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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 July 2026 has been entered.
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 1-7 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 1 recites a support base comprising first and second positioning elements, and then requires that the second positioning element be aligned or offset from the support base in various positions. It is unclear how a portion of the support base (the second positioning element) could be aligned and/or offset from the support base itself.
Claims 2-7 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on an indefinite claim.
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) 1-4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hampton (US Patent Number 6505887).
Regarding claim 1, Hampton discloses a child restraint system for installation in a vehicle, the child restraint system comprising: a support base (including 18) removably mountable to a vehicle seat of the vehicle (via 22 for instance), the support base comprising: a first positioning element (including 28); a second positioning element (including 15) configured to receive a child seat (seat 10 is affixed to 15), the second positioning element being movably connected to the first positioning element (it is slidable thereon) and being translatable relative to the first positioning element between a travel position, a first loading position, and a second loading position (with a travel position much as in Figure 3 and a first loading position swung as in Figure 7 and extended as in Figure 1; a second loading position would be possible when rotated in a direction opposite that of Figure 7 and extended); and wherein in the travel position, the second positioning element is aligned with the first positioning element and the support base (much as in Figure 3), in the first loading position, the second positioning element is translated relative to the first positioning element and the support base to offset the second positioning element from the first positioning element and the support base in a first direction (when swung as in Figure 7 and extended as in Figure 1), and in the second loading position, the second positioning element is translated relative to the first positioning element and the support base to offset the second positioning element from the first positioning element and the support based in an opposite, second direction (when swung in a direction opposite that of Figure 7 and extended).
Regarding claim 2, Hampton further discloses the support base has a base axis extending between a front end and a rear end of the support base, and the second positioning element has a primary axis extending between the front end and the rear end of the second positioning element, the base axis and the primary axis being coaxial in the travel position (this is the general arrangement; see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Hampton further discloses the support base has a base axis extending between a front end and a rear end of the support base, in the first loading position, the second positioning element is offset from the base axis in the first direction and in the second loading position, the second positioning element is offset from the base axis in the second direction (again, see at least Figures 1 and 7).
Regarding claim 4, Hampton further discloses the support base has a base axis extending between a front end and a rear end of the support base, wherein in the first loading position and the second loading position, the second positioning element is offset from the first positioning element along a travel axis, the travel axis being arranged at a non-parallel angle relative to the base axis (the travel axis rotated along with the seat).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hampton further discloses the first positioning element is fixed and/or rotatable relative to the base axis (member 28 is at least fixed via 45 while providing rotation).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampton. Hampton discloses a system as explained above including what would appear to provide a travel axis perpendicular to the base (by swinging a full 90o for instance), but this may not be explicitly described. Changes in dimensions and range require only routine skill in the art however and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the travel axis as claimed (by allowing 90o rotation for instance) based on normal variation to improve comfort and convenience for various users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 and entered 15 July 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
