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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed with the written response received on 24 November 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claim(s) 1-4 and 8 has/have been amended, claim(s) 5-7 is/are canceled, claim(s) 11 has/have been added, and claim(s) 9-10 has/have been withdrawn. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-4 and 8-11 is/are pending in this application with an action on the merits to follow regarding claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 11.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed 29 July 2025, are hereby withdrawn:
Objections to the Specification
Previous Objections to the Claims
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
Rejections under 35 USC 101
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “fixing element”, “plurality of packs”, “plurality of envelopes”, “sleeves”, “cylinder”, “valve”, “outlet”, “measuring device coupled to the valve”, “measuring device”, and “plurality of measuring sensors” of claim 1 and the “sleeves” of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The amended Drawings filed 24 November 2025 do not cure the deficiencies above as they do not show the features being claimed in sufficient detail for the Examiner to understand and examine. In particular, claim 1 notes, “a cylinder containing the pressurized gas and comprising a valve, the valve comprising an outlet connected to the plurality of envelopes; a measuring device coupled to the valve” and it would be helpful to see how these claimed structures are connected as the Specification does not provide these details.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show features as described in the specification. Therefore the, “fixing element”, “plurality of packs”, “plurality of envelopes”, “sleeves”, “cylinder”, “valve”, “outlet”, “measuring device coupled to the valve”, “measuring device”, and “plurality of measuring sensors” of claim 1 and the “sleeves” of claim 8 must be shown. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). The amended Drawings filed 24 November 2025 do not cure the deficiencies above as they do not show the features being claimed in sufficient detail for the Examiner to understand and examine.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3 should recite, “a fixing element configured to be worn by the [[use]] user”.
Claim 11, lines 2-3, “wherein the plurality of measuring sensors comprises a Global Positioning System and/or a Global System for Mobile Communications.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the envelopes are connected to each other by sleeves, and when inflated the envelopes and the sleeves define one volume” on lines 1-3 which is considered new matter. The written description does not disclose this structure and the structure is not clearly discernable in the drawings. With regards to the written description, there is discussion of “the envelopes being additionally connected to sleeves, all the envelopes defining one volume” in ¶00007, “Preferably, one volume is defined by the envelopes and the sleeves,” in ¶00014, “the envelopes 2 being additionally connected to sleeves 3, and all the envelopes 2 define one volume” in ¶00022, and “The envelopes 2 and sleeves 3 define one volume and this causes that the gas released from the valve of the cylinder into one envelope 2 concurrently fills all the envelopes 2 and passes via the sleeves 3 to the adjacent envelopes 2” in ¶00032, however none of these statements specify that “the envelopes are connected to each other by sleeves, and when inflated the envelopes and the sleeves define one volume” is/are as it is stated that the limitation of newly amended claim 8. The previously filed claim set of 19 February 2023 recited, “the envelopes being additionally connected to sleeves, and all the envelopes define one volume” in claim 1 and “one volume is defined by the envelopes and sleeves” in claim 8, however none of these statements specify that “the envelopes are connected to each other by sleeves, and when inflated the envelopes and the sleeves define one volume” is/are as it is stated that the limitation of newly amended claim 8. Further, the Applicant’s Drawings do not clarify that “the envelopes are connected to each other by sleeves, and when inflated the envelopes and the sleeves define one volume” as recited in newly amended claim 8.
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) 1-4, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelston US 20140123374 in view of Morrison US 3921944.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Gelston discloses a protective device (Figs. 1-8 #50/44) suitable to be worn by a user (Figs. 1-8 #60), comprising: a fixing element configured to be worn by the use (Figs. 1-8 #40); a plurality of packs (Figs. 1-8 #46) connected to the fixing element (Figs. 1-2, 4A & 6-7; ¶0054-0059); a plurality of envelopes (Figs. 6-8 #52; ¶0057 notes, “the inflatable membranes 52 may deploy as slaves of a master inflatable membrane 52 [i.e. one master inflatable membrane 52 may trigger auxiliary slave inflatable membranes 52]”) arranged in the plurality of packs (¶0054-0059) and configured to be filled with a pressurized gas (¶0052, 0057); a cylinder containing the pressurized gas (¶0052, 0057) and comprising an inflation system (¶0057), the system comprising a connection connected to the plurality of envelopes (¶0057); a measuring device (Fig. 2 #22) coupled to the system (¶0043 notes the measuring device #22 is connected to the cylinder) and configured to register displacement parameters of the user (¶0043-0045), the measuring device comprising a plurality of measuring sensors (Fig. 2 #20), wherein the system is configured to automatically fill the plurality of envelopes with the pressurized gas from the cylinder so that the plurality of envelopes is inflated to enclose the user's body when the measuring device detects that the displacement parameters of the user exceed threshold values (¶0052).
Gelston does not expressly disclose a plurality of packs, the cylinder comprising a valve, the valve comprising an outlet connected to the plurality of envelopes, the measuring device coupled to the valve, and the valve being configured to automatically fill the plurality of envelopes.
Morrison teaches a wearable airbag device (Figs. 1-8 #10) with a plurality of packs (Fig. 2 #20a), a cylinder (Figs. 7-8 #54) comprising a valve (Fig. 10 #61; Col 6:10-39), the valve comprising an outlet (Col 6:10-39) connected to a plurality of envelopes (Col 6:10-39), a measuring device (Figs. 1-2 #14) coupled to the valve (Col 6:52-59), and the valve being configured to automatically fill the plurality of envelopes (Col 6:10-39).
Both Gelston and Morrison teach analogous inventions in the art of wearable airbag devices. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Gelston with the teachings of Morrison such that there are a plurality of packs to protect the plurality of envelopes from trauma before deployment to ensure the envelopes can properly fill, and that the gas cylinder had a valve that had an outlet connected to the plurality of envelopes and the measuring device was coupled to the valve to automatically fill the plurality of envelopes in order for the gas to have route into the plurality of envelopes and so that the valve could regulate the amount of gas disposed into the plurality of envelopes in order to avoid overinflation.
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the Prior Art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require the ability of the structure to perform and/or function. As the Prior Art of Gelston discloses the structure of the protective device, there would be a reasonable expectation for the protective device to perform such functions as explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified protective device of Gelston discloses the protective device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of packs are connected to the fixing element permanently (Figs. 1-8 show the envelopes attached to the device, and the envelopes would remain attached permanently unless removed by a force).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified protective device of Gelston discloses the protective device according to claim 1, wherein the measuring device is suitable to register a horizontal speed, a vertical speed, and time periods in which changes in speed occur (Fig. 2 #24; ¶0017, 0044-0045).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified protective device of Gelston discloses the protective device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of measuring sensors is in a form of built-in accelerometer assembly (Fig. 2 #24; ¶0017, 0044).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified protective device of Gelston discloses the protective device according to claim 1, wherein the envelopes are connected to each other by sleeves (Fig. 5B #58/52), and when inflated the envelopes and the sleeves define one volume (Figs. 5A-5B; ¶0050).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified protective device of Gelston discloses the protective device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of measuring sensors comprises Global Positioning System (¶0068) and/or Global System for Mobile Communications (¶0068)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 24 November 2025, with respect to the Drawing Objections have been considered but are not persuasive.
The newly filed drawing of Fig. 2 does not show sufficient detail of the claimed invention for the Examiner to properly study the structures of the limitations. The “fixing element”, “plurality of packs”, “plurality of envelopes”, “sleeves”, “cylinder”, “valve”, “outlet”, “measuring device coupled to the valve”, “measuring device”, and “plurality of measuring sensors” of claim 1 and the “sleeves” of claim 8 are all structures critical to the understanding of the immediate application and must be shown in enough detail to be properly Examined.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 24 November 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL M. WEIS whose telephone number is 571-272-6804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 0800-1700.
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, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS can be reached on 571-272-3425. 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.
/RAQUEL M. WEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732