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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the entire inner circumferential portion" in lines
15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing said limitation to --an entire inner circumferential portion--.
Appropriate correction is required, and the claims should be reviewed in their entirety for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishii et al. (JP 2020-163999 A), previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Ishii et al. (at least Figs. 1-11B) discloses
(claim 1) a driver seat airbag device M, comprising:
an inflator 11 installed in a steering wheel 1 of a vehicle; and
an airbag cushion 20, 21 stowed together with the inflator 11 in the steering wheel 1 that receives gas from the inflator 11 to expand and deploy toward a driver; wherein
the airbag cushion 20, 21 includes:
a rear panel 23, 55 positioned on a steering wheel 1 side,
a front panel 37, 61 positioned on a driver side for restraining the driver, and
a side panel 30, 57 that constitutes a side part 30 of the airbag cushion 20, 21;
where the front panel 37, 61 includes:
a circular panel 37, 61 in a circular shape (at least Fig. 9), and
one fan-shaped panel 39, 67 that is fan-shaped such that the one fan-shaped panel expands from a center angle portion 39b toward an arc portion 39a connecting to an inner circumferential portion 37a of the circular panel 37, 61 such that the arc portion 39a of the one fan-shaped panel forms a circle connected to the entire inner circumferential portion 37a of the circular panel 37, 61, wherein the side panel 30, 57 connects to an outer circumference 24 of the rear panel 23, 55 and an outer circumference 35a of the circular panel 37, 61, and
the airbag cushion 20, 21 further includes an internal tether 48, 65, 75, 77 inside the airbag cushion 20, 21 and coupled to the center angle portion 39b of the one fan-shaped panel 39, 67 that pulls the one fan-shaped panel 39, 67 toward a rear panel 23, 55 side to form a recess (at least Figs. 1-11B) in the airbag cushion 20, 21 in a shape of a truncated cone that expands from the center angle portion 39b of the one fan-shaped panel 39, 67 toward the driver side;
(claim 5) wherein the side panel 30, 57 is a circular fan shape with a large arc on a front panel 37, 61 side.
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (JP 2020-163999 A), previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claim 2, Ishii et al. (at least Figs. 1-11B) discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose wherein for the one fan-shaped panel 39, 67, a plurality are provided and straight portions of the plurality of fan-shaped panels are connected together.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein for the one fan-shaped panel 39, 67, a plurality are provided and straight portions of the plurality of
fan-shaped panels are connected together, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Further, said modification represents a change in number, not in kind and as such, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378.
Regarding claim 4, Ishii et al. (at least Figs. 1-11B) discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal tether 48, 65, 75, 77 is integrally formed with the one fan-shaped panel 39, 67.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the internal tether 48, 65, 75, 77 integrally formed with the one fan-shaped panel 39, 67, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been in two pieces and put together involves only routing skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F2d 965, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (JP 2020-163999 A) in view of Yoshikawa et al. (JP 2018-020737 A), both previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claim 6, Ishii et al. (at least Fig. 1-11B) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the side panel 30, 57 is a combination of a plurality of
sub-panels.
Yoshikawa et al. (at least Figs. 1-8) discloses that it is known in the art to provide a driver seat airbag device 10, wherein a side panel 13 is a combination of a plurality of sub-panels 13a-13c (so that an airbag 10 can be expanded/deployed uniformly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the side panel 30, 57 of Ishii et al. as a combination of a plurality of sub-panels 13a-13c according to the teachings of Yoshikawa et al., in order to achieve the desirable result of uniform expansion/deployment of the airbag.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (JP 2020-163999 A) in view of Williams (US 8,371,612 B2), both previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Ishii et al. (at least Fig. 1-11B) discloses the claimed invention, (claim 9) wherein a portion of the inflator 11 is inserted into the airbag cushion 20, 21 through the rear panel 23, 55, and a prescribed gas discharge opening is formed in the portion (at least Figs. 2, 10), the airbag cushion 20, 21 further includes a streamlining cloth 45 connected to the rear panel 23, 55 and covering the portion of the inflator 11, and the streamlining cloth 45 includes an opening part 45a, 45b below the portion of the inflator 11.
But Ishii et al. (at least Fig. 1-11B) does not explicitly disclose (claim 7) wherein a dimension of the circular panel inner circumferential portion in a vertical direction is larger than a dimension in a horizontal direction.
Williams (at least Figs. 8-14) discloses that it is known in the art to provide an airbag device 300, 310, (claim 7) wherein a dimension of a front panel 315 inner circumferential portion 320 in a vertical direction is larger than a dimension in a horizontal direction to demonstrate better performance in cushioning a predetermined portion of an occupant, a predetermined range of sizes of occupant, or a combination thereof (also see column 5 lines 21-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circular panel inner circumferential portion of Ishii et al. according to the teachings of Williams, in order to achieve the desirable result of demonstrating better performance in cushioning a predetermined portion of an occupant, a predetermined range of sizes of occupant, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ishii et al. and Williams as modified above discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the driver includes a large adult male and a small adult female and the dimension of the circular panel inner circumferential portion in the vertical direction is at least larger than a distance from a head center of gravity of the large adult male seated in a normal orientation to a head center of gravity of the small adult female.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a driver including a large adult male and a small adult female and the dimension of the circular panel inner circumferential portion in the vertical direction is at least larger than a distance from a head center of gravity of the large adult male seated in a normal orientation to a head center of gravity of the small adult female, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Further, it is the Examiner’s position that claim 1 is sufficiently broad that the reference to Ishii et al. (JP 2020-163999 A) is applicable. See rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSELYNN Y SLITERIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6675. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 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, Jason D. 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.
/JOSELYNN Y SLITERIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614