DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action in response to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 4/9/2025. Claims 1-20 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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 4/9/2025 are acceptable for examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract recites, “The present invention discloses”. This objection can be overcome by deleting “The present invention discloses” and beginning the abstract with, “A child restraint system…”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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: “reclining actuator” in claims 7 and 14.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,440,446 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are drawn to substantially the same invention, including a child restraint system comprising a main body, a reclining foot, and an adjustable foot that changes positions to support the seat in forward-facing and rearward-facing directions, with minor differences in wording or phraseology, and thus the claims of the reference patent encompass the scope of, or render obvious the claims of the instant application. The claims of the instant application correspond to the claims of the refence patent as follows:
Claims of the instant application
Claims of US 11,440,446 (‘reference patent’)
1
1+3
2
1+3
3
1+3
4
1+3+4
5
1+3
6
1+3+4+6
7
1+3+9
8
1+3+9+10
9
1+3+4+6
10
1+3+4+6+13
11
1+3+4+6+13
12
1+3+4+6+13+14
13
1+3+4+6+13
14
1+3+4+6+8
15
1+3+4+6+9
16
1+3+4+6+9+10
17
1+3+4+6+9+11
18
1+3+4+6+15
19
1+12
20
1+4+6+12
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,848 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are drawn to substantially the same invention, including a child restraint system comprising a main body, a reclining foot, and an adjustable foot that changes positions to support the seat in forward-facing and rearward-facing directions, with minor differences in wording or phraseology, and thus the claims of the reference patent encompass the scope of, or render obvious the claims of the instant application. The claims correspond as follows:
Claims of the instant application
Claims of US 11,938,848 (‘reference patent’)
1
1+2
2
1+2
3
1+2
4
1+2+3
5
1+2+3+9
6
1+2+3+9
7
1+2+15
8
1+2+15+16
9
1+2
10
1+2+20
11
1+2+20
12
1+2+20
13
1+2
14
1+2+14
15
1+2+15
16
1+2+15+16
17
1+2+15+17
18
1+2+18
19
1+3+9
20
1+3+4+9
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-34 of U.S. Patent No. 12,286,040 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are drawn to substantially the same invention, including a child restraint system comprising a main body, a reclining foot, and an adjustable foot that changes positions to support the seat in forward-facing and rearward-facing directions, with minor differences in wording or phraseology, and thus the claims of the reference patent encompass the scope of, or render obvious the claims of the instant application. The claims correspond with one another as follows:
Claims of the instant application
Claims of US 12,286,040 (‘reference patent’)
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
18+20
5
18+20+26
6
18+20+26
7
1+13 or 18
8
1+13+14 or 18
9
1
10
1 or 18+19
11
1 or 18+19
12
1
13
1 or 18
14
1+12 or 18+31
15
1+13 or 18
16
1+13+14 or 18
17
1+15 or 18+32
18
1+16 or 18+33
19
1+7 or 18+20
20
1+2+7+10 or 18+26+30
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) 1-11, 13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takizawa (US 4743064).
Claim 1, Takizawa provides a child restraint system configured to be installed on a vehicle seat including a horizontal surface and a vertical surface (the claim does not positively recite the vehicle seat and thus does not require the vehicle seat including the horizontal surface and the vertical surface, but Takizawa nonetheless teaches a vehicle seat 5 comprising a horizontal surface on a seat 6 and a vertical surface on a back 7), the child restraint system comprising:
a main body (main body of 1);
a reclining foot 11 pivotably coupled to the main body (col. 2, lines 30-35);
an adjusting foot 140 pivotably coupled to the main body or the reclining foot (pivotably coupled to the main body; col. 3, lines 5-10), the adjusting foot being pivotable relative to both the main body and the reclining foot between a forward position and a rearward position (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the adjusting foot 140 is suitable to be pivoted relative to the main body of 1 and the reclining foot 11 between a forward position and a rearward position, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 7), wherein the adjusting foot is movable relative to the main body independently from movement of the reclining foot relative to the main body (the adjusting foot 140 is separate from and independent from the reclining foot 11 and thus is movable relative to the main body independently from movement of the reclining foot relative to the main body; col. 3, lines 5-10; Fig. 7); and
wherein the reclining foot and the adjusting foot are both extendable from the main body to contact the horizontal surface of the vehicle seat (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the reclining foot 11 and the adjusting foot 140 are both suitable to be extended from the main body 1 to contact the horizontal surface of the vehicle seat when the child restraint system is placed on the vehicle seat, as shown in Fig. 7, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 2, lines 30-35; col. 3, lines 5-10).
