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)(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 29-42, 44-46 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horiguchi (EP 2264235).
Regarding claims 29-32, 35-36 and 46, Horiguchi et al. teach an airbag fabric comprising a woven fabric formed from polyamide fibers [0001 and 0014] with the woven fabric exhibiting a fabric relative viscosity in the claimed range (fiber relative viscosity is taught as 3-4 which translated to a fabric relative viscosity in the claimed range) [0016] and the edgecomb resistance of the fabric in the warp and weft directions is in the claimed range (500-1000 is taught) and the fabric has a dynamic air permeability in the claimed range (0.5 L/cm2 min or less is taught) [0015]. Horiguchi et al. teach RV in claimed range and as taught in the specification high RV in the claimed range yields the claimed seam open areas in the claimed range and seam performance as claimed. Therefore the woven fabric of Horiguchi possesses the open seam in the claimed range and seam performance.
Regarding claim 33, Horiguchi teaches fabric with almost the same decitex, decitex per filament, fabric weight, fabric thickness, construction (ends/cm and picks/cm) and also teaches heat setting. The present specification teaches these parameters determine the fabric stiffness. Since Horiguchi teaches such similar fabric with such similar parameters, the claimed fabric stiffness is inherent to Horiguchi.
Regarding claim 34, the fabric has a cloth cover factor in the claimed range [Ex 12].
Regarding claim 37, Horiguchi is silent regarding the claimed static air permeability. However, Horiguchi teaches such a similar fabric with such similar composition (nylon) with such similar construction parameters (decitex, decitex per filament, fabric weight, fabric thickness, construction (ends/cm and picks/cm) and heat setting) and properties, the claimed static air permeability would be necessarily inherent to the fabric of Horiguchi.
Regarding claims 38-39, the polyamide is taught as nylon 6,6 [0021].
Regarding claim 40, the fabric has a construction of ends/cm in the claimed range (48 ends/2.54 cm is taught) [Examples].
Regarding claim 41, Horiguchi teaches total fabric weight in the claimed range [Examples] and bulk density in the claimed range (for example 171g/m2/0.25mm=684 kg/m3) [Examples].
Regarding claim 42, the fabric has a thickness in the claimed range [Examples].
Regarding claims 44-45, the fabric is coated or uncoated [0053].
Regarding claim 48, Horiguchi teaches a method of improving seam performance of an airbag deployment comprising making an airbag from polyamide fibers wherein the fabric has a fabric relative viscosity in the claimed range (fiber relative viscosity is taught as 3-4 which translated to a fabric relative viscosity in the claimed range) [0016] and the edgecomb resistance of the fabric in the warp and weft directions is in the claimed range (500-1000 is taught) and the fabric has a dynamic air permeability in the claimed range (0.5 L/cm2 min or less is taught) [0015]. Horiguchi et al. teach RV in claimed range and as taught in the specification high RV in the claimed range yields the seam performance as claimed. Therefore the woven fabric of Horiguchi possesses the seam performance claimed.
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 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiguchi (EP 2264235).
Regarding claim 43, Horiguchi et al. are silent regarding the claimed weave being plain. However, Horiguchi et al. teaches the fabric is woven and given the limited number of options and the level of ordinary skill in the art in which plain weaves are the most commonly known, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at plain weave in order to provide high dimensional stability and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (PG Pub. 2009/0124149).
Regarding claim 47, Barnes et al. teaches a sewing thread formed by twisting polyamide fibers wherein the fibers extracted from the thread have a RV in the claimed range (formic acid relative viscosity taught as about 40 to about 85-which includes the claimed range) [0028, 0075 and Title]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the alternative, however, it is clear that the instantly claimed relative viscosity and that taught by Barnes et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the relative viscosity disclosed by Barnes et al. and the relative viscosity disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the relative viscosity, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the relative viscosity disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the relative viscosity disclosed in Barnes et al. and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Art Not Cited but Relevant
PG Pub. 2013/0328293 teaches an airbag made using a polyamide sewing thread.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights