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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 11-17 12 are objected to because “The system” on line 1 should be changed to “The airbag system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Specht et al. [Specht hereinafter, US 8,013,727].
In regard to claim 1, Specht discloses [in Figs. 1 and 2] a system for aircraft, the system comprising: a seat belt [4] for an aircraft seat [14]; a buckle [1]; a first switch [3] included in a circuit between the buckle [1] and a controller [5], the first switch [3] being configured to be in a closed state upon a connection of the seat belt [4] to the buckle [1]; a second switch [8,9] included in the circuit, the second switch [8, 9] being configured to be manually switched to optionally open the circuit even if the first switch [2] is in a closed state; the controller [5] configured to recognize if the circuit is closed, and allowing actuation of an airbag [col. 2, lines 5-7] proximate the seat [14] only if the circuit is closed.
In regard to claims 2 and 3, Specht discloses [in Figs. 1 and 2] the system of claim 1 wherein the second switch [8, 9] is on the buckle [1], wherein the second switch [8, 9] is concealed inside the buckle [1] by a cover [2].
In regard to claim 8, Specht discloses [in Figs. 1 and 2] the system of claim 1 wherein the first switch [2] depends on whether a latch-tongue [col. 2, lines 18-20] of the seat belt [4] is inserted and latched into the buckle [1] and secures the seat belt [4] to the buckle [1].
In regard to claim 18, Specht discloses [in Figs. 1 and 2] a method for triggering airbag deployment on an aircraft, the method comprising: forming a circuit wherein the circuit includes a first switch [3] and a second switch [8, 9]; introducing an electric current to the circuit; determining whether there is continuity in the circuit based upon if the electric current flows through the circuit; determining if the electric current is received, the circuit is closed and determining if the electric current is not received, the circuit is open [via 5]; activating an airbag system [10] if the circuit is closed; and deactivating the airbag system [10] if the circuit is open.
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.
Claim 7, 10, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Specht et al. [Specht hereinafter, US 8,013,727] in view of Shields [US 8,403,361]. In regard to claims 7 and 19, Specht discloses [in Figs. 1 and 2] the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 18, respectively. Specht does not disclose that the airbag is located in the seat belt. Shields teaches [in Fig. 2] that the airbag [130] is located in the seat belt [120]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the airbag in the seat belt in order to effectively protect an occupant in a variety of seating arrangements [Shields, col. 1, line 58 – col. 2, line 6].
In regard to claim 10, Specht discloses [in Figs. 1 and 2] an airbag system for aircraft, the system comprising: a seat belt [4] including a buckle [1] wherein the buckle [1] includes a recessed area [in 1]; a first switch [3] included in a circuit between the buckle [1] and a controller [5], the first switch [3] being configured to be in a closed state upon a connection of the seat belt [4] to the buckle [1]; a physically operated switch [8, 9] included in the circuit between the buckle [1] and the controller [5], the physically operated switch [8, 9] configured to be in one of an open state or a closed state depending on a manual setting; the controller [5] configured to recognize current flow through the circuit, and allowing actuation of an airbag [col. 2, lines 5-7] if the circuit is closed. Specht does not disclose that the airbag is configured within a seat belt. Shields teaches [in Fig. 2] that the airbag [130] is configured within the seat belt [120]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the airbag in the seat belt in order to effectively protect an occupant in a variety of seating arrangements [Shields, col. 1, line 58 – col. 2, line 6].
In regard to claims 16 and 17, Specht discloses some of the limitations of the system of claim 10. Specht does not disclose an electronic sensing box that includes the controller and is communicatively connected to an airbag inflator, and the electronic sensing box is configured to detect when a sudden change in acceleration has occurred, wherein when a sudden change in acceleration is detected, the electronic sensing box communicates with the airbag inflator to inflate the airbag, and wherein the airbag comprises a first airbag and a second airbag. Shields teaches [in Fig. 1] an electronic sensing box [150] that includes the controller and is communicatively connected to an airbag inflator [144], and the electronic sensing box [150] is configured to detect when a sudden change in acceleration has occurred, wherein when a sudden change in acceleration is detected, the electronic sensing box [150] communicates with the airbag inflator [144] to inflate the airbag, and wherein the airbag comprises a first airbag [130] and a second airbag [Fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the electric sensing box and airbag inflator of Shields with the system of Specht in order to effectively protect the occupant as needed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Specht et al. [Specht hereinafter, US 8,013,727] in view of Matsuoka et al. [Matsuoka hereinafter, US 4,268,816]. Specht discloses [in Figs. 1 and 2] the system of claim 1 wherein the buckle [1] is attached to a semirigid strap [see Fig. 2] and secured to the aircraft seat. Specht does not disclose that the semirigid strap is bolted. Matsuoka teaches [in Fig. 3] a buckle strap [5] being secured by a bolt. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to bolt the buckle strap in order to ensure a secure connection of the seat belt and effectively protect the occupant.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Specht et al. [Specht hereinafter, US 8,013,727] in view of Shields [US 8,403,361] further in view of Tracy et al. [Tracy hereinafter, US 7,340,809]. Specht and Shields teach the system of claim 10, wherein the physically operated switch is manually controlled to be switched between a first manual setting that closes the circuit and a second manual setting that opens the circuit. Specht and Shields do not teach that the physically operated switch is manually controlled by a lever. Tracy teaches [in Figs. 1 and 3] a physically operated buckle switch [58] that is manually controlled by a lever [col. 3, lines 36-44]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the physically operated switch of Specht with the buckle switch of Tracy in order to actuate the switch as desired.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Specht et al. [Specht hereinafter, US 8,013,727] in view of Shields [US 8,403,361] further in view of Breed [US 9,616,747]. Specht and Shields teach the system of claim 10, wherein Shields further teaches [in Fig. 1] an airbag [130] in a lap seat belt strap [120], wherein a tube line [140] connects from the airbag [130] to an airbag inflator [144] and is able to carry air from the airbag inflator [144] to the airbag [130]. Specht and Shields do not disclose another airbag configured with a shoulder seat belt strap, wherein a tube line connects from the shoulder seat belt strap airbag to an airbag inflator and is able to carry air from the airbag inflator to the shoulder seat belt strap airbag. Breed teaches [in Figs. 1A and 1B] a shoulder seat belt strap airbag [26] configured with a shoulder seat belt strap [14], wherein a tube line [col.6, lines 56-58] connects from the shoulder seat belt strap airbag [26] to an airbag inflator [22] and is able to carry air from the airbag inflator [22] to the shoulder seat belt strap airbag [26]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the shoulder seat belt strap airbag, tube line and airbag inflator with the system of Specht, as modified by Shields, in order to further protect the seat occupant.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Specht et al. [Specht hereinafter, US 8,013,727] in view of Tracy et al. [Tracy hereinafter, US 7,340,809]. Specht discloses [in Figs. 1 and 2] the method of claim 18 including closing the circuit by closing the first switch [3] when a latch tongue [col. 2, lines18-20] inserts into a seat belt buckle [1]. Specht does not disclose closing the second switch by moving a manually operated lever. Tracy teaches [in Figs. 1 and 3] closing a buckle switch [58] by moving a manually operated lever [col. 3, lines 36-44]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the second switch of Specht with the buckle switch of Tracy in order to actuate the switch as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 13 are 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.
In regard to claim 4, in combination with other limitations, the lever of the second switch being manually operated by a user when the cover is removed is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
In regard to claim 13, in combination with other limitations, the lever protruding from a switch arrangement area floor, and the switch arrangement area floor being recessed within the buckle and covered by a removable cover is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to claims 1 and 10, Applicant argues that “Specht does not disclose a second switch, let alone a second switch "being configured to be manually switched to optionally open the circuit even if the first switch is in a closed state." However, it has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
Applicant also argues that “Specht's electrodes 8, 9 are not a manually controlled switch and are merely sensor outputs which are used by the logic circuit 5 to make
autonomous vehicle system decisions (see [Col 2, Line 50 - Col 3, Line 5]). The electrodes 8, 9 are not found in a location which is accessible to a user for manual manipulation (it is buried within an inaccessible interior space of the buckle), and the output of the sensor data does not result in the same electrical safety functionality.” The Examiner disagrees. Dictionary.com defines manually as “using or requiring human effort, input, skill, power, etc.” [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/manually]. Specht clearly discloses that the second switch is manually switched. Applicant also argues that “Specht discloses that the airbag system defaults to a disabled state (similar to an open state) when a user is not sitting on top of the electrodes 8, 9, and that the system automatically enables airbag operations (similar to a closed state) only when the user is currently sitting atop the electrodes 8, 9 (see [Col 3, Lines 1-5]).” The Examiner disagrees. Specht discloses [in col. 3, lines 36-41] that functionality of the airbag is activated only when the buckle locking signal is also sent to the logic circuit.
Applicant also argues that “Specht certainly does not disclose that the airbag system is explicitly disengaged unless both a first and a second switch are in a closed position.” The Examiner disagrees. As noted above, Specht discloses [in col. 3, lines 36-41] that functionality of the airbag is activated only when the buckle locking signal is also sent to the logic circuit.
In regard to claim 2, Applicant argues that “Specht fails to disclose a second switch, let alone a second switch which is on the buckle (i.e., at a location accessible to a user).” Dictionary.com defines “on” as “so as to be attached to or unified with [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/on]. Specht clearly discloses that the second switch is on the buckle as recited in claim 2. Applicant further argues that “There are also no disclosures within Specht supporting the idea that element 2 (i.e., the sensor device 2) is a "cover" which could be removed to access a hypothetical secondary switch for manual operation, as is required by the claim.” The Examiner disagrees. Specht clearly discloses that the element [pointed to at 2] covers the internal components of the buckle.
In regard to claim 3, Applicant argues that “Specht fails to disclose a second switch, let alone a second switch which is concealed inside the buckle by a cover.” The Examiner disagrees. As previously noted, Specht clearly discloses a second switch concealed inside the buckle by a cover [pointed to at 2]. Applicant also argues that “Specht is silent regarding a recessed area which is covered by a removable cover.” However, it is noted that claim 3 does not recite a recessed area or a removable cover.
In regard to claims 11, 12 and 20, Applicant argues that “Tracy neither teaches nor suggests second switch comprising a manually operated lever.” The Examiner disagrees. Tracy teaches [in col. 3, lines 36-37] that the switch is a push-button switch. The button of the push button switch can be interpreted as a manually operated lever.
In regard to claim 18, in addition to the arguments made in claim 1, Applicant argues that “Specht fails to disclose any configuration where the airbag is deactivated by the lack of a buckle lock detector signal”. The Examiner disagrees. As noted above, Specht discloses [in col. 3, lines 36-41] that functionality of the airbag is activated only when the buckle locking signal is also sent to the logic circuit.
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 LHEIREN MAE A CAROC whose telephone number is (571)272-2730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/LHEIREN MAE A CAROC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights