DETAILED ACTION
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 27 and 34 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 27 suffers from double inclusion, since it can be read to include the same element twice (i.e., “a strap” is introduced in claim 22, line 8, and then “a strap” is recited in claim 27, line 2, “a set of straps” is recited in claim 27, lines 2-3, and “a set of ropes comprising straps” is recited in claim 27, line 4, all recitations of the strap(s) being drawn to the same element (i.e., SR)). MPEP § 2173.05(o).
Claim 34 is constructed such that the statement “flexible web material comprises fabric and/or polyester and/or polyamide and/or polyester fabric and/or polyamide fabric and/or polyester webbing and/or polyamide webbing” does not have a positive nexus with the claimed invention. The claim language does not positively establish that the flexible web material of the claimed invention comprises a fabric and/or polyester and/or polyamide and/or polyester fabric and/or polyamide fabric and/or polyester webbing and/or polyamide webbing. That is, “flexible web material comprises fabric and/or polyester and/or polyamide and/or polyester fabric and/or polyamide fabric and/or polyester webbing and/or polyamide webbing” is presented as a statement of fact that does not necessarily further limit the claimed invention. Unquestionably, flexible web material (i.e., the group of materials including all extant flexible web material) comprises a fabric and/or polyester and/or polyamide and/or polyester fabric and/or polyamide fabric and/or polyester webbing and/or polyamide webbing. Simply specifying at the end of the claim that flexible web material (i.e., the group of materials including all extant flexible web material) comprises a fabric and/or polyester and/or polyamide and/or polyester fabric and/or polyamide fabric and/or polyester webbing and/or polyamide webbing does not further limit the claimed invention. Thus, the statement “flexible web material comprises a fabric and/or polyester and/or polyamide and/or polyester fabric and/or polyamide fabric and/or polyester webbing and/or polyamide webbing” in claim 34 does not serve to distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, since said statement does not even positively relate to the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 34 is constructed such that the statement “flexible web material comprises fabric and/or polyester and/or polyamide and/or polyester fabric and/or polyamide fabric and/or polyester webbing and/or polyamide webbing” does not have a positive nexus with the claimed invention. The claim language does not positively establish that the flexible web material of the claimed invention comprises a fabric and/or polyester and/or polyamide and/or polyester fabric and/or polyamide fabric and/or polyester webbing and/or polyamide webbing. That is, “flexible web material comprises fabric and/or polyester and/or polyamide and/or polyester fabric and/or polyamide fabric and/or polyester webbing and/or polyamide webbing” is presented as a statement of fact that does not necessarily further limit the claimed invention. Unquestionably, flexible web material (i.e., the group of materials including all extant flexible web material) comprises a fabric and/or polyester and/or polyamide and/or polyester fabric and/or polyamide fabric and/or polyester webbing and/or polyamide webbing. Simply specifying at the end of the claim that flexible web material (i.e., the group of materials including all extant flexible web material) comprises a fabric and/or polyester and/or polyamide and/or polyester fabric and/or polyamide fabric and/or polyester webbing and/or polyamide webbing does not further limit the claimed invention. Thus, the statement “flexible web material comprises a fabric and/or polyester and/or polyamide and/or polyester fabric and/or polyamide fabric and/or polyester webbing and/or polyamide webbing” in claim 34 does not serve to positively further limit the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, particularly since said statement does not even positively relate to the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 22, 24-27 and 30-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (US 2006/0290117 A1) in view of Ishiguro et al. (US 7,614,656 B2). Fischer teaches a component (e.g., 10) for an interior of a vehicle 14 configured for deployment of an airbag for an occupant 26 in a seat 12 of the vehicle upon an event (“a crash” – paragraph 0045) comprising: an airbag 38 configured to be inflated for deployment; a member (e.g., 144 and/or 146) for the airbag configured to provide a standard deployment section (e.g., at 150) for standard deployment (e.g., Fig. 1) of the airbag and an extended deployment section (e.g., at 148) for extended deployment (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3) of the airbag; a retaining mechanism (e.g., 170 and/or 172); a retaining member (e.g., 154 and/or 162) comprising a retaining member comprising a strap (e.g., 154 and/or 162; Figs. 1-3) coupled to the member for the airbag configured to be retained by the retaining mechanism for standard deployment (e.g., Fig. 1) of the airbag and to be released by the retaining mechanism for extended deployment (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3) of the airbag; wherein in standard deployment the airbag is inflated in a standard form (e.g., Fig. 1); wherein in extended deployment the airbag is inflated in an extended form (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3); wherein the retaining mechanism is configured so that the extended deployment section is retained by the retaining member and the standard deployment section is deployed for standard deployment (e.g., Fig. 1); wherein the retaining mechanism is configured so that the extended deployment section is released by the retaining member and the standard deployment section and the extended deployment section are deployed for extended deployment (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3). The retaining mechanism comprises a pin (e.g., 176) configured to engage the strap. The member for the airbag comprises a connection section (e.g., at 158 and/or at 166) between the standard deployment section and the extended deployment section; wherein the retaining member is connected to the connection section. The retaining member comprises at least one of (a) a strap with a loop, (b) a rope, (c) a flexible member (e.g., 154 and/or 162), (d) a loop, (e) a set of straps (e.g., 154 and/or 162), (f) a member configured to connect to the member for the airbag, and/or (g) a set of ropes comprising straps coupled to the member for the airbag (e.g., Figs. 1-3). The retaining member comprises a set of retaining members (e.g., 154 and 162); wherein the extended form comprises a first extended form (e.g., Fig. 2) with one retaining member (e.g., 154) released and one retaining member (e.g., 162) retained, wherein the first extended form comprises an asymmetrical form (e.g., Fig. 2), wherein the asymmetrical form comprises an inclined surface facing the occupant (e.g., Fig. 2). The retaining member comprises a set of retaining members (e.g., 154 and 162); wherein the extended form comprises a second extended form (e.g., Fig. 3) with all retaining members released (e.g., Fig. 3). The retaining member comprises a set of retaining members (e.g., 154 and 162). Fischer does not explicitly teach that one retaining member comprises a first length and one retaining member comprises a second length longer than the first length. However, the recited dimensions do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A). The set of retaining members is attached to the member for the airbag so that one retaining member (e.g., 154) is at a first position (e.g., at 158) along the member and one retaining member (e.g., 162) is at a second position (e.g. at 166) along the member, wherein the first position is different from the second position (e.g., as shown in Fig. 3, the first position is farther to the right than the second position such that the first position and the second position comprise an asymmetrical attachment of the retaining member). The component is configured to practice a method of operation of an airbag system configured for deployment of the airbag into the interior of the vehicle comprising the occupant in the seat comprising the steps of: (a) monitoring the operation of the vehicle for the event (paragraph 0045); (b) monitoring position of the occupant and/or seat in the interior of the vehicle (paragraphs 0043-0044); (c) deploying the airbag upon detection of the event (1) in the standard form if the occupant and/or seat is in a standard position or (2) in the extended form if the occupant and/or seat is beyond the standard position; wherein the airbag system comprises the member (e.g., 144 and/or 146) for the airbag coupled to the retaining member for the airbag; wherein the retaining member for the airbag is coupled to the member and to the retaining mechanism; wherein the retaining member is configured to retain the airbag for standard deployment; wherein the member comprises a set of flexible members (e.g., 144 and 146) configured to be aligned for deployment of the airbag into the interior of the vehicle. The step of deploying the airbag comprises retaining the retaining member at the retaining mechanism for standard deployment (e.g., Fig. 1) and releasing the retaining member from the retaining mechanism for extended deployment (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3). The step of deploying the airbag in the extended form comprises disconnecting the retaining member intact (i.e., the retaining member is not cut, damaged or destroyed) from the retaining mechanism. The member comprises a dual set of flexible members (e.g., 144 and 146) configured to be aligned in an arrangement for deployment of the airbag into the interior of the vehicle (Figs. 1-3). The member comprises a flexible section comprising the extended deployment section (e.g., at 148) (Figs. 2 and 3). Fischer does not explicitly teach “a member comprising a web member” (claim 22, line 4), “wherein the member comprises a web comprising flexible web material configured to provide the standard deployment section for standard deployment of the airbag and configured to provide the extended deployment section for extended deployment of the airbag” (claim 22, lines 20-22), “wherein the web member for the airbag comprises a flexible web section comprising polyester fabric comprising the standard deployment section” (claim 24), or the other limitations involving a web member (since Fischer does not explicitly teach a web member). Ishiguro teaches flexible web material that comprises a polyester fabric webbing (column 6, lines 40-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a polyester fabric webbing as taught by Ishiguro for a member as in Fischer, since such a choice would essentially amount to choosing between a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP §2143(I)(E). