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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response of 4/22/2026 is received. Claims 1-7, 9, 12, 15, and 16 are amended, with claims 1-32 pending and claims 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 17-32 withdrawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the transparent layer connected to the tunnel extending through the gas space (claim 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 § 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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payre (FR 3108249 A1) in view of Taheri (U.S. 4,637,074) and Cook (U.S. 6,508,747). Payre discloses the invention substantially as claimed. For claim 1, Payre teaches a protection device for a head of a human comprising an inflatable airbag 4,4a, wherein the airbag covers at least a part of a face of the human when inflated (see Fig.2). Payre is silent as to the material of the airbag having an outer skin enclosing the gas space and doesn’t teach the airbag when inflated comprises a see-through area positioned in front of the human’s eyes, the see-through area being a hole extending through the gas space and bounded by the outer skin so as to form a tunnel though the inflated airbag. Taheri teaches an inflatable protection device covering at least part of the face of a human, the airbag formed of an outer skin (outer layer of transparent plastic as in col.4, lines 6-12) enclosing a gas space. Cook teaches an inflated one piece protective head gear 36 including an airbag portion 32 covering the wearer’s face and including a see through area being a hole extending through the gas space as in Figures 4 and 5. Modifying Payre’s inflatable airbag to include the hole as claimed, would result in the hole bounded by the outer skin so as to form a tunnel though the inflated airbag, as Payre is modified by Taheri to include the outer skin enclosing the gas space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Payre's airbag to form with an outer skin enclosing the gas space and the airbag when inflated comprising a see-through area positioned in front of the human’s eyes, the see-through area being a hole extending through the gas space and bounded by the outer skin so as to form a tunnel through the inflated airbag, as Taheri teaches the outer skin is transparent for viewing therethrough and is also durable and distensible as is necessary for an airbag intended to be inflated and deflated and Cook teaches that an inflated face covering having a see-through area being a hole extending through the gas space is known in the art, allowing for the airbag wearer to see through the hole.
For claim 2, the modified Payre teaches the protection device of claim 1, wherein the airbag when inflated covers substantially the whole face of the human (see Fig.2).
For claim 3, the modified Payre teaches the protection device of claim 1, wherein the airbag when inflated does substantially not cover any other part of the head of the human, as Figure 2 shows the housing from which the airbag is deployed and the inflated airbag 4 does substantially not cover any other part of the human's head.
For claim 12, the modified Payre teaches the protection device of claim 1 further comprising an inflator 5 (inflation means comprising compressed gas 50) and a triggering means (motion sensor) for triggering the inflator.
For claim 13, the modified Payre teaches the protection device of claim 12, further comprising an attachment means 30 for attaching the protection device to a helmet 3.
For claim 15, the modified Payre teaches the protection device of claim 13, wherein the protection device is configured to be attached to a helmet 3 such that the airbag, in an undeployed state, is substantially located in front of the forehead of the human and deploys in the direction towards the chin. Note that Figure 1 shows the undeployed airbag 4 within housing 30 forming front part 35 of the helmet 3 such that the undeployed airbag is substantially located in front of the forehead of the user and deploys in the direction towards the chin as in Figure 2.
For claim 16, the modified Payre teaches a protection arrangement comprising: a protection device for the head of a human comprising an inflatable airbag 4,4a enclosing a gas space, said airbag covering at least part of the face of said human when in its inflated state (see Figure 2), and a helmet 3 to which said protection device is connected. However, Payre doesn’t teach the airbag comprises a see-through area in form of a hole which is located in front of the eyes when the airbag is inflated, the hole extending through the gas space. Taheri teaches an inflatable protection device covering at least part of the face of a human, the airbag formed of an outer skin (outer layer of transparent plastic as in col.4, lines 6-12) enclosing a gas space. Cook teaches an inflated one piece protective head gear 36 including an airbag portion 32 covering the wearer’s face and including a see through area being a hole extending through the gas space as in Figures 4 and 5. Modifying Payre’s inflatable airbag to include the hole as claimed, would result in the hole bounded by the outer skin so as to form a tunnel though the inflated airbag, as Payre is modified by Taheri to include the outer skin enclosing the gas space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Payre's airbag to form with an outer skin enclosing the gas space and the airbag when inflated comprising a see-through area positioned in front of the human’s eyes, the see-through area being a hole extending through the gas space and bounded by the outer skin so as to form a tunnel through the inflated airbag, as Taheri teaches the outer skin is resilient as an exterior airbag surface and distensible as is necessary for an airbag intended to be inflated and deflated and Cook teaches that an inflated face covering having a see-through area being a hole extending through the gas space is known in the art, allowing for the airbag wearer to see through the hole.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payre ‘249 in view of Taheri ‘074 and Cook ‘747, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mawhirt et al. (Mawhirt, U.S. 7,225,806). Payre discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Payre doesn’t teach a transparent layer provided in the hole and connected to the outer skin, and the transparent layer is in form of a transparent foil or a transparent fabric and the transparent layer is connected to the tunnel extending through the gas space. Mawhirt teaches a head covering/protector 10 with a transparent layer 12 provided in a hole, the transparent layer connected to the outer plastic enclosure 11 by bonding. The transparent layer 12 is a clear plastic or polyester window enabling a user to see while wearing the head covering, considered equivalent to the claimed transparent foil. The proposed modification of Payre would result in the transparent layer connected to the tunnel extending through the gas space, as an alternative protection device configuration where the airbag doesn’t extend over the wearer’s eyes, potentially distorting vision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Payre to provide a transparent layer provided in the hole and connected to the outer skin, the transparent layer in form of a transparent foil, and the transparent layer connected to the tunnel extending through the gas space, as Mawhirt teaches it’s known to provide a transparent foil and such modification would enable clear vision therethrough when wearing the airbag over the face.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payre in view of Taheri and Cook, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gattamorta (U.S. 5,787,508). Payre discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn't teach a protection surface of the outer skin which faces the face of the human when the airbag is inflated is essentially flat, or has the shape of a concave fillet, or is essentially dish-shaped. Gattamorta teaches an inflatable face covering (mask) 10 with a shape of a concave fillet as Gattamorta teaches "This contouring of the mask assembly 10 to the curvature of the wearer's face generally defines a forward, concave, and fully reversible configuration." Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Payre's protection surface of the outer skin intended to face a human's face when the airbag is deployed as having the shape of a concave fillet as Gattamorta teaches that the claimed shape is known in the art and the concavity is expected to better conform to the contours of the wearer's face for providing protection thereto.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response has been received and considered. The rejections have been revised in view of the amendment claims.
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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights