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 .
Acknowledgement
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s Amendment to the Claims, Specification, Drawings, and Abstract (filed 12/4/2025).
The Specification, Drawings, and Abstract (filed 12/4/2025) have been approved by the Examiner.
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 4, 6, and 7 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.
The claims are replete with indefinite language failing to positively set forth structure and its interconnection. Please note, here are a few examples:
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the shape" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing said limitation to --a shape--.
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 1-3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urushibata et al. (US 8,011,691 B2).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, and 8, Urushibata et al. (at least Fig. 1-8) discloses
(claim 1) a driver seat airbag device 1, comprising:
an inflator 15 installed in a steering wheel of a vehicle (at least column 7 lines
12-17, 38-40); and
an airbag cushion 11 stowed together with the inflator 15 in the steering wheel that receives gas from the inflator 15 and expands and deploys toward a driver D, wherein
the airbag cushion 11 includes:
a rear panel 73 positioned on a steering wheel side,
a front panel 71, 72 positioned on a driver D side for restraining the driver D, and
a side panel 91, 91 that connects an edge of the rear panel 73 and an outer peripheral edge of the front panel 71, 72 and constitutes a side part of the airbag cushion 11 (at least Fig. 7),
the front panel 71, 72 is a combination of a plurality of sub-panels 71, 72 that each include:
an outer edge 84 that forms a portion of the outer peripheral edge 84 of
the front panel 71, 72 (at least Figs. 6A, 6B, 7); and
inner edges 82 (at least Figs. 6A, 6B, 7) that connect with adjacent
sub-panels 71, 72 of the plurality of sub-panels 71, 72 to form a surface of a recess part 44 formed in the front panel 71, 72 (at least Figs. 5, 7),
wherein the plurality of sub-panels 71, 72 each gradually narrow from the outer peripheral edge 84 of the front panel 71, 72 towards a center of the front panel 71, 72 (at least Figs. 5, 6A, 6B, 7), and
the airbag cushion 11 further includes an internal tether 80, 50, 87 that pulls near the center of the front panel 71, 72 toward the rear panel 73 inside the airbag cushion 11 to form the recess part 44 (at least Figs. 5, 7);
(claim 2) wherein the recess part 44 formed by the internal tether 80, 50, 87 pulling on near the center of the front panel 71, 72 has a longitudinal shape at a bottom portion (at least Figs. 5, 7);
(claim 3) wherein main portions of the plurality of sub-panels 71, 72 are polygonal;
(claim 5) wherein the plurality of sub-panels 71, 72 are fan shaped (at least Figs. 6A, 6B), and wherein the outer edge 84 of each of the plurality of the sub-panels 71, 72 comprises an arc (at least Figs. 6A, 6B);
(claim 8) wherein the internal tether 80 is integrally formed with the sub-panel 72 (at least Fig. 6B, column 6 lines 16-19).
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 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urushibata et al. (US 8,011,691 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Urushibata et al. (at least Fig. 1-8) discloses the claimed invention except for where the main portions of the plurality of sub-panels 71, 72 are in the shape of a pentagon.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the main portions of the plurality of sub-panels 71, 72 in the shape of a pentagon, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 9, and 10, Urushibata et al. (at least Fig. 1-8) discloses (claims 7 & 10) wherein a first end of the internal tether 80, 50, 87 is connected to an apex 82 of two opposing sub-panels 71, 72 (at least Figs. 5, 6A, 6B, 7) of the plurality of sub-panels 71, 72 at the center of the front panel 71, 72.
But Urushibata et al. (at least Fig. 1-8) does not explicitly disclose (claims 6 and 9) wherein four sub-panels are provided.
However, providing four sub-panels 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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