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 § 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, 7-8, and 10-18 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 claim(s) contains 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. Although para [0056] of the specification discloses the invention as the crash pad module may be applied to an integrated model in which the crash pad, the airbag door, and the scrim are integrally formed, the specification does not teach the crash pad, the airbag door, and the airbag chute are integrally formed as a single unitary injection-molded body from the same injection material as in Claims 1 and 11. Nowhere does the subject specification disclose that the crash pad, the airbag door, and the airbag chute are integrally formed as a single unitary injection-molded body from the same injection material. Thus, independent claims 1 and 11 contains 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.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 12 – 18 are rejected by virtue of depending from rejected claims 1 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed June 18, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3,5,7-8 and 10-17 under Kim (US Patent US 10,604,099 B2) in view of Hioda et al (JP Patent Publication JP 2020079026 A) and in further view of Monnier et al (FR Patent FR 3001681 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Kim (US Patent US 10,604,099 B2) in view of Rick (WIPO Patent Publication WO 2008068110 A1).
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 1, 10-11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Patent US 10,604,099 B2) in view of Rick (WIPO Patent Publication WO 2008068110 A1).
With regards to Claim 1: Kim teaches a crash pad module, comprising: a crash pad (Kim 10); an airbag door (Kim 121) configured to be opened in a first direction when a portion of the crash pad is cut; a scrim (Kim 130) inserted into the crash pad and the airbag door, and an airbag chute (Kim 110), the airbag chute being configured to protrude from an edge portion of the airbag door toward a rear surface of the crash pad (seen in Fig 7), wherein the scrim includes a bent portion (seen around Kim 130 in Kim Fig 4) formed by bending a portion of the scrim, wherein a through hole (Kim 111) is formed in a hinge (around Kim 131) of the airbag door, and wherein the bent portion is disposed at a location corresponding to the through hole (seen in Kim Fig 4).
Kim does not teach that the crash pad, the airbag door, and the airbag chute are integrally formed as a single unitary injection-molded body from the same injection material.
Rick teaches a crash pad module, comprising: a crash pad (Rick 26); an airbag door (Rick 22) configured to be opened in a first direction when a portion of the crash pad is cut, and an airbag chute (Rick 20), wherein the crash pad, the airbag door, and the airbag chute are integrally formed as a single unitary injection-molded body (Rick page 4 para 3 of the attached English translation) from the same injection material (Rick plastic via page 3 para 3 of the attached English translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crash pad module disclosed in Kim with the crash pad, the airbag door, and the airbag chute integrally formed as a single unitary injection-molded body from the same injection material as taught in Rick with a reasonable expectation of success because additional fasteners such as screw connections are avoided, thus saving the weight of the screws that would otherwise be required as taught by Rick (page 4 para 3).
With regards to Claim 10: The combination of Kim and Rick et al teaches the crash pad of claim 1, wherein the bent portion (seen around Kim 130 in Kim Fig 4) is configured to unfold and translate, in a deployment of the airbag door (Kim 121), to compensate for a deployment stress on the scrim (Kim 130) and airbag door.
With regards to Claim 11: Kim teaches a crash pad module, comprising: a crash pad (10); an airbag door (121) configured to be opened in a first direction when a portion of the crash pad is cut, the airbag door comprising a hinge (around 131), the hinge having a through hole (111) defined therein; a scrim (130) inserted into the crash pad and the airbag door, the scrim comprising a bent portion (seen around 130 in Fig 4) formed by bending a portion of the scrim, the bent portion being disposed at a first location on the scrim corresponding to a second location of the through hole in the airbag door, and an airbag chute (110), the airbag chute being configured to protrude from an edge portion of the airbag door toward a rear surface of the crash pad (seen in Fig 7).
Kim does not teach that the crash pad, the airbag door, and the airbag chute are integrally formed as a single unitary injection-molded body from the same injection material.
Rick teaches a crash pad module, comprising: a crash pad (Rick 26); an airbag door (Rick 22) configured to be opened in a first direction when a portion of the crash pad is cut, and an airbag chute (Rick 20), wherein the crash pad, the airbag door, and the airbag chute are integrally formed as a single unitary injection-molded body (Rick page 4 para 3 of the attached English translation) from the same injection material (Rick plastic via page 3 para 3 of the attached English translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crash pad module disclosed in Kim with the crash pad, the airbag door, and the airbag chute integrally formed as a single unitary injection-molded body from the same injection material as taught in Rick with a reasonable expectation of success because additional fasteners such as screw connections are avoided, thus saving the weight of the screws that would otherwise be required as taught by Rick (page 4 para 3).
With regards to Claim 14: The combination of Kim and Rick et al teaches the crash pad module of claim 11, further comprising: an airbag chute (Kim 110), the airbag chute being configured to protrude from an edge portion of the airbag door (Kim 121) toward a rear surface of the crash pad (Kim 10).
With regards to Claim 17: The combination of Kim and Rick et al teaches the crash pad of claim 11, wherein the bent portion (seen around Kim 130 in Kim Fig 4) is configured to unfold and translate, in a deployment of the airbag door (Kim 121), to secure the airbag door and compensate for a deployment stress on the scrim (Kim 130) and airbag door.
Claims 2-3, 7-8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Patent US 10,604,099 B2) in view of Rick (WIPO Patent Publication WO 2008068110 A1) and in further view of Oh (KR Patent Publication KR 20220122903 A).
With regards to Claim 2: The combination of Kim and Rick et al teaches the crash pad module of claim 1, wherein the through hole (Kim 111) is defined as a long hollow shape extending in a longitudinal direction of the hinge (around Kim 131);
The combination of Kim and Rick et al does not teach a bridge connecting portions of the through hole in a width direction is formed inside the through hole.
Oh teaches a crash pad module comprising an airbag door (123), a through hole (123a), and bridge connecting portions (124a) of the through hole in a width direction is formed inside the through hole (seen in Fig 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crash pad module disclosed in the combination of Kim and Rick et al with the bridges taught in Oh with a reasonable expectation of success because it would prevent the airbag door from being deformed and possibly obstructing the airbag from deploying correctly to receive the occupant of the vehicle.
With regards to Claim 3: The combination of Kim, Rick, and Oh et al teaches the crash pad module of claim 2, wherein the through hole (Kim 111) is provided as one of a plurality of through holes (Oh 123a), the plurality of through holes being spaced at a predetermined distance from each other in the longitudinal direction of the hinge (seen in Oh Fig 7).
With regards to Claim 7: The combination of Kim, Rick, and Oh et al teaches the crash pad module of claim 2 but does not teach the thickness of the bridge (Oh 124a) is the same as a thickness of the airbag door (Kim 121).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Kim, Rick, and Oh et al to have a thickness of the bridge the same as a thickness of the airbag door to have a uniform response to the impact of the airbag upon a collision event.
Furthermore, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to Claim 8: The combination of Kim, Rick, and Oh et al teaches the crash pad module of claim 2, wherein, in the bent portion (seen around Kim 130 in Kim Fig 4) of the scrim (Kim 130), an empty portion corresponding to the bridge (Oh 124a) is provided.
With regards to Claim 12: The combination of Kim and Rick et al teaches the crash pad module of claim 11, but does not teach a bridge configured to connect portions of the through hole (Kim 111) in a width direction, the bridge being formed inside the through hole, wherein the through hole is defined as a long hollow shape extending in a longitudinal direction of the hinge (seen in Kim Fig 3).
Oh teaches a crash pad module comprising an airbag door (123), a through hole (123a), and bridge connecting portions (124a) of the through hole in a width direction is formed inside the through hole (seen in Fig 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crash pad module disclosed in the combination of Kim and Rick et al with the bridges taught in Oh with a reasonable expectation of success because it would prevent the airbag door from being deformed and possibly obstructing the airbag from deploying correctly to receive the occupant of the vehicle.
With regards to Claim 13: The combination of Kim, Rick, and Oh et al teaches the crash pad module of claim 12, wherein bent portion (seen around Kim 130 in Kim Fig 4) includes an empty portion defined therein corresponding to the bridge (Oh 124a).
Claims 5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Patent US 10,604,099 B2) in view of Rick (WIPO Patent Publication WO 2008068110 A1) and in further view of Kobayashi (JP Patent JP 6563082 B1).
With regards to Claim 5: The combination of Kim and Rick et al teaches the crash pad module of claim 1, but does not teach a reinforcing rib being provided on a portion at which a rear surface of the airbag door (Kim 121) is in contact with the airbag chute (Kim 110).
Kobayashi teaches a crash pad module comprising a reinforcing rib (151) provided on a portion at which a rear surface of the airbag door (32) is in contact with the airbag chute (34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crash pad module taught in the combination of Kim and Rick et al with the reinforcing rib taught in Kobayashi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would prevent the airbag chute from being deformed and possibly obstructing the airbag from deploying correctly to receive the occupant of the vehicle.
With regards to Claim 15: The combination of Kim and Rick et al teaches the crash pad module of claim 14, but does not teach a reinforcing rib provided on a third location at which a rear surface of the airbag door (Kim 121) is in contact with the airbag chute (Kim 110).
Kobayashi teaches a crash pad module comprising a reinforcing rib (151) provided on a portion at which a rear surface of the airbag door (32) is in contact with the airbag chute (34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crash pad module disclosed in the combination of Kim and Rick et al with the reinforcing rib taught in Kobayashi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would prevent the airbag chute from being deformed and possibly obstructing the airbag from deploying correctly to receive the occupant of the vehicle.
With regards to Claim 16: The combination of Kim, Rick, and Kobayashi et al teaches the crash pad of claim 15, wherein the reinforcing rib (Kobayashi 151) is configured to absorb a stress between the rear surface of the airbag door (Kim 121) and a side surface of the airbag chute (Kim 110).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Patent US 10,604,099 B2) in view of Rick (WIPO Patent Publication WO 2008068110 A1) and in further view of Lee (US Patent US 11,173,862 B2).
With regards to Claim 18: Kim teaches the crash pad module of claim 1 but does not teach an injection material being configured as a thin film on an inner surface of the bent portion (seen around Kim 130 in Kim Fig 4).
Lee teaches a crash pad module comprising a hinge (47) with a bent portion (around 30 in Fig 2) wherein an injection material (plastic per C4 L66-67 and C5 L1-3) being configured as a thin film on an inner surface of the bent portion (at 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crash pad module disclosed in Kim and Rick et al with the injection material taught in Lee with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Ganci whose telephone number is (571)272-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM to 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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (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.
/MATTHEW JOSEPH GANCI/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights