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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/06/2024, 11/11/2024, and 2/24/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figures 1A and 6A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein the ratio: (straight linear seam spacing/straight linear seam length), as the ratio of the straight linear seam spacing with respect to the straight linear seam length”. This renders the claim unclear and indefinite, as the same ratio is included twice. Further, parentheses in claims should be limited to characters referencing the drawings (see MPEP 608.01(m)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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, 3-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki (US20190299918A1), henceforth referred to as Ozeki, in view of Kavanaugh (US5421610A), henceforth referred to as Kavanaugh.
Regarding claim 1, Ozeki discloses an airbag having a bag comprising a pair of base fabric panels sewn together at the outer perimeter edges (Paragraph [0029]: "and the outer peripheral wall 40 of the airbag 23 is formed by overlapping the base fabrics 60, 61 for airbag and sewing outer peripheral edges 60 a, 61 a thereof"), and a tether cloth of prescribed width stitched to each of the pair of base fabric panels on the inner side of the bag so as to restrict the distance between the pair of base fabric panels during inflation of the bag (Paragraph [0031]: "the rear tether 46 is configured so that, when the base fabric 63 for tether is joined to the non-case-side panel 41 and the case-side panel 43 by sewing, a spaced distance L2 (refer to FIG. 8) between the panels 41, 43 is about 170 mm"), wherein the stitching between the base fabric panels and the tether cloth includes multiple straight linear seams arranged discretely along an imaginary line extending in the widthwise direction of the tether cloth (Figure 7A: linear sewing portion 41A and sewing portion 70A attach tether 47 to panels 41 and 43 along an imaginary line).
Regarding claim 3, Kavanaugh further discloses the straight linear seam length is 5 mm to 100 mm (Column 3 line 4: "spacing of the ladder "rungs": 20 mm", thus the seam length is 20mm).
Regarding claim 4, Kavanaugh further discloses the spacings between the straight linear seams arranged along the imaginary line are 5 mm to 50 mm (Column 3 line 54-58: "the stitch length on the transverse portions 34 in FIG. 5 may be 3 to 4 stitches per cm. while that on the parallel portions 32 may be 2 stitches per cm., but any stitch length between 1 and 6 cm. can be used", thus, the distance between upper parallel portions 32 is 10-60mm).
Regarding claim 5, Kavanaugh further discloses the ratio: (straight linear seam spacing/straight linear seam length), as the ratio of the straight linear seam spacing with respect to the straight linear seam length, is 0.2 to 1.5 (Column 3 lines 18-19: "The parallel portions 32 can be all the same length as shown" thus, the ratio between the upper portions 32 seam length: seam spacing is 1:1).
Regarding claim 6, Kavanaugh further discloses the bending angle at the edges of the straight linear seams is 60° to 120° (Figure 5: transverse seams 34 are disposed at approximately 90° angles to parallel linear seams 32).
Regarding claim 7, Kavanaugh further discloses the lengths of the nonlinear sections at the edges of the straight linear seams is 3 mm to 50 mm (Column 3 line 54-58: "the stitch length on the transverse portions 34 in FIG. 5 may be 3 to 4 stitches per cm. while that on the parallel portions 32 may be 2 stitches per cm., but any stitch length between 1 and 6 cm. can be used", thus, the length of non-linear transverse portions 34 is 10-60mm).
Regarding claim 8, Kavanaugh further discloses the number of multiple straight linear seams arranged discretely along the imaginary line is 2 to 20 per 10 cm length of the imaginary line (Column 3 lines 56-57: "on the parallel portions 32 may be 2 stitches per cm", thus 20 stitches per 10cm)
Regarding claim 11, Kavanaugh further discloses the straight linear seams are partial continuous square waves on the imaginary line (Figure 5: parallel portions 32 of the linear seams are part of a continuous square wave).
Regarding claim 12, Ozeki as modified discloses the airbag is a pedestrian airbag (Paragraph [0008]: "FIG. 1 is a schematic partial plan view of a vehicle to which an airbag device for pedestrian, in which an airbag of an illustrative embodiment of the present invention is used, is mounted, depicting the airbag upon completion of the inflation with a dashed-two dotted line").
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki and Kavanaugh as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Iida (US 20200307492 A1), henceforth referred to as Iida.
Regarding claim 2, Ozeki and Kavanaugh do not teach the tether cloth width. Iida discloses the prescribed width of the tether cloth is 50 mm to 500 mm (Paragraph [0070]: "The tether 56 preferably has a width greater than or equal to 40 mm"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the airbag of Ozeki and Kavanaugh with the tether width of Iida since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, such a change in size would not materially change the function of the airbag or tether.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki and Kavanaugh as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Witt (US20170282836A1), henceforth referred to as Witt.
Regarding claim 9, Ozeki and Kavanaugh do not teach the seams being polygonal or half circular. Witt discloses the straight linear seams are polygonal or half-circular, or portions thereof, having one side shared with the imaginary line (Figure 4: tear seams 422 and 424 are half-circular, sharing one side with imaginary tear seam line 452). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the airbag and seam of Ozeki and Kavanaugh with the seam shape of Witt in order to “improve the ability of the weakening pattern to avoid read through” (Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 10, Ozeki and Kavanaugh do not teach each linear seam being a different seam. Witt discloses each straight linear seam is part of a different seam (Figure 4: first tear seam 422 is a different seam than tear seam 424). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the airbag and seam of Ozeki and Kavanaugh with the seams of Witt in order to “improve the ability of the weakening pattern to avoid read through” (Paragraph [0043]).
Cited Prior Art not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Williams (US-8371612-B2), which discloses a stitched airbag with tethers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J O'NEILL whose telephone number is (571)272-4752. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 7AM-4PM.
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 JAMES O'NEILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights