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 .
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, 4 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steiner (4,397,046).
Regarding claim 1, Steiner discloses a wearable airbag device (figs 1-4) comprising:
a holding body (member 19) that is adapted to be worn by a wearer;
a gas generator (member 10) that is held by the holding body and is configured to discharge an inflation gas (col 2, lines 15-24); and
an airbag (member 1-3) that is held by the holding body and includes an inflatable portion configured to be inflated with the inflation gas fed from the gas generator (col 2, lines 5-25),
PNG
media_image1.png
395
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the inflatable portion of the airbag includes:
a lower inflatable portion (member 1) that, when deployed from a position in the holding body, extends out of the holding body to be capable of protecting the hip of the wearer;
an upper inflatable portion (member 3) that, when deployed from a position in the holding body, extends out of the holding body to be capable of protecting the head of the wearer; and
a communicating portion (member 2) that is in gas communication with both of the lower inflatable portion and the upper inflatable portion;
wherein the communicating portion is in gas communication with the lower inflatable portion by a lower end of the communicating portion while in gas communication with the upper inflatable portion by an upper end of the communicating portion, the communicating portion is disposed between the upper inflatable portion and the lower inflatable portion, the communicating portion is arranged to extend in an up and down direction, and the upper inflatable portion and the lower inflatable portion are separated from each other and are spaced apart by the communicating portion (see above annotated Figure);
wherein the airbag further includes, in the communicating portion, a regulating element that is configured to control a flow of the inflation gas so that the upper inflatable portion is inflated after inflation of the lower inflatable portion (as seen in fig 1 that the cartridge is at the lower portion; therefore it releases the gas into the lower portion first);
wherein the gas generator is configured to deliver the inflation gas more toward the lower inflatable portion than toward the upper inflatable portion (in Fig 1, the cartridge is at the lower portion; since the gas is configured to release/move through the lower portion to the upper portion, the gas is delivered more toward the lower portion than the upper portion);
wherein the lower inflatable portion includes: a left portion configured to cover a left side of the hip of the wearer; a right portion configured to cover a right side of the hip of the wearer; and a central portion that connects the left portion and the right portion, the central portion having a reduced width in the up and down direction compared to the left portion and the right portion (see above annotated Figure); and
wherein a width of the lower inflatable portion in a left and right direction is greater than a width of the communicating portion in the left and right direction, and a width of the upper inflatable portion in the left and right direction is greater than the width of the communicating portion in the left and right direction (see above annotated Figure).
Regarding claim 2, Steiner discloses the gas generator includes a gas discharge portion that is configured to discharge the inflation gas; the gas discharge portion is disposed in the lower inflatable portion; and the regulating element is configured to regulate the flow of the inflation gas flowing toward the upper inflatable portion from the lower inflatable portion (the above annotated Figure illustrates that the regulating element has a smaller width than the rest of the structure; therefore is configured to lower the flow toward the upper than the lower).
Regarding claim 4, Steiner discloses the regulating element is composed of a constricted portion in the communicating portion, the constricted portion having a reduced opening area compared to regions adjoining thereto in the communicating portion (see above annotated Figure).
Regarding claim 10, Steiner discloses a length of the communicating portion from the lower end to the upper end is longer in the up and down direction than a widest width of the communicating portion in the left and right direction (see above annotated Figure).
Regarding claim 11, Steiner discloses in a sectional end view, the communicating portion has a circumferential wall formed in an oval tubular shape, and the circumferential wall of the communicating portion is linearly elongated along an axis of the oval tubular shape in an up and down direction to be longer than a radius of the oval tubular shape (see above annotated Figure and Figs 2A to 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner (4,397,046) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shimazu (9,517,744).
Regarding claim 3, Steiner teaches all limitations of the claim and Shimazu teaches air bag system (figs 1-9) having the regulating element (member 52) is composed of a valve that is disposed in the communicating portion and formed of a sheet material having flexibility (col 5, lines 22-43), the valve being configured to shift from a closed state while in the communicating portion to an open state while in the communicating portion that allows the inflation gas to flow toward the upper inflatable portion when an internal pressure of the lower inflatable portion surpasses a predetermined value (col. 5, lines 24-43, the valve is capable of shifting between closed and open states and therefore is capable of shifting from a closed state to an open state that allows the inflation gas to flow toward the upper inflatable portion when an internal pressure of the lower inflatable portion surpasses a predetermined value. For example, with the valve in a closed state before inflation, air entering the lower inflatable portion would have to reach a certain value predetermined by the configuration of the valve to open the valve to achieve functionality of fig. 2 applied to the embodiment of figs. 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the structure of Steiner by using the regulating element of Shimazu, in order to control the pressure as needed.
Regarding claim 9, Steiner teaches all limitations of the claim and Shimazu teaches air bag system (figs 1-9) having a communicating portion (portion of 70 that includes the regulating element 52 and is between upper and lower inflatable portions) is defined by a circumferential wall between the upper inflatable portion and the lower inflatable portion per figs. 4 and 7, because there is no cut away view at specifically the communicating portion to show the whole circumference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have defined the communicating portion by a circumferential wall between the upper inflatable portion and the lower inflatable portion in order to maintain the gas within the airbag.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner (4,397,046) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Komura (2020/0139922).
Regarding claim 5, Steiner teaches all limitations of the claim and Komura teaches an airbag (figs 1-6 ) having a regulating element (member 56) composed of one or more jointed portions (member 64) in which opposing portions of a circumferential wall of the communicating portion are jointed together so as to reduce an opening area of the communicating portion (para 0066); and each of the jointed portions is configured to disjoint when an internal pressure of the lower inflatable portion surpasses a predetermined value (para 0072).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Steiner one or more jointed portions in which opposing portions of a circumferential wall of the communicating portion are jointed together so as to reduce an opening area of the communicating portion; and each of the jointed portions is configured to disjoint when an internal pressure of the lower inflatable portion surpasses a predetermined value in view of Komura in order to more easily control inflation timing of the upper inflatable portion (para 0072).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner (4,397,046) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Anderson (2020/0148157).
Regarding claim 6, Steiner teaches all limitations of the claim and Anderson teaches an airbag (title, figs. 19-22B) having a communicating portion (portion including 300,312) that divides the air bag into an upper inflatable portion (above communicating portion) and a lower inflatable portion (below communicating portion) (fig. 21A), wherein the airbag further includes, in the communicating portion, a regulating element (312) that is configured to control a flow of the inflation gas so that the upper inflatable portion is inflated after inflation of the lower inflatable portion (gas flows into lower chamber, “increased pressure within lower chamber 304 exerts a force on the second valve cover 316 through opening 314 that “lifts” the second valve cover 316 from the normally closed and flush position over the second orifice 314. As the second valve cover 316 is “lifted” as shown in FIG. 22, a secondary gas flow is facilitated through second gas pathways 320 and then upward and into first chamber 302”, para. 104); and the regulating element is composed of a valve that is disposed in the communicating portion and configured to regulate the flow of the inflation gas toward the lower inflatable portion and redirect the inflation gas toward the upper inflatable portion when an internal pressure of the lower inflatable portion surpasses a predetermined value (paras. 102,104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Steiner by adding a regulating element that is configured to control a flow of the inflation gas so that the upper inflatable portion is inflated after inflation of the lower inflatable portion; and the regulating element is composed of a valve that is disposed in the communicating portion and configured to regulate the flow of the inflation gas toward the lower inflatable portion and redirect the inflation gas toward the upper inflatable portion when an internal pressure of the lower inflatable portion surpasses a predetermined value in view of Anderson in order to allow the inflation pressure to be softened over time thereby affecting a softer deployment (para. 105 of Anderson).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 07-30-2025, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOA D HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM (EST).
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.
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732