DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 4/4/2025. Claims 1-17 are pending and are under consideration.
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 IDS filed on 4/4/2025 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 4/4/2025 are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
"tilted an angle" ([0009]; [0051]; [0056]; [0060]; [0061] as filed) is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo. Does applicant intend to recite, "tilted at an angle"? Appropriate correction is required.
"I06", "I08", "I08A" ([0034] as filed) are objected to because the reference characters appear to contain a typo. Does applicant intend to recite, "106", "108" and "108A", respectively? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “extension locking mechanism” in claims 1 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, “a pin guided for sliding” is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo. The term “guided” implies an action. Does applicant intend to recite, “a pin Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,447,047 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent and the claims of the instant application are drawn to substantially the same subject matter, with the claims of the reference patent being narrower than the claims of the instant application, with minor differences in wording or phraseology. Thus, the claims of the reference application anticipate or render obvious the claims of the instant application. The claims of the instant application correspond to the claims of the reference patent as follows:
Claims of the instant application
Claims of US 11,447,047 (‘reference patent’)
1
1+5
2
1+5+8
3
1+5
4
1+5
5
1+5
6
1+5
7
1+5
8
8+11+15+16
9
8+11+15+16
10
8+11+12+15+16
11
8+11+12+15+16
12
8+11+12+15+16
13
8+11+12+15+16
14
8+11+15+16
15
8+11+15+16
16
8+11+15+16
17
8+11+13+15+16
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,840,164 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent and the claims of the instant application are drawn to substantially the same subject matter, with the claims of the reference patent being narrower than the claims of the instant application, with minor differences in wording or phraseology. Thus, the claims of the reference application anticipate or render obvious the claims of the instant application. The claims of the instant application correspond to the claims of the reference patent as follows:
Claims of the instant application
Claims of US 11,840,164 (‘reference patent’)
1
1+13
2
1+13
3
1+13
4
1+13
5
1+13
6
1+13
7
1+13
8
13+14+15
9
1+13+14+15
10
1+13+14+15
11
1+13+14+15
12
1+13+14+15
13
1+13+14+15
14
13+14+15+17
15
1+4+8+11+15+16
16
1+4+8+11+15+16
17
1+2+4+8+11+15+16
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,286,041 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent and the claims of the instant application are drawn to substantially the same subject matter, with the claims of the reference patent being narrower than the claims of the instant application, with minor differences in wording or phraseology. Thus, the claims of the reference application anticipate or render obvious the claims of the instant application. The claims of the instant application correspond to the claims of the reference patent as follows:
Claims of the instant application
Claims of US 12,286,041 (‘reference patent’)
1
1+8
2
1+8
3
1+8
4
1+8
5
1+8
6
1+8
7
1+8
8
1+3+4
9
1+3+4
10
1+3+4
11
1+3+4
12
1+3+4
13
1+3+4
14
1+3+4
15
1+3+4
16
1+3+4
17
1+2+3+4
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) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams (US 20180126877).
Claim 1, Williams provides a child safety seat comprising:
a seat shell 106 for receiving a child [0017], the seat shell having a backrest 108, a front end opposite to the backrest (front end 110; it is understood that the front end is opposite to the backrest; Fig. 1), and a seat portion (seat portion of 106; Fig. 1) extending between the backrest and the front end (it is understood that the seat portion extends between the backrest and the front end; Fig. 1);
an extension member (122; Fig. 6) disposed adjacent to the front end of the seat shell (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the extension member is attached to the front end of the seat shell and thus is disposed adjacent to the front end of the seat shell, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-6) and slidably connected with the seat shell ([0021]; Fig. 6), the extension member being movable relative to the seat shell to increase or reduce a distance between a forward end of the extension member and the front end of the seat shell ([0021]; Fig. 6);
an extension locking mechanism (142 and/or 146; [0025]; Fig. 6) operable to lock the extension member with respect to the seat shell ([0025]; Fig. 6); and
an anti-rebound part 124 carried by the extension member or the seat shell (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the anti-rebound part could be considered to be carried by one or both of the extension member and the seat shell, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 6), the anti-rebound part having two side portions (two side portions of 124; Fig. 6) and a transversal portion extending between and connecting the two side portions (traversal portion between the two side portions of 124; Fig. 6), wherein a concavity is formed proximate an interface between the two side portions and the transversal portion (“concavity” in annotated Figs. 4-6 of Williams shown below in Examiner’s Notes), the anti-rebound part being arrangeable in a first configuration in which the concavity faces a back of the seat shell (“first configuration” in annotated Fig. 4 of Williams) and a second configuration in which the concavity faces a front of the seat shell (“second configuration” in annotated Fig. 4 of Williams).
Claim 2, Williams further provides wherein the anti-rebound part is carried by the extension member (Fig. 6).
Claim 3, Williams further provides wherein the anti-rebound part is positionable in the first configuration when the seat shell is upright (annotated Fig. 4).
Claim 5, Williams further provides wherein the anti-rebound part is positionable in the second configuration when the seat shell is reclined (it is understood that the anti-rebound part is suitable to be positioned in the second configuration as shown in Fig. 5 when the seat shell is reclined; “allow recline adjustment of the seat shell 106” [0017]; annotated Fig. 5).
Claim 6, Williams further provides wherein when the seat shell is mounted in a rearward facing position about a vehicle seat, the anti-rebound part in the second configuration, is arranged at an angle to a seatback of the vehicle seat (under the basic properties of geometry, the anti-rebound part is nonetheless arranged at an angle relative to seatback 204 of vehicle seat 202, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 4).
Claim 7, Williams further provides wherein the anti-rebound part is removably connectable to the extension member or the seat shell in the first configuration and the second configuration (it is understood that the anti-rebound part is removably connectable to the seat shell in the first configuration and the second configuration because element 122 may be slid out from element 116, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 20180126877).
Claim 4, Williams further teaches wherein when the seat shell is mounted in a rearward facing position about a vehicle seat, the anti-rebound part in the first configuration, is generally parallel to a slope of a seatback of the vehicle seat (annotated Fig. 4). Williams teaches the anti-rebound part being intended to abut against a seatback 204 of a vehicle seat 202 ([0018]; Fig. 4), but Williams does not explicitly recite the slope being exactly parallel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the angle of the anti-rebound part to be parallel to a slope of a seatback of the vehicle seat, with the reasonable expectation of using known means to prevent rebound of the child safety seat when a car collision occurs (Williams [0018]), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim(s) 8-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 20180126877) in view of Peterson (US 10464450).
Claim 8, Williams teaches a child safety seat comprising:
a seat shell 106 for receiving a child (Fig. 1), the seat shell having a backrest 108, a front end 110 opposite to the backrest (Fig. 1), and a seat portion extending between the backrest and the front end (Fig. 1);
an extension member (122; Fig. 6) disposed adjacent to the front end of the seat shell and slidably connected with the seat shell (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the extension member is attached to the front end of the seat shell in a slidable manner via 116 and thus is disposed adjacent to the front end of the seat shell and slidably connected with the seat shell, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-6), the extension member being translatable relative to the seat shell to increase or reduce a distance between a forward end of the extension member and the front end of the seat shell ([0021]; [0024]; Fig.6);
an extension locking mechanism (142 and/or 146; [0025]; Fig. 6) operable to lock the extension member with respect to the seat shell ([0025]; Fig. 6); and
an anti-rebound part 124 carried by the extension member (Fig. 6) and being movable with the extension member relative to the seat shell ([0024]-[0025]; Fig. 6).
Williams does not teach the anti-rebound part being translatable and rotatable relative to the extension member.
However, Peterson teaches a child safety seat, comprising an anti-rebound part 120 being translatable and rotatable relative to an extension member (120 is suitable to translate via extendable arm 108 and rotate via hinge 118 relative to an extension member 106; Figs. 1-4B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the child safety seat such that the anti-rebound part is translatable and rotatable relative to the extension member, with the reasonable expectation of success of increasing user comfort and/or increasing stowability (col. 4, lines 25-43), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Claim 9, Williams further teaches wherein the anti-rebound part is rotatable between a first angular position (Fig. 5) and a second angular position (Fig. 4) and in the second angular position, the anti-rebound part extends at an angle above the extension member (Fig. 4).
Claim 10, Williams further teaches wherein in the second angular position, a distal end of the anti-rebound part is forward of the extension member (Fig. 4).
Claim 11, Williams further teaches wherein in the first angular position, the anti- rebound part extends parallel to the extension member (“may stretch substantially parallel to the adjustable part 122”; [0023]).
Claim 12, Williams further teaches wherein in the first angular position, the anti- rebound part extends at a non-parallel angle relative the extension member (Fig. 5).
Claim 13, Williams further teaches wherein in the first angular position, a distal end of the anti-rebound part is positionable adjacent to a front of the extension member or spaced forward from the extension member (it is understood that in the first angular position as shown in Fig. 5 or in a parallel arrangement to the extendable member [0023], a distal end of the anti-rebound part is suitable to be positioned adjacent to a front of the extension member or spaced forward from the extension member Fig. 5).
Claim 14, Williams and Peterson teach all the limitations of claim 9 as above. Peterson further teaches the anti-rebound part being translated only in a first angular position such that the anti-rebound part and the second support arm 108 are either parallel or angled downwardly relative to the extension member 106. Peterson specifically teaches the hinge allowing element 108 to hang downward (Peterson [0029]). Peterson does not show the anti-rebound part being translated relative to the extension member when the anti-rebound part is in a second position above parallel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, to kinematically restrict translation only in the first angular position by limiting the movement of hinge 118, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to prevent the child safety seat from lifting or bouncing upward during a collision while facilitating easy user operation and positioning.
Claim 15, Williams further teaches wherein the extension member includes a guide track (hole in 126 at the pivot axis 130; Figs. 7-8), and the anti-rebound part includes a pin guided for sliding along the guide track (pin selected from among the pins shown in Fig. 8, such as pin 152 is nonetheless permitted to slide in the hole in 126, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 7-8).
Claim 17, as modified above, the combination of Williams and Peterson teaches all the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches wherein the anti-rebound part is connected with the extension member via a linkage including two bars (Peterson linkage including two bars 108), each of the two bars being respectively connected pivotally with the extension member and the anti-rebound part (Peterson each of the two bars 108 are respectively connected pivotally with the extension member 106 and the anti-rebound part 120 via hinges 118; Figs. 1-4B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if the double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action are overcome, and if rewritten 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:, the prior art of record, specifically Williams (US 20180126877) and Peterson (US 10464450) do not teach or disclose, alone or in combination all the elements and features of the claimed invention as a whole, including all the collective limitations of claims 8+15+16, including inter alia the guide track including a first track portion connected with a second track portion, the first track portion having a straight shape and the second track portion having an arcuate shape, a sliding movement of the pin along the first track portion corresponding to a sliding displacement of the anti-rebound part between a first angular position and an intermediate position, and a sliding movement of the pin along the second track portion corresponding to a rotation of the anti-rebound part between the intermediate position and a second angular position, as recited in claim 16. It would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill to combine or modify any of the cited prior art references of record to arrive at the claimed invention.
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
566
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Williams (US 20180126877)
PNG
media_image2.png
518
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
524
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 4 and 5, respectively of Williams (US 20180126877)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights