DETAILED ACTION
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 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama (JP 2011246851) in view of Kincheloe (US 4685151) and Olsson et al. (US 2013/0276213, hereinafter ‘Olsson’).
Aoyama discloses an airbag pouch for personal protection of a user of an urban mobility vehicle such as for example a cycle, a scooter, a skateboard or roller skates, comprising a closed body made from flexible and tear-resistant material forming an envelope, characterized in that the envelope forms, in an inflated state: - two stiffening structures (57R, 57L), located laterally on either side of the head of the user (see Figs. 15, 16), each with a central portion in abutment on the shoulder of the user extended by two legs disposed one in front of, the other behind the shoulder of the user (see Figs. 15, 16), and each a top loop, located on a side of the head of the user (see Figs. 15, 16); except does not expressly disclose the arch completing the surrounding of the head of the user or the arch having the claimed strips/contractions as claimed.
However, Kincheloe teaches a similar device including an arch (40) forming a protection surrounding the head of the user (see Figs. 5, 6).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the head protecting arch taught by Kincheloe to the airbag assembly taught by Aoyama, in order to protect the head of the user as taught by Kincheloe.
Further, Olsson teaches providing inflatable head protection wherein the arch that surrounds the user’s head has baffles formed by transverse strips (41-48) on a path of gas entering a volume of the arch, alternated with contractions (indentations between 41-48) as claimed.
Because Aoyama as modified above and Olsson both teach inflatable arches for surround and protecting a user’s head, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the arch with baffles formed by transverse strips and contractions as taught by Olsson for the arch without the claimed baffles taught by Aoyama as modified above to achieve the predictable result of shaping the arch to properly surround and protect a user’s head.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the Aoyama as modified above arch of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient including having the baffles shaped as claimed and as taught by Olsson. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
When viewed in combination, Aoyama as modified above results in a device wherein the arch connects the tops of the top loops of the stiffening structures and forming, once inflated and with the top loops of the stiffening structures, forms a protection surrounding the head of the user.
Aoyama as modified above results in a device wherein the top loops of the stiffening structures are produced in annular form, with a less thick central portion (Aoyama Figs. 15, 16; slots 67 meet scope of central portion); the legs of the stiffening structures located, in a deployed state, on the front of the chest of the user are curved with a curvature concave towards the front to bear on the user (Aoyama Fig. 15; @77d); the legs of the stiffening structures located, in the deployed state, on the front of the chest of the user include transverse pads (Aoyama 60R, 60L) which, once inflated, form protective pectoral plates; and the arch includes the baffles, stiffening the arch in the deployed state, forming preferential folding lines and limiting the circulation of the gas towards a dorsal part of the pouch throughout an impact on the part above or behind the head of the user (when viewed in combination; functional recitation).
Aoyama as modified above results in a device including two gas-inlet conduits each emerging in one of the legs of the stiffening structures located, in the deployed state, on the back of the user, at the upper third of said leg of the stiffening structures (Aoyama 87 either side, see Figs. 9, 10); an actuator, configured to detect accident situations, - at least one cartridge, which is triggered when the actuator detects an accident situation, characterized in that it includes an airbag pouch according to claim 1 inflated by the at least one cartridge when it is triggered (Aoyama translation para 0051).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama (JP 2011246851) in view of Kincheloe (US 4685151) and Olsson et al. (US 2013/0276213, hereinafter ‘Olsson’) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Thevenot et al. (EP 3901016, hereinafter ‘Thevenot’).
Aoyama as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above and further including the front legs of the stiffening structures are located, in the folded state, in housings (25R, 25L) being closed by disengageable mechanical links (34), which open under the action of the inflation of the pouch; except does not expressly disclose the backpack assembly as claimed.
However, Thevenot teaches a similar device wherein the airbag assembly is incorporated into a backpack rather than a vest (Figs. 1, 2) as claimed.
Because Aoyama as modified above and Thevenot both teach airbag assemblies incorporated into wearable devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the backpack carrying structure taught by Thevenot for the vest carrying structure taught by Aoyama as modified above for the airbag as claimed.
Aoyama as modified above results in a device wherein the disengageable mechanical links comprise press studs (34); and a pack body close to the back of the user incorporating the airbag according to claim 8, and a removable separate part forming a storage space (when viewed in combination with Thevenot backpack).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) 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.
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 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 PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm EST.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights