DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on November 26, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 6, “instrument panel surface” should be changed to --surface of the instrument panel-- in order to match previous terminology (see, for example, claim 17, lines 28 and 33).
In line 7, “instrument panel surface” should be changed to --surface of the instrument panel-- in order to match previous terminology (see, for example, claim 17, lines 27-28 and 32-33).
In line 8, “roof;” should be changed to --roof.--.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “a clearance” should be changed to --the clearance--.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “a clearance” should be changed to --the clearance--.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “a clearance” should be changed to --the clearance--.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “angle a” should be changed to --angle α-- (see paragraphs 0013 and 0033).
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 17-36 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 limitations “the first support element spanning a clearance between the first and second airbag legs from the vehicle roof to below the upper surface of the instrument panel and rearward of the rear surface of the instrument panel” and “the second support element spanning the clearance between the first and second airbag legs from the vehicle roof to below the upper surface of the instrument panel and rearward of the rear surface of the instrument panel” in claim 17 were not described in the specification. The specification does not even use the terms “below”, “rearward” or “rear”.
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 instrument panel surface and below the upper instrument panel surface” in claim 18 was not described in the specification. The specification does not even use the terms “below”, “rearward” or “rear”.
The limitations of claim 19 were not described in the specification. The specification does not even use the term “tangentially”.
The limitations of claim 22 were not described in the specification. The specification does not even use the term “shoulders”.
Claims 17-36 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 limitations “the first support element spanning a clearance between the first and second airbag legs from the vehicle roof to below the upper surface of the instrument panel and rearward of the rear surface of the instrument panel” and “the second support element spanning the clearance between the first and second airbag legs from the vehicle roof to below the upper surface of the instrument panel and rearward of the rear surface of the instrument panel” in claim 17 do 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).
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 instrument panel surface and below the upper instrument panel surface” in claim 18 does not accurately describe the invention because the first and second support elements 50 do not extend to below the upper instrument panel 24 surface (see Fig. 2).
The limitations of claim 22 do not accurately describe the invention because the first and second support elements 50 do not extend along the head to shoulders of the occupant engaging the frontal impact surface 20 in response to a vehicle crash (see Fig. 3).
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the airbag module according to claim 34" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “34” to --35-- in line 5.
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 November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on page 7 and in the second paragraph on page 8, Choi explicitly teaches a purpose for the patches other than solely “to form a depression in the front surface of the airbag.” 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 last paragraph on page 7of 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.
Regarding applicant’s arguments in the first paragraph on page 8 through the first sentence of the second paragraph on page 8 and in the paragraph spanning pages 8 and 9, the alleged structure that is not disclosed by Choi (i.e., “The support elements span a clearance between the first and second airbag legs from the vehicle roof to below the upper surface of the instrument panel and rearward of the rear surface of the instrument panel.”) is not disclosed in the instant application (i.e., 17/639,828) either. As explained above, those new limitations are not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112. The limitations that are in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 are unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Choi (US 2005/0073135 A1), as explained above. Similar arguments are made in the last paragraph on page 9 with respect to claims 18 and 19, and the above response is similarly applicable to those arguments.
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., “a structure that would constrain lateral/twisting head movement” – see the third paragraph on page 8) are not recited in the rejected claim(s), at least not 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, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (in particular, the arguments in the third paragraph on page 8), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). That is, 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., “a structure that would constrain lateral/twisting head movement”) are presumed to be inherent to such a structure. MPEP §2112.01(I).
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