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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/13/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2018/0319359 to Harabayashi in view of USPN 3,932,340 to Kamosaki and USPN 4,883,696 to Iwanami and further in view of (when necessary) USPAP 2022/0212624 to Yamada.
Claims 1, 7 and 8, Harabayashi discloses an airbag multilayer complex comprising a base fabric bonded to a multilayer film comprising an adhesive layer and an outer coating layer (see entire document including [0034]). Harabayashi discloses that the cloth may be woven (title), the yarn material may be a polyamide-based [0074], the yarn fineness may be 150 to 1000 dtex [0076], the single yarn fineness may be 0.5 to 8 dtex [0076], the weave density may be 25 to 80 yarns/2.54 cm [0080], the cover factor may be 1250 to 2500 [0081], the coating material may be polyamide-based [0088], the adhesive material may be a copolymerized polyamide-based resin [0089], the melting temperature of the adhesive may be 80 to 180 ºC [0087], the thickness of coating material may be 10 to 100 microns [0090], and the thickness of the adhesive layer may be 20 to 80% of the total thickness of the coating material [0091].
Harabayashi discloses that the adhesive may be a polyamide-based copolymer [0089]. Harabayashi does not appear to specifically mention the specifically claimed polyamide-based copolymer but Kamosaki discloses that it is known in the art to construct polyamide-based copolymer adhesive from two or more of the claimed types (see entire document including column 1, lines 9-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the polyamide-based copolymer adhesive of Harabayashi from any suitable polyamide-based copolymer adhesive, such as disclosed by Kamosaki, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Harabayashi does not appear to mention the glass transition temperature of the adhesive but Harabayashi discloses that the outer layer may be an EVOH-based resin or a polyamide resin [0088] and Iwanami discloses that it is known in said gas impermeable laminate bag art to use a polyamide adhesive with a glass transition temperature of at least 30 ºC to provide a laminate that is gas impermeable and has excellent flex crack resistance, drawability and heat moldability (see entire document including column 1, lines 10-14, column 2, lines 5-25, and column 4, lines 1-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the adhesive of Harabayashi with the claimed glass transition temperature, to provide a laminate that is gas impermeable and has excellent flex crack resistance, drawability and heat moldability. Plus, the examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that the glass transition temperature for conventional polyamides (nylons) is about 65 ºC.
Regarding the base fabric having a uniform fiber density over an entire surface thereof, the applicant cites [0092] of the current specification as providing written support for the new limitation (see interview conducted 10/23/2025 and page 7 of the response filed 11/13/2025) because [0092] discloses that the fiber density of the warp and weft may be substantially the same (warp = 76 yarns/inch and the weft = 74 yarns/inch). Therefore, the applicant defines “uniform fiber density over an entire surface thereof” as meaning substantially the same fiber density in the warp and weft. Harabayashi similarly discloses that the warp and weft of the base fabric may be the same and even discloses a warp and weft fiber density range (25 to 80 yarns/inch) that overlaps that of the current specification [0080]. Therefore, Harabayashi teaches the claimed limitation wherein the base fabric has a uniform fiber density over an entire surface thereof.
Considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical airbag multilayer complex in terms of structure and materials compared to the airbag multilayer complex disclosed in the current specification, the claimed properties appears to be inherent. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 4 and 5, Harabayashi discloses that the outer layer contains a second resin and the second resin has a melting point 20° C or more than a melting point of the first resin ([0087] and [0088]).
Claim 5, Harabayashi discloses that the second resin contains a polyamide-based copolymer and/or a polyamide-based elastomer [0088].
Claims 6 and 12, Harabayashi does not appear to mention a middle layer between the outer layer and the adhesive layer but Yamada discloses that it is known in the art to include a polyethylene or the like middle layer between an outer layer and an adhesive layer for additional functionality such as improved adhesion (see entire document including [0043]). Yamada specifically discloses the use of a MAH-grafted (acid-modified) polyolefin [0043]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed middle layer for additional functionality such as improved adhesion.
Claim 9, Harabayashi discloses an airbag comprising the airbag multilayer complex according to claim 1 [0001].
Claims 10 and 11, Harabayashi discloses that the thickness of the adhesive layer may be 20 to 80% of the total thickness of the coating materials [0091] and that the thickness of the outer layer and the adhesive layer are not particularly limited and may be varied depending on the intended airbag purpose and the desired adhesive strength, internal pressure, and air tightness ([0090]-[0091]). In addition, the middle layer taught by Yamada is an adhesive layer [0043] so the prior art teaches/suggests a middle layer thickness substantially identical in thickness to the adhesive layer thickness disclosed by Harabayashi. Therefore, either the applied prior art teaches the claimed thickness limitations or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the thicknesses, such as claimed, based on the intended airbag use and the desired/required airbag properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Harabayashi fails to teach or suggest the newly added limitation wherein the base fabric has a uniform fiber density over an entire surface thereof. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the applicant cites [0092] of the current specification as providing written support for the new limitation (see interview conducted 10/23/2025 and page 7 of the response filed 11/13/2025) because [0092] discloses that the fiber density of the warp and weft may be substantially the same (warp = 76 yarns/inch and the weft = 74 yarns/inch). Therefore, the applicant defines “uniform fiber density over an entire surface thereof” as meaning substantially the same fiber density in the warp and weft. Harabayashi similarly discloses that the warp and weft of the base fabric may be the same and even discloses a warp and weft fiber density range (25 to 80 yarns/inch) that overlaps that of the current specification [0080]. Therefore, Harabayashi teaches the claimed limitation wherein the base fabric has a uniform fiber density over an entire surface thereof.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights