DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “120°relative” should be changed to --120° relative--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “a lower edge having a connection to the second airbag leg that extends from the first airbag leg along the frontal impact surface and has a terminal end that is rearward of the rear surface of the instrument panel and below the upper surface of the instrument panel” in claim 18 was not described in the specification. The specification does not even use the terms “below”, “rearward” or “rear”.
Claims 18 and 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.
The limitation “a lower edge having a connection to the second airbag leg that extends from the first airbag leg along the frontal impact surface and has a terminal end that is rearward of the rear surface of the instrument panel and below the upper surface of the instrument panel” in claim 18 does not accurately describe the invention because the first and second support elements 50 do not extend to below the upper surface of the instrument panel 24 (see Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 17-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Choi (US 2005/0073135 A1). The claimed invention differs from the admitted prior art in that the claimed invention comprises first and second support elements, whereas the admitted prior art does not. Choi teaches first and second support elements (e.g., 66 and 74, 166 and 174, 266 and 274, 366 and 374). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a front airbag as in the admitted prior art with first and second support elements, as taught by Choi, in order to “retain a depression” (paragraph 0018) such that “the airbag's cushion portion achieves and maintains the proper position during a crash” (paragraph 0067) so that “in the event a crash occurs and the occupants' head 28 and/or torso 78 impacts the cushion portion 50, the head 28 and torso 78 will not slide or deflect off the front panel 52. Rather, the depression 70 will receive the impact of the head 28 and/or the torso 78 and allow the cushion portion 50 to restrain the movement of the vehicle occupant 18” (paragraph 0038). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Contrary to applicant’s assertions, Choi explicitly teaches a purpose for the patches other than solely “to form a depression in the front surface of the airbag” (see the first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 9 of the remarks). In particular, Choi teaches that a benefit of the patches is that “the head 28 and torso 78 will not slide or deflect off the front panel 52” (paragraph 0038). Sliding off the front panel clearly relates to lateral movement, since the occupant’s head and/or torso would not slide off the bottom of the front panel, since the front panel extends to the occupant’s lap (see Fig. 1), and the occupant’s head and/or torso would not slide off the top of the front panel, since the front panel extends to the roof (see Fig. 1). As noted in the first paragraph on page 11 of the remarks, applicant similarly uses the term “sliding” (albeit preceded by “lateral”) in the specification (particularly paragraph 0008) to describe lateral movement of the occupant’s head.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., restraining the occupant’s head from “twisting/rotation” – see the section beginning with “2)” on page 10 of the remarks) are not recited in claim 17. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the rejection is based on a combination of the admitted prior art and Choi, and a combination of the admitted prior art and Choi would result in a structure like that of applicant’s invention, and since such a structure would be substantially identical to the claimed structure, the claimed properties or functions (i.e., restraining the occupant’s head from “twisting/rotation”) are presumed to be inherent to such a structure. MPEP §2112.01(I).
In the last paragraph on page 11, applicant states, “The patches in Choi, contacting what would appear to be the forehead of the occupant (see, Fig. 1) would not only not prevent head rotation, it would actually promote neck bending.” The occupant shown in Choi is merely exemplary. A taller occupant’s head would naturally be located more fully between the support elements, thereby allowing for contact with more than just the forehead of the occupant. Furthermore, any restriction to rotation of any portion of the occupant’s head would naturally likewise similarly restrict rotation of the rest of the occupant’s head. Furthermore, the rejection is based on a combination of the admitted prior art and Choi, and a combination of the admitted prior art and Choi would result in a structure like that of applicant’s invention, and since such a structure would be substantially identical to the claimed structure, said structure would have the same properties or functions. That is, any restriction of neck bending that would be provided by applicant’s invention would be similarly provided by an invention based on a combination of the admitted prior art and Choi, since such an invention would have a structure like that of applicant’s invention. See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEITH J FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)270-7802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571)270-5985. 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.
/KEITH J FRISBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights