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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the IDS filed May 23, 2025 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “position of the pivot shaft is higher than a position of the connector when the connector is in the initial pivotal position” (claim 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The status of any related application should be updated on page 1 of the specification where appropriate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claim recites the limitation “a position of the pivot shaft is higher than a position of the connector when the connector is in the initial pivotal position”. It is unclear how this limitation is met by the disclosed invention. Figure 3 shows the initial pivotal position, wherein it can be seen that the pivoted end of the connector (2) is at the same height as the pivot shaft (2; see Figure 2). In view of the disclosed Figures 2 and 3, enablement is lacking.
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, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,733. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims provide each limitation provided in the respective application claims.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and, 18, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,981,235. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims provide each limitation provided in the respective application claims.
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 12-18 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the same hanging member" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-18 are indefinite as each depends from claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baloga et al (US20060138824).
Note a child safety seat, comprising: a base (42); a connector (hook formation 50; Fig. 6) configured to be connected to a locking interface (26B) of a vehicle seat; a pivot shaft (pivot pin 50; Fig. 6) pivotally connected to the base and the connector; and a damper (52) configured to maintain the connector in an initial pivotal position (Fig. 6); wherein when the connector is connected to the locking interface, the connector is configured to rotate around an axis of the pivot shaft (thereby disengaging 26B), the damper is configured to return the connector (i.e. towards re-engagement with 26B) to the initial pivotal position when the connector rotates relatively to the base; wherein the connector is connected to the pivot shaft via a hanging member (arm of 48 which connects hook formation 50 to element 56; see Fig. 6, or arm of 48 and the downwardly extending part of 48 which holds elements 56 and 50; Fig. 6), and the damper is connected between the hanging member and a connecting point (44) of the base.
Regarding claim 2, note the hanging member and the connector form an L-shaped structure when viewed from a side of the child safety seat. See Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 3, note the L-shaped structure is capable of pulling the child safety seat toward a backrest portion of the vehicle seat as a whole, when a vehicle mounted with the child safety seat is braked.
Regarding claim 4, note the base comprises a sliding rod (54), sliding of the sliding rod drives the connector to move via the pivot shaft, so as to adjust a protruding length of the connector relatively to the base.
Regarding claim 5, note the connector is configured to rotate around an axis of the pivot shaft relatively to the sliding rod (when 54 is slid fore-or-aft).
Regarding claim 8. The child safety seat according to claim 1, wherein a first end of the damper is connected to the hanging member, and a second end of the damper is connected to the connecting point of the base. See Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 9. The child safety seat according to claim 8, wherein the damper comprises a spring. See Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 10. The child safety seat according to claim 9, wherein the hanging member comprises: a first hanging lug (downwardly extending part of 48), a first end of the first hanging lug being connected to the corresponding pivot shaft; and a first beam (56) connected to a second end of the first hanging lug, and a extending direction of the first beam being parallel (see Fig. 6) to an axis of the pivot shaft, wherein the connector is mounted on the first beam (by way of the hanging member).
Regarding claim 11, note the first end of the damper is connected to the first hanging lug of the corresponding hanging member, or the first end of the damper is connected to the first beam. See Fig. 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 19 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
Applicant is advised that although no prior art rejection is applied to claim 20, this claim is not considered allowable in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON NELSON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30am-1:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
mn /MILTON NELSON JR/September 28, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights