Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 19/203,978

QUICK-ACTING BELT TENSIONER FOR A CHILD SAFETY SEAT

Non-Final OA §102§112§DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
May 09, 2025
Priority
Mar 18, 2022 — provisional 63/321,382 +1 more
Examiner
BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Artsana Usa Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
996 granted / 1242 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1278
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.7%
+1.7% vs TC avg
§102
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§112
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1242 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112 §DOUBLEPATENT
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 . 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 6 and 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-10, 13-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,311,808. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose a tensioning member with a hook-like belt engagement structure having a belt path and an opening that has a lever connected to the tensioning member along with a position limiter and a latching mechanism. 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 18-19 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 18, the phrases “the blocking” and “the seat shell” lacks antecedent basis. 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) 1-5, 12-13 and 15-19 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang (9,854,878). Tang shows a tensioning mechanism (1) disposed on a child safety seat (18) for a safety belt (12) comprising: a tensioning member (6) rotatable about an axis (D); a belt engagement structure (2,7,11) on the tensioning member structure having a belt path and an opening (Fig. 2a); and a lever (8) operably connected to the tensioning member and configured to rotate the tensioning member about the axis between tensioned and detensioned positions, and to bi-directionally slide along the axis between generally opposing open (Fig. 1a) and closed positions (Fig. 1b), wherein the lever blocks the opening (via the spaced side members or sleeves (9) and as shown in Figs. 3 and 6) when in the closed position and permits the safety belt to be moved into the belt path via the opening when in the open position (Fig, 1a). Regarding claim 2, and 15-16, Tang further shows the use of a sleeve (5) engaged on the tensioning member and configured to limit movement in relation to the tensioning member to sliding (via the holes in the side members (10) and slots (4)) bi-directionally along the axis. Regarding claims 3, and 17-19, Tang shows the use of a position limiter (4) that inhibits rotation of the lever and tensioning member toward the tensioned position unless the lever is in the closed position along with a blocking member (7) on the tensioning member that engages the child seat and seat belt (Figs. 1b, 3-6). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7, 10-11 and 14 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference Nos. 8,973,884, 4,823,443, and 4,660,889 show features of the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D BARFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6852. 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. /ANTHONY D BARFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636 adb September 30, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 09, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112, §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12765676
LOCKING MECHANISM FOR AN INTELLIGENT AUTOMATED CHAIR
2y 11m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12767335
Powered Leg Rest Assembly
2y 10m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12758021
TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED HEATING-CAPABLE SEATING UNIT
2y 1m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12758019
ARMREST ASSEMBLY AND CHAIR COMPRISING SAME
1y 12m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12751553
CLIENT DEVICE FOR FACILITATING EXPERIENCES BASED ON PROXIMITY-BASED INTERACTIONS WITH FURNISHING UNITS
2y 2m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 3m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1242 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month