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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 4 (Figs. 5-8) and claims 1-32 in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims as previously filed and currently presented clearly demonstrate the incorporation of a special technical feature that provides a contribution over the prior art- Augustine (US 10,001,346). Applicant further submits the protection device of the present disclosure is not a separate device that is in the shape of a toroidal inner tube which loosely surrounds the neck and rests on the shoulders of a person and is either located in a helmet or attached to the clothing of a bicycle rider, such as part of the collar of the clothing. This is not found persuasive because the prior art of Augustine negates the argument that a special technical features exists as Augustine teaches the limitations of claim 1 and it appears that the features upon which applicant relies are not set forth in claim 1.
The Examiner notes that claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are drawn to the elected embodiment of Group IV and Figures 5-8. Claims 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 17-32 are withdrawn as non-elected.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7- “see-trough-area” should be amended to recite “see-through area”.
Claim 15- “claims” in line 1 should be amended to recite “claim” and “user” should be changed to “human” for consistency with claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 1 recites a protection device comprising an airbag having an outer skin enclosing a gas space, wherein the inflated airbag covers at least part of the face of said human. There is no antecedent basis for “the inflated airbag”, as the limitation that the outer skin encloses a gas space doesn’t necessarily mean that the airbag is inflated. It is also noted that claim 5 recites an extent of the airbag relative to a wearer’s face “when the airbag is deployed”. Is deployed intended to mean that the airbag is inflated? If claim 1 is intended to recite the protection device comprising an inflated airbag, then the claim should be amended to recite “…comprising an inflated airbag having an outer skin enclosing a gas space, wherein the inflated airbag covers at least part of a face of said human when worn”. If claim 1 is intended to recite the airbag as capable of being inflated, the claim should be amended to recite “…comprising an inflatable airbag having an outer skin enclosing a gas space, wherein the airbag covers at least a part of a face of said human when inflated.” Claims 2 and 3 should also be amended to recite the human anatomy functionally and consistent with the language of amended claim 1 such as “wherein the inflated airbag is configured to substantially cover a whole face of the human” for claim 2.
Claim 12 is indefinite as it recites the protection device comprising an inflator and “preferably a triggering means for triggering the inflator”. It’s unclear if the limitations following “preferably” are positively claimed. The claim is interpreted as reciting the triggering means; however, the claim should be amended to delete “preferably” to recite: “further comprising an inflator and a triggering means for triggering the inflator”.
Claim 15 is unclear as it recites the protection device “is designed for being attached to a helmet such that the un-deployed airbag is substantially located in front of the forehead of the user and the airbag deploys in the direction towards the chin”. There is no antecedent basis for “the un-deployed airbag” and it’s unclear what “designed” means in a structural sense.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. See claim 12 “triggering means” and claim 13 “attachment means” which are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
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, 5-7, 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). Payre discloses the invention substantially as claimed. For claim 1, Payre teaches a protection device for the head of a human comprising an airbag 4,4a having an outer skin enclosing a gas space, wherein the inflated airbag covers at least a part of the face of said human (see Fig.2). Payre is silent as to the material of the airbag having an outer skin enclosing 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. 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 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.
For claim 2, the modified Payre teaches the protection device of claim 1, wherein the inflated airbag 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 inflated airbag does substantially not cover any other part of the human’s head, 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 5, the modified Payre teaches the protection device of claim 1, wherein the airbag comprises a see-through area being positioned in front of the human’s eyes when the airbag is deployed, as Taheri teaches the airbag outer skin is transparent. 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 see-through area positioned in front of the human’s eyes when the airbag is deployed such that the wearer’s vision is not impeded.
For claim 6, the modified Payre teaches the air bag comprises at least one layer of a transparent material in the see-through area.
For claim 7, the modified Payre teaches the outer skin of the airbag comprises at least two transparent layers in the see-through area such that the gas space enclosed by the outer skin extends over the see-through area, as Taheri teaches the airbag is formed by the transparent layers of envelope 80 as in Figure 5 and set forth in col.4, lines 6-13. 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 at least two transparent layers in the see-through area such that the gas space enclosed by the outer skin extends over the see-through area as Taheri’s two layered structure is known in the art and protects the wearer’s eyes while also allowing for clear vision.
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 preferably 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 as best understood, the modified Payre teaches the protection device of claim 13, wherein the protection device is designed for being attached to a helmet 3 such that the un-deployed airbag is substantially located in front of the forehead of the user and the airbag deploys in the direction towards the chin. Note that Figure 1 shows the un-deployed airbag 4 within housing 30 forming front part 35 of the helmet 3 such that the un-deployed 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, Payre teaches a protection arrangement comprising: a protection device for the head of a human comprising an 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payre in view of Taheri 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 deployed 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732