Claim 2, Takizawa further provides wherein the main body includes a seat portion (Fig. 3).
Claim 3, Takizawa further provides wherein the main body includes a backrest portion (Fig. 3).
Claim 4, Takizawa further provides wherein the child restraint system is installable on the vehicle seat in a forward facing position such that both the reclining foot and the adjusting foot are postitionable in contact with the vehicle seat (similar to claim 1 as above, the vehicle seat is not positively recited and thus not required, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the child restraint system is suitable to be installed on the vehicle seat in a forward facing position such that both the reclining foot and the adjusting foot are suitable to be positioned in contact with the vehicle seat, as the claim does not define any structural requirements of an installation, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 7).
Claim 5, Takizawa further provides wherein the child restraint system is installable on the vehicle seat in a rearward facing position such that the adjusting foot is postitionable in contact with the vehicle seat (similar to claim 1 as above, the vehicle seat is not positively recited and thus not required, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the child restraint system is suitable to be installed on the vehicle seat in a rearward facing position such that the adjusting foot is suitable to be positioned in contact with the vehicle seat, as the claim does not define any structural requirements of an installation, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 7).
Claim 6, Takizawa further provides wherein the adjusting foot is positionable in contact with the horizontal surface of the vehicle seat when the child restraint system is in the forward facing position and the adjusting foot is positionable in contact with the horizontal surface of the vehicle seat when the child restraint system is in the rearward facing position relative to the vehicle seat (similar to claim 1 as above, the vehicle seat is not positively recited and thus not required, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the adjusting foot is suitable to be positioned in contact with the horizontal surface of the vehicle seat when the child restraint system is in the forward facing position as shown in Fig. 7 and the adjusting foot is suitable to be positioned in contact with the horizontal surface of the vehicle seat when the child restraint system is in the rearward facing position relative to the vehicle seat as shown in Figs. 3 and 7, as exceedingly broadly claimed).
Claim 7, Takizawa further provides wherein the main body further comprises a reclining actuator for allowing or restraining pivotal movement of the reclining foot relative to the main body (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of applicant’s disclosed actuator as described in applicant’s specification as element 117, and as claimed, Takizawa’s element 13 constitutes an actuator as the element is suitable to permit or prevent pivotal movement of the reclining foot relative to the main body, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 2, lines 40-67).
Claim 8, Takizawa further provides wherein at least one first locking portion 17 is formed on the reclining actuator (Fig. 5) and a plurality of second locking portions (a, b, c; Fig. 5) are formed on the reclining foot (Fig. 5), the reclining actuator restrains the pivotal movement of the reclining foot relative to the main body when the at least one first locking portion engages with a corresponding one of the plurality of second locking portions (col. 2, lines 50-67), and the reclining actuator allows the pivotal movement of the reclining foot relative to the main body when the at least one first locking portion disengages from the corresponding one of the plurality of second locking portions (col. 2, lines 50-67).
Claim 9, Takizawa provides a child restraint system configured to be installed on a vehicle seat including a horizontal surface and a vertical surface (the claim does not positively recite the vehicle seat and thus does not require the vehicle seat including the horizontal surface and the vertical surface, but Takizawa nonetheless teaches a vehicle seat 5 comprising a horizontal surface on a seat 6 and a vertical surface on a back 7), the child restraint system comprising:
a main body (main body of 1) comprising a seat portion (Fig. 3) and a backrest portion (Fig. 3);
a reclining foot 11 pivotably coupled to the main body (col. 2, lines 30-35);
an adjusting foot 140 movably coupled to the child restraint system (col. 3, lines 5-10), the adjusting foot being pivotable relative to both the main body and the reclining foot between a forward position and a rearward position (it is understood that the adjusting foot is suitable to be pivoted relative to both the main body and the reclining foot between a forward position and a rearward position; Figs. 3-7), wherein the adjusting foot is movable relative to the main body independently from movement of the reclining foot relative to the main body (the adjusting foot 140 is separate from and independent from the reclining foot 11 and thus is movable relative to the main body independently from movement of the reclining foot relative to the main body; col. 3, lines 5-10; Fig. 7); and
wherein the reclining foot and the adjusting foot are both extendable from the main body to contact the horizontal surface of the vehicle seat (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the reclining foot and the adjusting foot are both suitable to be extended from the main body to contact the horizontal surface of the vehicle seat; Fig. 7) and the adjusting foot is positionable in contact with the horizontal surface of the vehicle seat when the child restraint system is in a forward-facing position (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the adjusting foot is suitable to be positioned in contact with the horizontal surface of the vehicle seat when the child restraint system is in a forward-facing position; Fig. 7) and the adjusting foot is positionable in contact with the horizontal surface of the vehicle seat when the child restraint system is in a rearward facing position relative to the vehicle seat (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the adjusting foot is suitable to be positioned in contact with the horizontal surface of the vehicle seat when the child restraint system is in a rearward facing position relative to the vehicle seat; Fig. 7).
Claim 10, Takizawa further provides wherein the adjusting foot is movably coupled to the main body (col. 3, lines 1-10; Fig. 7).
Claim 11, Takizawa further provides wherein the adjusting foot is pivotably coupled to the main body (col. 3, lines 1-10; Fig. 7).
Claim 13, Takizawa further provides wherein the adjusting foot is pivotably coupled to the main body or the reclining foot (main body; Fig. 7).
Claim 19, Takizawa provides a child restraint system configured to be installed on a vehicle seat including a horizontal surface and a vertical surface (the claim does not positively recite the vehicle seat and thus does not require the vehicle seat including the horizontal surface and the vertical surface, but Takizawa nonetheless teaches a vehicle seat 5 comprising a horizontal surface on a seat 6 and a vertical surface on a back 7), the child restraint system comprising:
a main body (main body of 1) comprising a seat portion (Fig. 3) and a backrest portion (Fig. 3);
a first supporting portion 11 arranged near a front end of the main body (Figs. 3 and 7);
a second supporting portion (portion of the main body engaging the surface on which the main body is resting; Fig. 7) arranged at the main body proximate a connection between the seat portion and the backrest portion (Fig. 7); and
an adjusting foot 18 movably coupled to the child restraint system, the adjusting foot being pivotable relative to the main body (col. 3, lines 1-10; Fig. 7), wherein the adjusting foot includes a third supporting portion (Fig. 7), the third supporting portion being, wherein the third supporting portion abuts against the vehicle seat to support the main body in both a forward facing position and a rearward facing position (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, when the seat is placed on the surface shown in Fig. 7, which may constitute a forward facing position and a rearward facing position, as exceedingly broadly claimed, third supporting portion abuts against the vehicle seat to support the main body, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 7).
Claim 20, Takizawa further provides wherein an inclined angle of the main body is adjustable by pivotal movement of the adjusting foot (see positions shown in Figs. 6 and 7).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US 4743064) in view of Goldberg (US 2629109).
Claim 12, Takizawa teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as above. Takizawa does not teach the adjusting foot being slidably coupled to the main body. However, Goldberg teaches a child restraint system comprising an adjusting foot (10, 17, 18, collectively) that is pivotable relative to a main body and is also slidably coupled to the main body (col. 2. lines 24-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the adjusting foot to be slidably coupled to the main body, with the reasonable expectation of success of further permitting additional adjustment of the child restraint system.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US 4743064) in view of Lumley (US 5722720).
Claim 12, Takizawa teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as above. Takizawa does not teach the adjusting foot being slidably coupled to the main body. However, Lumley teaches a child restraint system comprising an adjusting foot 20 that is pivotable relative to a main body and is also slidably coupled to the main body (col. 3, lines 55-65; claim 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the adjusting foot to be slidably coupled to the main body, with the reasonable expectation of success of further permitting additional adjustment of the child restraint system.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US 4743064).
Claim 14, Takizawa teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as above and further teaches the reclining foot comprising at least one second stopping portion (a, b or c) to stop the adjusting foot at the rearward position (col. 2, lines 50-67; Fig. 5). Although Takizawa does not explicitly show the details of the adjusting foot comprising at least one stopping portion, it would have been obvious to form the child restraint system such that the reclining foot 11 and the adjusting foot 18 each couple to the main body in the same manner. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to form the adjusting foot similar to the reclining foot such that the adjusting foot comprises at least one first stopping portion to stop the adjusting foot at the forward position, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to permit the adjusting foot to be collapsed or deployed, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis. See also In re Harza, 274 F2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US 4743064) in view of Zhao (EP 2883745).
Claim 15, Takizawa teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as above. Takizawa does not teach wherein the main body further comprises a reclining actuator pivotally disposed on the seat portion, pivotal movement of the reclining foot relative to the main body being allowed or restrained via the reclining actuator. However, Zhao teaches a child restraint system, wherein a main body comprises a reclining actuator 230 pivotally disposed on a seat portion (Figs. 1-2), pivotal movement of a reclining foot relative to the main body being allowed or restrained via the reclining actuator ([0022]; Fig. 2). 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 restraint system such that the main body further comprises a reclining actuator pivotally disposed on the seat portion, pivotal movement of the reclining foot relative to the main body being allowed or restrained via the reclining actuator, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to make it easier for a user to actuate the reclining foot.
Claim 18, Takizawa teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as above. Takizawa does not teach at least one reinforcing component as claimed. However, Zhao teaches a child restraint system comprising a main body, comprising at least one reinforcing component disposed along a backrest portion vertically (annotated Fig. 1 of Zhao shown below in Examiner’s Notes), the at least one reinforcing component comprises a first flange (annotated Fig. 1 of Zhao), a second flange (annotated Fig. 1 of Zhao), a web (annotated Fig. 1 of Zhao) and a plurality of ribs (inside the first and second flanges), the first flange is disposed on the backrest portion (annotated Fig. 1), the second flange is substantially disposed parallel to the first flange (annotated Fig. 1), the web is connected to the first flange and the second flange (annotated Fig. 1), the first flange, the web and the second flange form a C-shaped structure cooperatively (annotated Fig. 1), the C-shaped structure comprises a chamber (inside portion of first and second flanges of the C-shaped structure; annotated Fig. 1) and a lateral opening (opening between backrest and first and second flanges; annotated Fig. 1), and the plurality of ribs are disposed inside the chamber and connected to the first flange, the second flange and the web (the plurality of ribs are integrally formed in the chamber in the first and second flanges and thus connected to the first flange, the second flange and the web; annotated Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the main body of the child restraint system by including at least one reinforcing component disposed along the backrest portion vertically, the at least one reinforcing component comprises a first flange, a second flange, a web and a plurality of ribs, the first flange is disposed on the backrest portion, the second flange is substantially disposed parallel to the first flange, the web is connected to the first flange and the second flange, the first flange, the web and the second flange form a C-shaped structure cooperatively, the C-shaped structure comprises a chamber and a lateral opening, and the plurality of ribs are disposed inside the chamber and connected to the first flange, the second flange and the web, with the reasonable expectation of success of further increasing impact protection and further preventing structural collapse of the child restraint system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, specifically Takizawa (US 4743064), Goldberg (US 2629109), Lumley (US 5722720) and Zhao (EP 2883745) does not teach or disclose, alone or in combination all the elements and features of the claimed invention, including, inter alia wherein at least one first locking portion is formed on the reclining actuator and a plurality of second locking portions are formed on the reclining foot, the at least one first locking portion being engageable with a corresponding one of the plurality of second locking portions to restrain the pivotal movement of the reclining foot relative to the main body, wherein the reclining foot is pivotal relative to the main body when the at least one first locking portion is positioned out of engagement with the corresponding one of the plurality of second locking portions, as recited in claim 16; and wherein the reclining actuator is biasable to restrain the pivotal movement of the reclining foot relative to the main body via a resilient component abutting against the reclining actuator, as recited in claim 17. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify or combine any of the cited prior art references of record to arrive at the claimed invention.
Examiner Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
384
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Zhao (EP 2883745)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. See specifically von Wimmersperg (US 4113306), Barley (EP 0485121 A1), Goldberg (US 2629109) and Kaiser (US 20190193604), which teach child restraint systems comprising two independently adjustable feet.
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