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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 29, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards the non-elected invention.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2012/0289114 to Kim in view of US Pub. No. 2007/0184733 to Manley, and USPN 8,101,252 to Kami.
Regarding claims 1-11, Kim teaches a fabric (reinforcing fabric) used to form an airbag cushion formed using the polyester fiber having an elongation of 4.0% or less at the stress of 4.0 g/d, an elongation less than 7.0% at a stress of 7.0 g/d, and a tenacity of preferably 8.0 g/d (Kim, abstract, para 0037, 0076, 0078, 0081-0085, 0117, Table 5). Kim teaches a specific example having an elongation of 3 at the stress of 4.0 g/d and 6.2% at 7.0 g/d (Id., Table 3). Kim teaches the dry heat shrinkage of the fiber being from 5% to 10% (Id., para 0037). While the elongation at a loading of 4.5 g/d is not specified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the elongation to fall within the claimed range given the value at 4 g/d and 7 g/d as well as the elongation of the specific embodiment, absent evidence to the contrary. The yarn of Kim is made of polyethylene terephthalate having a tenacity as claimed and dry shrinkage and a similar elongation long as claimed. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Kim teaches the polyester fiber being prepared into the final fabric for airbag through a conventional weaving method and the weaving type being no particularly limited but includes plain weave (Kim, para 0077). Kim teaches the total fineness being preferably 220 to 840 denier (Id., para 0040). Kim teaches a specific fabric having a weaving density of 49 x 49 plain weave (Id., Table 5). Kim teaches the fabric being coated (Id., para 0033, 0079-0081).
Kim does not teach the fabric construction being 24 yarns or more to 35 yarns or less per inch in the warp or weft direction.
However, Manley teaches an air bag material comprising a woven fabric comprising warp yarns and weft yarns comprising multifilament polyester yarns, such as polyethylene terephthalate, having a denier from about 210 to about 840 and a yarn density from about 20 yarns per inch to about 80 yarns per inch, such as from about 30 yarns per inch to about 50 yarns per inch in both the warp and weft directions (claims 1,6) (Manley, abstract, para 0011, 0015, 0054, 0056-0057). Manley teaches a specific embodiment using 840 denier yarn having a yarn density from about 15 per inch to about 34 yarns per inch (Id., para 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fabric of Kim, wherein the weaving density is as taught by Manley, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known weave densities predictably suitable for use in polyester fabrics used in airbag applications using polyethylene terephthalate yarns. The disclosed weave density are prior to heat treatment and not the finish fabric density. In the Declaration filed January 29, 2026, Applicant indicates that the weave density of the finished weave density would be higher due to a typical shrinkage of about 3-4%. In the Examples within the instant disclosure, the weave density is increase up to about 20%. This would result in a range of 24 to 96 yarns/in, specifically 18 to 41 for 840 denier. Therefore, the finished fabric density would still be expected to be within the claimed range, absent evidence to the contrary. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 24 yarns or more to 35 yarns or less per inch, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary the weaving density, and therefore the finished fabric weave density, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art and the desire to ensure adequate strength properties while ensure the weaving is not too difficult and stiffness not too high for storability.
The prior art combination does not teach the airbag cushion comprising a fiber substrate attached to the fabric (reinforcing fabric) on at least a portion of the surface of the fiber substrate.
However, Kami teaches it is known to use a circular piece of the fabric (claim 11) attached to the bag body as a reinforcement cloth for the air bag-mount, such as formed of polyamide (nylon, claim 10) (Kami, abstract, col. 8 lines 4-20), reading on a fiber substrate, specifically a fabric of polyamide, and a reinforcing fabric attached to at least a portion of the surface of the fiber substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the airbag fabric of Kim, wherein a reinforcement portion of the fabric is attached to the base fabric formed of the polyester fiber as taught by Kami, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known airbag fabric material and to provide reinforcement around the air bag mount.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches the dry heat shrinkage of the fiber being from 5% to 10% (Kim, para 0037).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches the dry heat shrinkage of the fiber being from 5% to 10% (Kim, para 0037) and having an elongation of 4.0% or less at the stress of 4.0 g/d and 7.0% or less at the stress of 7.0 g/d (Id., abstract). While the prior art combination is silent with regards to the elongation at a load of 4.5 g/d, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have expected the values according to the claimed equation to at least overlap with the claimed range based on the disclosed dry heat shrinkage and elongation at a stress of 4.0 g/d, given the low elongation desired, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches the polyester yarn having an initial modulus of 105 to 130 g/d (Kim, abstract).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches the polyester yarn being used for the warps and wefts (Kim, para 0116-0124, 0025, 0076-0078).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art combination teaches yarn denier being 200 to 1,00 denier, with a specific embodiment being 600 (Kim, para 0115-0118, 0040).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches the polyester being polyethylene terephthalate (Kim, para 0055-0057, 0087-0118).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art combination teaches the air bag comprising one layer of the reinforcing fabric (Kim, abstract; Kami, abstract, col. 8 lines 4-20).
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2012/0289114 to Kim in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0247283 to Akechi, and USPN 8,101,252 to Kami.
Regarding claims 1-11, Kim teaches a fabric (reinforcing fabric) used to form an airbag cushion formed using the polyester fiber having an elongation of 4.0% or less at the stress of 4.0 g/d, an elongation less than 7.0% at a stress of 7.0 g/d, and a tenacity of preferably 8.0 g/d (Kim, abstract, para 0037, 0076, 0078, 0081-0085, 0117, Table 5). Kim teaches a specific example having an elongation of 3 at the stress of 4.0 g/d and 6.2% at 7.0 g/d (Id., Table 3). Kim teaches the dry heat shrinkage of the fiber being from 5% to 10% (Id., para 0037). While the elongation at a loading of 4.5 g/d is not specified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the elongation to fall within the claimed range given the value at 4 g/d and 7 g/d as well as the elongation of the specific embodiment, absent evidence to the contrary. The yarn of Kim is made of polyethylene terephthalate having a tenacity as claimed and dry shrinkage and a similar elongation long as claimed. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Kim teaches the polyester fiber being prepared into the final fabric for airbag through a conventional weaving method and the weaving type being no particularly limited but includes plain weave (Kim, para 0077). Kim teaches the total fineness being preferably 220 to 840 denier (Id., para 0040). Kim teaches a specific fabric having a weaving density of 49 x 49 plain weave (Id., Table 5). Kim teaches the fabric being coated (Id., para 0033, 0079-0081).
Kim does not teach the fabric construction being 24 yarns or more to 35 yarns or less per inch in the warp or weft direction.
However, Akechi teaches a coated fabric for use in an air bag comprising a woven fabric made from synthetic fiber, such as a polyester including polyethylene terephthalate, suitable for use a fabric for an air bag (Akechi, abstract). Akechi teaches the fiber being in the form of a multifilament yarn with a total fineness between 350 to 1000 dtex (Id., para 0028, 0067). Akechi teaches when the total fineness is more than 1000 dtex, the thickness increase whereby stiffness increases with storage ability deteriorates when the total fineness is less than 350 dtex, the strength of the air bag upon working including tensile strength and tear strength becomes insufficient (Id., para 0067). Akechi teaches the woven fabric having a cover factor preferably 1,800 to 2500 calculated by CF = (total fineness of warp)1/2x(Density of warp in yarn number per 2.54 cm) + (total fineness of weft)1/2x(Density of weft) (Id., para 0068). Akechi teaches that when the cover factor is less than 1,800, physical properties which are necessary for air bags (such as tensile strength and tear strength) are apt to become low. On the other hand, when the cover factor is more than 2,500, weaving becomes to be difficult and stiffness increases whereby storage ability is apt to be deteriorated (Id.). Akechi teaches a specific example using a total fineness of 940 dtex (855 denier) and weaving density of 37/2.54 cm (37/inch) in both the warp and weft direction and a resulting cover factor of 2,269 of the finished cloth after shrinkage processing using boiling water and dry finishing (Id., para 0087), indicating that the cover factor is based on the finished fabric and the weave densities are also based on the finished fabric weave densities. Akechi does not limit directly limit the weave density but teach a desired cover factor which is influenced by yarn linear density and weave density. A weave density of 30 yarns/2.54 cm results in a cover factor of 1840, within the disclosed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fabric of Kim, wherein the fabric weave density is adjust such as to result in a cover factor as taught by Akechi, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known weave predictably suitable for polyester woven fabric used in air bag applications. At a denier of 840 (924 dtex), a 30 yarn/in in each the warp and weft direction (claim 1, 6) results in a cover factor of 1824. At a denier of 840 (924 dtex), a 35 yarn/in in each the warp and weft direction results in a cover factor of 2128. Therefore, the corresponding weave densities overlap with the claimed range. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 24 yarns or more to 35 yarns or less per inch, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary the cover factor, and therefore the weave density, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art and the desire to ensure adequate strength properties while ensure the weaving is not too difficult and stiffness not too high for storability.
The prior art combination does not teach the airbag cushion comprising a fiber substrate attached to the fabric (reinforcing fabric) on at least a portion of the surface of the fiber substrate.
However, Kami teaches it is known to use a circular piece of the fabric (claim 11) attached to the bag body as a reinforcement cloth for the air bag-mount, such as formed of polyamide (nylon, claim 10) (Kami, abstract, col. 8 lines 4-20), reading on a fiber substrate, specifically a fabric of polyamide, and a reinforcing fabric attached to at least a portion of the surface of the fiber substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the airbag fabric of Kim, wherein a reinforcement portion of the fabric is attached to the base fabric formed of the polyester fiber as taught by Kami, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known airbag fabric material and to provide reinforcement around the air bag mount.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches the dry heat shrinkage of the fiber being from 5% to 10% (Kim, para 0037).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches the dry heat shrinkage of the fiber being from 5% to 10% (Kim, para 0037) and having an elongation of 4.0% or less at the stress of 4.0 g/d and 7.0% or less at the stress of 7.0 g/d (Id., abstract). While the prior art combination is silent with regards to the elongation at a load of 4.5 g/d, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have expected the values according to the claimed equation to at least overlap with the claimed range based on the disclosed dry heat shrinkage and elongation at a stress of 4.0 g/d, given the low elongation desired, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches the polyester yarn having an initial modulus of 105 to 130 g/d (Kim, abstract).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches the polyester yarn being used for the warps and wefts (Kim, para 0116-0124, 0025, 0076-0078).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art combination teaches yarn denier being 200 to 1,00 denier, with a specific embodiment being 600 (Kim, para 0115-0118, 0040).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches the polyester being polyethylene terephthalate (Kim, para 0055-0057, 0087-0118).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art combination teaches the air bag comprising one layer of the reinforcing fabric (Kim, abstract; Kami, abstract, col. 8 lines 4-20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 6,294,487 to Keshavaraj teaches an airbag fabric that is woven having al ow cover fabric, such as less than bout 1900, such as an embodiment having 26 picks/inch and 26 end/inch.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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 at 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights