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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/27/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The amendment filed 2/27/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The original specification is silent regarding the disclosed interface deployment area ratios (Sdr1 and Sdr2) being calculated according to JIS B 0681-2 (2014).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 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 claims contain 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 specification fails to provide written description support for a multilayer composite comprising a base fabric and a multilayer film including an outer layer and an adhesive layer adhered to only one surface of the base fabric. The applicant cites [0014], [0070] and Figures 1A, 1B and 2 as providing support but none of the above provide written description support. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. See Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. See MPEP 2173.05(i).
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 1-3, 5 and 6 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.
Claim 1 requires the ratio Sdr1/Sdr2 to be from 0.986 to 1.1, where Sdr1 is an interface deployment area ratio of a multilayer film side surface of the multilayer composite for an airbag and Sdr2 is an interface deployment area ratio of a base fabric side surface of the multilayer composite for an airbag. The limitation renders the claim indefinite at least because the claim fails to define the phrase “interface deployment area” ratio.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by USPAP 2010/0181744 to Crouch or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2010/0181744 to Crouch in view of USPAP 2013/0260111 to Kelsey and/or USPAP 2009/0236830 to Naruse.
Claim 1, Crouch discloses a multilayer composite for an airbag, comprising a base fabric and a multilayer film including an outer layer and an adhesive layer adhered to only one surface of the base fabric, wherein a ratio Sdr1/Sdr2 is inherently from 0.986 to 1.1, where Sdr1 is an interface deployment area ratio of a multilayer film side surface of the multilayer composite for an airbag and Sdr2 is an interface deployment area ratio of a base fabric side surface of the multilayer composite for an airbag (see entire document including Figure 5, [0002] and [0014]-[0018]). The current specification teaches that the more the multilayer film follows the surface of the base fabric, the closer the values of Sdr1 and Sdr2 are [0176]. Since Crouch illustrates the adhesive layer completely following the surface of the base fabric, Crouch teaches a Sdr1/Sdr2 of about 1.0.
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).
Claim 2, the multilayer film has a thickness of from 10 µm to 30 µm [0018].
Claim 3, Crouch does not appear to mention the multilayer composite having an air gap between the multilayer film and the base fabric but the claim requires an air gap length of 6 µm or less. An air gap of just greater than zero is patentably indistinct from no air gap. Therefore, Crouch establishes prima facie obviousness because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a composite with no air gap to result in the same properties as a composite with an air gap of almost zero. See MPEP 2144.05.
Further, Kelsey discloses that it is known in the fabric/adhesive/film laminate art to include discontinuous bonded regions between a fabric and a film to reduce stiffness, stretch force, or lamination stresses (see [0002], [0009]-[0012] and [0051]). Kelsey discloses that the percent area coverage of the bonded regions may be 70% or greater based on depending on the desired physical attributes (Examples and [0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include an air gap between the multilayer film and the base fabric of Crouch with any desired length, such as claimed, because it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the air gap length (unbonded region size) determines properties such as stiffness, stretch force, and lamination stresses and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 5, Crouch discloses that the base fabric fibers may be polyamide fibers [0012] and Naruse discloses that airbag polyamide fibers conventionally have a total linear density of 470 dtex or less (see entire document including [0064] and [0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the airbag with fibers having the claimed fineness, because it is conventional. Crouch discloses that the multilayer film may have a thickness of about 25 µm which encompasses the claimed 20 µm [0018] or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the airbag multilayer film with a slightly thinner thickness, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a thickness on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Applicant argued that the prior art taught away from use of a protective layer for a reflective article having a thickness within the claimed range of "50 to 100 Angstroms." Specifically, a patent to Zehender, which was relied upon to reject applicant's claim, included a statement that the thickness of the protective layer "should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]." The court held that the patent did not teach away from the claimed invention. "Zehender suggests that there are benefits to be derived from keeping the protective layer as thin as possible, consistent with achieving adequate protection. A thinner coating reduces light absorption and minimizes manufacturing time and expense. Thus, while Zehender expresses a preference for a thicker protective layer of 200-300 Angstroms, at the same time it provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to focus on thickness levels at the bottom of Zehender's 'suitable' range- about 100 Angstroms- and to explore thickness levels below that range. The statement in Zehender that '[i]n general, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]' falls far short of the kind of teaching that would discourage one of skill in the art from fabricating a protective layer of 100 Angstroms or less. [W]e are therefore 'not convinced that there was a sufficient teaching away in the art to overcome [the] strong case of obviousness' made out by Zehender."). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 6, Naruse discloses that it is known in the airbag art to form impermeable coating layers from polyamide, to use polyamide adhesive, and that polyamide adhesive should have a melting temperature from 100 to 160ºC and a melt temperature of about 80ºC or less than that the other polyamide material of an airbag ([0063] and [0098]-[0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the airbag of Crouch as claimed, to provide an airbag that does not inhibit flexibility, possesses an impermeable coating, and all components are recyclable together.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specification New Matter Objection
The applicant asserts that the amendment made to the specification on 2/27/2026, changing “JIS B 0681-6 (2014)” to “JIS B 0681-2 (2014)” does not constitute new matter because the change merely corrected a “typographical error” and that JIS B 0681-2 “is the correct standard that defines the interface deployment area ratio parameter (Sdr)” and that “the preface of JIS B 0681-6 explicitly references JIS B 0681-2.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because there is no evidence to support any of these three assertions or how any of these three assertions equate to the change having support in the original specification. It is well-established that unsupported attorney arguments do not constitute evidence necessary to resolve a disputed question of fact. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”); Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence” and cannot rebut other admitted evidence.); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (“Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the record.”’).
112 New Matter Rejection
The specification fails to provide written description support for a multilayer composite comprising a base fabric and a multilayer film including an outer layer and an adhesive layer adhered to only one surface of the base fabric. The applicant cites [0014], [0070] and Figures 1A, 1B and 2 as providing support but none of the above provide written description support. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. See Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. See MPEP 2173.05(i).
112 Indefinite Rejection
The applicant asserts that the meaning of interface deployment area ratio is clear because the ratio is a “standardized and well-known parameter” defined under JIS B 0681-2 (2014). Firstly, the claims do not require any standard be used to calculate the claimed interface deployment area ratio - including JIS B 0681-2 (2014). The feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., JIS B 0681-2 (2014)) is not recited in the rejected claims. 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). Secondly, the addition of JIS B 0681-2 (2014) to the specification is new matter. Thirdly, the applicant provides zero evidence that the JIS B 0681-2 (2014) standard is well-known to one skilled in the art and the specification fails to explain how to calculate an “interface deployment area ratio” beyond citation to JIS B 0681-2 (2014) with no explanation of what that testing method encompasses. JIS test methods are procedures defined by the Japanese Industrial Standards Committee. Only six US Patents reference JIS B 0681-2 and all of them mention a different year (2018). Some of the six US Patents talk about the JIS test method being used to measure arithmetic mean height or skewness, none mention “interface deployment area ratio.” There are zero US Patents that mention “JIS B 0681-2 (2014).”
Prior Art Rejection
The applicant asserts that Crouch fails to teach or suggest a multilayer composite comprising a base fabric and a multilayer film, including an outer layer and an adhesive layer adhered to only one surface of the base fabric, because the multilayer composite of Crouch includes a multilayer film on both sides of the base fabric. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Crouch teaches a base fabric and two multilayer films, each multilayer film including an outer layer and an adhesive layer adhered to only one surface of the base fabric (see Figure 5). Claim 1 is written with open claim language (“comprising”) and therefore allows for the presence of more than one multilayer film.
The applicant also asserts that Crouch fails to teach or suggest the claimed Sdr1/Sdr2 ratio of interface deployment area ratios based on JIS B 0681-2 (2014). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the claims do not require the ratio be calculated by JIS B 0681-2 (2014) or any other specific test method. Plus, page 9 of the response filed 2/27/2026 indicates that when an exterior surface is flat, the interface deployment area ratio is “unambiguously zero (0)” but neither the specification nor applicant’s response explains how this ratio was calculated by the applicant or why the claimed ratio has to calculated by the method used by the applicant when no such requirement is in the claims.
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 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 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789