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a polyester fabric webbing as taught by Ishiguro for a member as in Fischer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP §2144.07. Using a webbing as taught by Ishiguro for a member as in Fischer would advantageously provide a stronger member and distribute force(s) at connection locations of the member over a broader area than other possible members (such as a member formed as a single strand) to thereby reduce the risk of the member breaking and/or the risk of tearing at the connection locations. All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (US 2006/0290117 A1) in view of Ishiguro et al. (US 7,614,656 B2) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Paxton et al. (US 2012/0242068 A1). In Fischer, the retaining mechanism comprises an actuator (e.g., 174) actuated by a control system (said control system comprising an electronic control module 196) and a retaining pin (e.g., 176) configured to be actuated by the actuator. Fischer does not teach that the retaining member comprises an aperture configured to be retained by the pin. Paxton teaches a retaining mechanism (e.g., 150) comprising a retaining pin (e.g., 152) and a retaining member (e.g., 120) comprising an aperture (at 124) configured to be retained by the retaining pin; wherein the aperture is configured for engagement with the retaining pin; wherein the aperture is engaged with the retaining pin for standard deployment (e.g., Figs. 1 and 3); and wherein the aperture is disengaged from the retaining pin for extended deployment (e.g., Figs. 2 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a retaining mechanism comprising a retaining pin and an aperture, as taught by Paxton, for a retaining mechanism as taught by Fischer in order to similarly releasably hold the retaining member(s). MPEP §2143(I)(B). Using a retaining mechanism comprising a retaining pin and an aperture as taught by Paxton would advantageously eliminate the risk of the retaining member(s) (e.g., 154 and/or 162) slipping out from between the anchor plate(s) 178 and the upper 62 and/or lower 64 wall(s) prior to positive actuation of the actuator(s) (e.g., 174). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 10, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) over Cyliax et al. (WO 2021/083873 A1) or, in the alternative, Cyliax et al. (WO 2021/083873 A1) in view of Ishiguro et al. (US 7,614,656 B2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, said rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on June 10, 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) over Fischer et al. (US 2006/0290117 A1) in view of Ishiguro et al. (US 7,614,656 B2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (e.g., in the first paragraph on page 31 of the remarks, in the fourth through sixth paragraphs on page 35 of the remarks, and in the first paragraph on page 36 of the remarks), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The claims were not rejected over Fischer under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fischer et al. (US 2006/0290117 A1) in view of Ishiguro et al. (US 7,614,656 B2). That is, the limitations of claim 22 that are allegedly not identically disclosed by Fischer, Ishiguro and/or Paxton are obvious if Ishiguro is considered in combination with Fischer, as explained above.
Contrary to applicant’s assertions (e.g., in the third paragraph on page 36 of the remarks), the invention recited in claim 21 would be obvious over Fischer in view of Ishiguro, as explained above.
Furthermore, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Furthermore, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As explained above, Ishiguro teaches the limitations that are not taught by Fischer and/or Paxton, and reasons for combining Fischer, Ishiguro and/or Paxton are provided above, wherein said reasons take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure. Notably, applicant does not discuss any particular advantages of (i) using a web comprising flexible web material; (ii) using a flexible web section comprising polyester fabric; or (iii) using a retaining mechanism comprising a retaining pin and an aperture.
Regarding applicant’s arguments in the first paragraph on page 37 of the remarks, Fischer and Ishiguro satisfy all of the limitations of claim 22 without further modification, as explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH J FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)270-7802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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.
/KEITH J FRISBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights