said seat body further comprises a carrying handle movably mounted to said seat shell, said at least one light being positioned adjacent to said carrying handle as taught by Nagelski for the advantages of versatility and convenience.
RE Claim 26: Doolan discloses the seat receiving member of claim 25.
Doolan does not explicitly teach wherein the transportation device is a stroller and the seat receiving member is a support base, said support base being positionable on a vehicle seat.
However, Nagelski teaches a child seat connectable to a transportation device (analogous art) and further teaches wherein the transportation device is a stroller and the seat receiving member is a support base (Figs 1) (para 0047), said support base being positionable on a vehicle seat (para 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Doolan in view of Nagelski such that wherein the transportation device is a stroller and the seat receiving member is a support base, said support base being positionable on a vehicle seat as taught by Nagelski for the advantages of versatility and convenience.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Tiesler et al. (US 6,793,385 B2)(hereinafter Tiesler).
RE Claim 20: Patterson discloses the child seat of claim 18,
wherein said seat body further comprises a carrying handle (Fig 3) movably mounted to said seat shell (via hinge joint seen in Fig 3).
Patterson does not explicitly teach said at least one light being activatable in response to movement of said carrying handle.
However, Tiesler teaches a child seat with a handle (analogous art) and further teaches said at least one light (22) being activatable in response to movement of said carrying handle (col 3, ln 10-15)(movement of push button 24 on handle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Patterson in view of Tiesler such that said at least one light being activatable in response to movement of said carrying handle as taught by Tiesler for the advantages of lighting control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various child seats mountable to other devices with seat bodies and illumination features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights