Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/517,013

AIRBAG MODULE, VEHICLE SEAT HAVING AN AIRBAG MODULE, AND VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 22, 2023
Priority
Jun 19, 2019 — DE 10 2019 116 586.5 +2 more
Examiner
BECK, KAREN
Art Unit
3614
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
ZF Friedrichshafen AG
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
654 granted / 792 resolved
+30.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
806
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
32.4%
-7.6% vs TC avg
§112
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 792 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/619,652, filed on 16 December 2021. Election/Restrictions Claims 4, 8, and 10 – 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 November 2024 and RCE filed 06 October 2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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, 14 or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 – 7, 9, 18, and 20 - 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pripps et al. U.S. 5,752,714 (“Pripps”). Pripps discloses an airbag module (abstract) for a vehicle seat (abstract) including a seat frame (abstract) and a contact area (4) configured to be contacted by an occupant (column 1, line 5) seated in the vehicle seat, the airbag module comprising: a module housing (abstract, 14) configured to be integrated in the vehicle seat at a side of the contact area (13) and supported by the seat frame; a restraint airbag (cushion) arranged in the module housing and being configured to deploy from the module housing into a vehicle interior (fig. 3) to an inflated condition (column 1, line 20), the restraint airbag is positioned adjacent the occupant and is configured to receive and restrain the occupant; and an actuatable backup member (26) arranged in an initial state (fig. 2) in the module housing and being configured to deploy, when actuated, from the module housing to a restraining state (fig. 3) in which the backup member extends from the module housing into the vehicle interior along a rear side of the restraint airbag (fig. 3) and engages the restraint in the inflated condition (column 4, line 1), with the restraint airbag being positioned between the backup member and the occupant (fig. 3), the backup member being configured to support the restraint airbag and absorb forces applied to the restraint airbag by the occupant (column 4, line 1); wherein a portion of the backup member extending from the module housing (out of the wrap) is configured to impart higher rigidity to the restraint airbag (than one without the backup member) to a portion of the restraint airbag (20) and to transfer the forces applied to the restraint airbag by the occupant through the module housing to the seat frame without relying on support from reaction surfaces other than ones provided through the seat frame (22 – 24, fig. 3). In reference to claims 3, 5 – 7, 9, 18, and 20 – 22, Pripps further discloses [[claim 3]] wherein the backup member is in the form of an element separate (26) from the module housing (14, claim 7, and shrink wrapped in a clear plastic). [[claim 5]] wherein in an initial state the at least one backup member is arranged in a holder (16), wherein a transfer mechanism (18) is configured to move, in a situation of restraint (fig. 3), the at least one backup member out of the holder into the restraining state; [[claim 6]] wherein the transfer mechanism is formed so that the backup member is firmly fixed to an outer wall of the restraint airbag (fixed via 22), or in that the transfer mechanism comprises a gas generator (18) or a mechanical drive. [[claim 7]] wherein at least one backup member is provided that is a dimensionally stable backup member (26) in the form of a component (fig. 4) which is rigid at least in portions in the restraining state (column 3, line 18); [[claim 9]] wherein the dimensionally stable backup member is arranged so that it is linearly displaced, swiveled or rotated for being transferred from the initial state to the restraining state (fig. 3); [[claim 18]] wherein the restraint airbag is inflated in a situation of restraint (fig. 3) and, in an inflated state (fig. 3), has a restraining effect on the occupant on a contact area of the vehicle seat (column 1, line 18), wherein the at least one backup member in a restraining state is in contact, at least in portions, with the inflated restraint airbag and can exert a force directed toward the contact area on the restraint airbag, wherein the restraint airbag is located between the contact area and the backup member (fig. 3); [[claim 20]] a vehicle (column 1, line 18) comprising at least one airbag module; [[claim 21]] a vehicle comprising a vehicle seat (2); and [[claim 22]] wherein the transfer mechanism (18) is actuatable to actively move the backup member to the restraining state (fig. 3). 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(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pripps in view of Palo et al. DE 10 2009 021635 (“Palo”). Pripps does not disclose at least two airbag modules. Palo teaches at least two airbag modules (fig. 1) arranged on each side of the contact area (fig. 1) and which are arranged on a backrest (12). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find modifying Pripps such that it comprised at least two airbag modules in view of the teachings of Palo obvious so as to support the occupant at each side of the seat (fig. 1). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the claims attempt to overcome the drawing objections and 112 rejections by cancelling the features within the claims. The claims are reverted back to the similar language of the response filed on 06 October 2025 and therefore the prior art reference Pipps reads on the limitations of the claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN BECK whose telephone number is (571)272-6212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30AM - 4:00PM. 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, Jason Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. 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. KAREN BECK Primary Examiner Art Unit 3614 /KAREN BECK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 4 earlier events
Oct 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Feb 27, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Jul 20, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12744302
ROCK GUARD FOR GNSS SIGNAL AVOIDANCE
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12709529
Torsion Bar Assembly for a Material Handling Vehicle
3y 7m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12709525
LEVELING SYSTEM FOR LIFT DEVICE
2y 0m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12697936
TETHER MECHANISM FOR AN AIRBAG MODULE
1y 10m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12697850
TWIST BEAM AXLE
1y 9m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+10.5%)
2y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 792 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month