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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by the Eiswerth reference (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0226992).
4. Regarding claim 1, the Eiswerth reference discloses:
an airbag deployment control system [Paragraph 0011] comprising:
a plurality of airbag cushions provided for a seat, the plurality of airbag cushions configured to be deployed in shapes that cover a lateral surface and a front surface of the seat at left and right sides of the seat [Paragraph 0049]; and
a controller configured to perform control to selectively deploy at least one of a left or right airbag cushion among the plurality of airbag cushions for the seat depending on a collision
direction of a vehicle, whether a passenger is seated in the seat, and a seat direction [Paragraph 0064][[.]],
wherein the controller performs control to deploy the left and right airbag cushions in the seat directed toward the inside of the vehicle in the event of a broadside collision of the vehicle when the passengers are seated in two opposite seats and the seat positioned in a direction opposite to the collision direction is directed toward the inside of the vehicle, and
wherein the controller performs control to deploy the left and right airbag cushions in the seat directed toward the outside of the vehicle in the event of the broadside collision of the vehicle when the passengers are seated in two opposite seats and the seat positioned in the direction opposite to the collision direction is directed toward the outside of the vehicle.
5. Regarding claim 2, the Eiswerth reference further discloses:
further comprising an additional seat and an additional plurality of airbag cushions configured to be deployed with respect to the additional seat [Paragraph 0064].
6. Regarding claim 3, the Eiswerth reference further discloses:
wherein the vehicle includes a plurality of seats, each of the seats having a respective plurality of airbag cushions arranged with respect to a respective one of the plurality of seats [Paragraph 0064].
7. Regarding claim 15, the Eiswerth further discloses:
a vehicle comprising the airbag deployment control system of claim 1 (FIG. 7).
8. Regarding claim 16, the Eiswerth reference discloses:
an airbag deployment control method [Paragraph 0011] comprising:
a collision direction determination step of detecting, by a controller, a collision direction in the event of a collision of a vehicle; a seat detection step of detecting, by the controller, whether a passenger is seated in a seat and a seat direction [Paragraph 0064]; and
a deployment control step of controlling, by the controller, a plurality of airbag cushions, which are provided for the seat and configured to be deployed in shapes that cover a lateral surface and a front surface of the seat at left or night sides of the seat, to selectively deploy at
least one of the plurality of airbag cushions depending on a collision direction of the vehicle, whether the passenger is seated in the seat, and the seat direction [Paragraph 0064][[.]],
wherein the controller performs control to deploy the left and right airbag cushions in the seat directed toward the inside of the vehicle in the event of a broadside collision of the vehicle when the passengers are seated in two opposite seats and the seat positioned in a direction opposite to the collision direction is directed toward the inside of the vehicle, and
wherein the controller performs control to deploy the left and right airbag cushions in the seat directed toward the outside of the vehicle in the event of the broadside collision of the vehicle when the passengers are seated in two opposite seats and the seat positioned in the direction opposite to the collision direction is directed toward the outside of the vehicle.
9. Regarding claim 17, the Eiswerth reference further discloses:
wherein the plurality of airbag cushions include at least one of a left or right airbag cushion among the plurality of airbag cushions [Paragraph 0049].
10. Regarding claim 18, the Eiswerth reference further discloses: an additional seat and an additional plurality of airbag cushions configured to be deployed with respect to the additional seat [Paragraph 0064].
11. Regarding claim 19, the Eiswerth reference further discloses:
wherein the vehicle includes a plurality of seats, each of the seats having a respective plurality of airbag cushions arranged with respect to a respective one of the plurality of seats [Paragraph 0064].
12. Regarding claim 20, the Eiswerth reference discloses:
a non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions executed by a processor (408), the computer readable medium comprising:
program instructions that detect a collision direction in the event of a collision of a vehicle [Paragraph 0064];
program instructions that detect whether a passenger is seated in a seat and a seat direction [Paragraph 0064]; and
program instructions that control a plurality of airbag cushions, which are provided for the seat and configured to be deployed in shapes that cover a lateral surface and a front surface of the seat at left or right sides of the seat, to selectively deploy at least one of the plurality of airbag cushions depending on a collision direction of the vehicle, whether the passenger is seated in the seat, and the seat direction [Paragraph 0064][[.]],
wherein the controller performs control to deploy the left and right airbag cushions in the seat directed toward the inside of the vehicle in the event of a broadside collision of the vehicle when the passengers are seated in two opposite seats and the seat positioned in a direction opposite to the collision direction is directed toward the inside of the vehicle, and
wherein the controller performs control to deploy the left and right airbag cushions in the seat directed toward the outside of the vehicle in the event of the broadside collision of the vehicle when the passengers are seated in two opposite seats and the seat positioned in the direction opposite to the collision direction is directed toward the outside of the vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. Claim(s) 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Eiswerth reference.
15. Regarding claim 4, the Eiswerth reference further discloses:
wherein the controller performs control to deploy the left and right airbag cushions in the seat in which the passenger is seated in the event of a head-on collision of the vehicle regardless of the seat direction (FIG. 9). The Eiswerth reference discloses using seat status, collision direction, and seat direction. It would be obvious to try a combination where seat direction is ignored since it is one combination of a set of combinations that are finite, predictable, and have a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the claim is obvious.
16. Regarding claim 5, the Eiswerth reference further discloses:
wherein the controller performs control to deploy the left and right airbag cushions in the seat in which the passenger is seated in the event of a frontal broadside oblique collision of the vehicle regardless of the seat direction (FIG. 7). The Eiswerth reference discloses using seat status, collision direction, and seat direction. It would be obvious to try a combination where seat direction is ignored since it is one combination of a set of combinations that are finite, predictable, and have a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the claim is obvious.
17. Regarding claim 6, the Eiswerth reference further discloses:
wherein the controller performs control to deploy only the plurality of airbag cushions in the seat in which the passenger is seated and to selectively deploy the left and right airbag cushions depending on the collision direction and the direction of the seat in which the passenger is seated when the passenger is seated only in one side seat in the event of [[a]] the broadside collision of the vehicle (FIG. 8). The Eiswerth reference discloses using seat status, collision direction, deploying different airbags, and seat direction. It would be obvious to try any
combination any of these factors from a set of combinations that are finite, predictable, and have a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the claim is obvious.
18. Regarding claim 7, the Eiswerth reference further discloses:
wherein the controller performs control to deploy only the plurality of airbag cushions in a direction in which a collision occurs among the left and right airbag cushions in the seat in which the passenger is seated in the event of [[a]] the broadside collision of the vehicle when the passenger is seated only in one side seat and the direction of the seat in which the passenger is seated is directed forward or rearward (FIG. 8). The Eiswerth reference discloses using seat status, collision direction, deploying different airbags, and seat direction. It would be obvious to try any combination any of these factors from a set of combinations that are finite, predictable, and have a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the claim is obvious.
19. Regarding claim 8, the Eiswerth reference further discloses:
wherein the controller performs control to deploy the right airbag cushion in the event of [[a]] the broadside collision of the vehicle when the passenger is seated only in one side seat, the direction of the seat in which the passenger is seated is directed toward the inside of the vehicle, and the collision occurs in one direction (FIG. 8). The Eiswerth reference discloses using seat status, collision direction, deploying different airbags, and seat direction. It would be obvious to try any combination any of these factors from a set of combinations that are finite, predictable, and have a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the claim is obvious.
20. Regarding claim 9, the Eiswerth reference further discloses:
wherein the controller performs control to deploy the left airbag cushion in the event of [[a]] the broadside collision of the vehicle when the passenger is seated only in one side seat, the direction of the seat in which the passenger is seated is directed toward the inside of the vehicle, and the collision occurs in the other direction (FIG. 8). The Eiswerth reference discloses using seat status, collision direction, deploying different airbags, and seat direction. It would be obvious to try any combination any of these factors from a set of combinations that are
finite, predictable, and have a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the claim is obvious.
21. Regarding claim 10, the Eiswerth reference fails to disclose:
wherein the controller performs control to deploy the left and right airbag cushions in the seat in which the passenger is seated in the event of [[a]] the broadside collision of the vehicle when the passenger is seated only in one side seat and the direction of the seat in which the passenger is seated is directed toward the outside of the vehicle (FIG. 8). The Eiswerth reference discloses using seat status, collision direction, deploying different airbags, and seat direction. It would be obvious to try any combination any of these factors from a set of combinations that are finite, predictable, and have a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the claim is obvious.
22. Regarding claim 11, the Eiswerth reference fails to disclose:
wherein the controller performs control to deploy the left and right airbag cushions in the seat positioned in the collision direction regardless of the seat direction when the passengers are seated in two opposite seats in the event of [[a]] the broadside collision of the vehicle. The Eiswerth reference discloses using seat status, collision direction, deploying different airbags, and seat direction. It would be obvious to try any combination any of these factors from a set of combinations that are finite, predictable, and have a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the claim is obvious.
23. Regarding claim 12, the Eiswerth reference fails to disclose:
wherein the controller performs control to deploy only the plurality of airbag cushions in the collision direction among the left and right airbag cushions in the seats positioned in [[a]] the direction opposite to the collision direction in the event of [[a]] the broadside collision of the vehicle when the passengers are seated in two opposite seats and the seat positioned in the opposite direction is directed forward or rearward (FIG. 8). The Eiswerth reference discloses using seat status, collision direction, deploying different airbags, and seat direction. It would be obvious to try any combination any of these factors from a set of combinations that are finite, predictable, and have a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the claim is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous rejections listed how it would be obvious to try different combinations of seat direction and collision directions to obtain optimal results. The Applicant admits that a combination of seat direction and collision direction is allegedly the difference in his invention, however, the cited art highlights that such combinations are obvious in light of cited art. Accordingly, the claims are finally rejected.
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 CHARLES J BRAUCH whose telephone number is (313)446-6511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 6 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/CHARLES JOSEPH BRAUCH/
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747