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
Claim 12 is objected to because “a first manual setting” in line 1 should be changed to “the first manual setting” and “a second manual setting” in line 2 should be changed to “the second manual setting”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9, 16 and 17 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.
In regard to claim 1, it is unclear which “switch” is being referred to in line 7. For the purposes of examination, “switch” is interpreted as “the second switch”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the airbag inflator" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination “the airbag inflator” is interpreted as “an airbag inflator”.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the first airbag" in line 2 and “the second airbag” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination “the first airbag and the second airbag” is interpreted as “the airbag”.
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.
Claims 4, 5 and 20 are 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].
In regard to claims 4 and 5, Specht discloses [in Figs. 1 and 2] the system of claim 3 wherein the second switch [8, 9] is in a recessed area [in 1] covered by the cover [2], the second switch [8, 9] operated by a user when the cover [2] is removed, wherein the cover is removably securable on the buckle. Specht does not disclose that the second switch includes a lever being manually operated by a user. Tracy teaches [in Figs. 1 and 3] a buckle switch [58] that includes a lever [col. 3, lines 36-44] being manually operated by a user. 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.
In regard to claim 20, 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.
Claim 6 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] further in view of Shields [US 8,403,361]. Specht and Tracy teach the system of claim 5. Specht and Tracy do not teach that the cover includes prongs and a center catch configured to engage and become secure in the buckle. Shields teaches [in Fig. 3] that the cover [302] includes prongs [annotated below] and a center catch [annotated below] configured to engage and become secure in the buckle [124]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the prongs and catch of Shields to the cover of Specht in order to ensure a secure fit of the cover in order to effectively protect the inner switch components.
PNG
media_image1.png
196
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. 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 [130]. 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 11-13 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, wherein a switch arrangement area floor [in 1] is recessed within the buckle [1] and covered by a removable cover [2]. 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 does 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.
Conclusion
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 2833