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 .
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 7-9 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 7 recites that the airbag cover is coated with a sewn product obtainable by sewing together at least two sheets of the composite structure however, claim 1 which claim 7 depends recites that the airbag cover is coated with the composite structure. It is unclear what is coating the airbag cover, a composite structure, sewn product, or both a composite structure and a sewn product.
For sake of further examination, claim 7 will be viewed as further defining a process by which the composite structure recited in claim 1 is made, thus the airbag cover of claim 7 is coated with the composite structure which is a sewn product obtainable by sewing together at least two sheets of the composite structure.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected as being dependent upon indefinite claim 7.
Claim 8 is further indefinite as it recites “the foam layers.” Claim 7 recites “at least two sheets of the composite structure” and thus it is unclear if all the foam layers or only some of “the at least two…” foam layers of the composite structure are being referenced.
Claim 9 is further indefinite at it recited “the foam layer” however as noted above claim 7 from which claim 9 depends recites “at least two sheets of the composite structure” and thus at least two foam layers are present and it is unclear which is being further limited in claim 9.
Claim 9 further recites in “the area” of “the seam” there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (DE 102016206340) with citations from (US 2019/0023215) in view of Nojiri et al. (US 4,421,867) and further in view of Anaya et al. (US 2004/0076816).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Weber discloses an airbag cover for a vehicle comprising a film laminate coating (0032). Weber teaches the film laminate provided in the region of the tear seams of the airbag cover (0032-0033) and thus would be tearable upon deployment on an airbag as claimed.
The laminate comprising a two-ply decorative layer (5 and 6; instant cover layer), a foam layer (4) and lacquer layer (3) (Fig. 1, 0034). The foam layer having a density of 40 to 200 kg/m3 (0022), overlapping the density of 40 to 100 kg/m2, and containing a polyolefin (0021). The decorative layer formed of thermoplastic polyolefins (0013). Weber does not disclose a gel content for the decorative layer thus it would be viewed as 0%, overlapping the claimed gel content of 0 to 20%.
Weber further does not disclose the composite structure having a Shore A hardness according to DIN 53505 of 20 to 45 or a gel content of the foam layer.
Regarding the gel content of the foam layer, Nojiri discloses a polyolefin foam having a gel content ranging from between 20 to 80% (column 4, lines 20-30), overlapping the claimed gel content of 20 to 80%.
Nojiri is analogous art in the field of composite foams, alternatively, is reasonably pertinent as Nojiri provides a foam having good flexibility (column 1, lines 35-40). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the foam of Weber to have a gel content of 20 to 80% as taught by Nojiri optimizing both mechanical strength and elasticity of the foam (column 4, lines 25-30).
Regarding the composite Shore A hardness, Anaya, in the analogous field of composite structures of interior components of a motor vehicle (0016), discloses a composite formed of thermoplastic material having a Shore A hardness of between about 30 and 60, as measured in accordance with DIN 53505 (0023 and 0025-0026).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the composite of Weber to have a Shore A hardness of 30 to 60, as taught by Anaya, ensuring desirable touch and mechanical strength of the composite (0023).
Regarding claim 4, while Weber teaches the foam layer comprising polyolefin (0021), Weber does not specifically teach the foam containing polypropylene.
Nojiri teaches the polyolefin foam containing polypropylene (column 1, line 65 through column 2, line 5).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the foam of Weber to contain polypropylene as taught by Nojiri, providing required crosslinking, extrudability, and thermoformability in the composition (column 2, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 6, Weber teaches the decorative layer having a thickness of 0.2 to 1 mm, overlapping the claimed cover layer thickness of 0.2 to 1 mm; and foam thickness of 0.5 to 4 mm, overlapping the foam thickness of 1 to 5 mm.
Regarding claims 7-9, Weber teaches the film laminate coating for an airbag cover (0032). Weber does not teach the film laminate being a sewn product obtainable by sewing together at least two sheets of the composite structure; obtainable by folding the composite structure and placing the foam layers together; or reducing the foam thickness before sewing.
However, claims 7-9 include product by process language with regards to the recitation of sewn product and obtainable by. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Nojiri in view of Anaya as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Willems (EP 1453912) in view of Sun (US 5,158,322) with evidentiary reference AeroMarine Shore Hardness Scale: www.aeromarineproducts.com/durometer-shore-hardness-scale/ published online July 30, 2020.
Regarding claim 2, modified Weber discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Weber teaches the layers of the decorative layer including thermoplastic polyolefins (0013), however does not disclose a gel content for layer or that the sublayer closest to the foam layer having a shore A hardness of 75 to 95 and the sublayer adjacent having a lower shore A hardness.
Regarding the gel content, Willems discloses a thermoplastic polyolefin polymer composition applied in a covering for an air bag (0026), having a gel content of less than 25% (0015), overlapping the claimed gel content of 3 to 15%.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the decorative layer of Weber to have a gel content less than 25%, as taught by Willems, to achieve a film with good low temperature impact properties, good UV resistance, and low fogging (0005).
Regarding the layers hardness, Sun discloses an air bag cover (column 1, lines 10-15) comprising a substrate layer (16) having a Shore D hardness of preferably 30 to 100, and a second layer (18) which is softer than the substrate layer (column 3, lines 20-35). As evidenced by AeroMarine, a shore D hardness 30 to 100 overlaps a Shore A hardness of 80 to 100, thus overlapping the claimed shore A hardness of 75 to 95.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the decorative layer of Weber, the layer closest the foam having a shore D hardness of 30 to 100, with the adjacent sublayer having a lower shore A hardness, as taught by Sun, facilitating ejection of an inflatable restraint cushion upon rapid deployment (column 1, lines 40-50).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Nojiri in view of Anaya as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Willems in view of Son et al. (US 2015/0251620).
Regarding claim 3, modified Weber discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Weber teaches the layers of the decorative layer including thermoplastics (0013), however does not teach a gel content of the decorative layer being 1 to 5%, the sublayers containing polyvinyl chloride and having a total Shore A hardness of 30 to 60.
Regarding the gel content, Willems discloses a thermoplastic composition applied in a covering for an air bag (0026), having a gel content of less than 25% (0015), overlapping the claimed gel content of 1 to 5%.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the decorative layer of Weber to have a gel content less than 25%, as taught by Willems, to achieve a film with good low temperature impact properties, good UV resistance, and low fogging (0005).
Regarding the layers hardness, Son, in the analogous field of crash pads (0011), teaches the skin layer having a shore A hardness of about 20 to about 55 (0054), overlapping the claimed hardness of 30 to 60, and comprising polyvinyl chloride (0019).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the decorative layers of Weber to include polyvinyl chloride and have a total shore hardness of about 20 to about 55, as taught by Son, to achieve suitable physical properties and well as flexibility to resisting force upon external impacts (0054).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Nojiri in view of Anaya as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Muller (US 2002/0135162)
Regarding claim 5, modified Weber discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Weber does not teach a textile layer between the foam layer and cover layer.
Muller teaches an air bag cover material (Fig. 7) comprising a foam, a fabric layer adjacent to the foam, and a cover layer on top of the fabric layer (0089).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to apply a fabric layer between the foam and cover layer of Weber, to prevent chunks of foam from hurting vehicle occupants in the airbag cover (0018).
Muller does not expressly teach a thickness of the textile layer, however, it would have been obvious to have optimized the fabric thickness in order to achieve the ability to prevent flight of the foam chunks (0018). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781