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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 3/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 11-20 are pending in the application; claims 1-10 were previously canceled; claim 20 has been amended. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every 112b rejection set forth in the non-Final Office action previously mailed on 1/30/2026. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, with respect to the claims, have been fully considered but are not persuasive; the rejection of the claim(s) are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rump (DE102017204882A1; translation as provided).
Regarding claim 11, Rump teaches a tool (mold 1 in Figures 1-7; paragraph 0028) comprising:
two tool halves formed by at least one upper tool (upper molding tool part 17 in Figure 5) and at least one lower tool (lower forming tool part 2), which together form a cavity (space forming 16, 18, 19 in Figure 5) for producing an airbag assembly having a flap component (18) and a chute channel component (sidewall 19), wherein the cavity has a flap cavity and a chute channel cavity (as shown in Figure 5, cavity portions surrounding 18, 19),
wherein a first cavity wall section which at least partly delimits the flap cavity is formed in the lower tool (mold surface 8 in Figures 1-3), and
second cavity wall sections are formed, which delimit the chute channel cavity (sidewall 19 in Figure 5), and
the tool also has at least one bending element (mold element 5), which can be moved between an insertion position (Figure 2) and a bending position (Figures 3-4) and is configured to insert a material web (insert 12; paragraph 0031), which is attached to the first cavity wall section (as shown in Figure 2; insert 12 is attached to mold surface 8) and of which one section projects beyond the chute channel cavity (overhang 14 in Figure2; paragraph 0032, an overhang 14 of the insert 12 protrudes beyond the mold surface 8 on a side of the first mold element 4), section by section into the chute channel cavity when moving from the insertion position into the bending position (Figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 13, Rump further discloses the bending element is designed as a slider (Figures 1-4; paragraph 0028, second molding tool element 5 is movable relative to the first molding tool element 4) which, in the bending position (Figures 3-4), is recessed in a slider holder in the lower tool (support part 3 in Figure 4) and forms a section of the second cavity wall section (Figure 4, element 5 forms left side portion of cavity (i.e., left portion of sidewall 19 in Figure 5)) and also has a shoulder surface facing away from the upper tool (15’ in Figures 4-5, faces away from upper molding tool part 17),
wherein, in the insertion position, the slider is moved so far in the direction of the upper tool that the shoulder surface projects with respect to the first cavity wall section (Figures 1-2, shoulder surface 15’ projects from mold surface 8) and a free space is formed between the shoulder surface and the slider holder (Figure 1-2, space is formed between shoulder surface 15’ and slider holder 3).
Regarding claim 15, Rump further disclose fixing elements (pin 9 in Figures; paragraph 0029, two pins), which are arranged on the first cavity wall section and project into the flap cavity (Figures 4-5, showing pin 9 arranged on mold surface 8 and projecting into space 18).
Regarding claim 16, Rump further discloses the tool is an injection molding tool (paragraph 0028, mold 1 for manufacturing an airbag cover using an injection molding process).
Regarding claim 17, Rump teaches a method for producing an airbag assembly having a flap component and a chute channel component (Figures 1-7; paragraph 0005), having the steps:
providing a tool according to claim 11 (reference claim 11 above) and opening the two tool halves (Figures 1-7, paragraph 0035, discloses upper mold tool part 17 is moved downwards; hence, is open to lower mold part prior)),
inserting a material web into the first cavity wall section (Figure 2; paragraph 0030, flat insert, usually a mesh 12, is first arranged on the mold surface 8), fixing the material web to the first cavity wall section and moving the at least one bending element into the insertion position (Figures 1-2, showing element 5 being in insertion position), so that a section of the material web comes to lie between the bending element and the chute channel cavity (Figure 1-3, showing portion of insert 12 being between element 5 and slider holder 3),
moving the at least one bending tool into the bending position (Figures 3-4, showing element 5 in bending position), whereby the section of the material web is inserted into the chute channel cavity (Figures 4-5, showing overhang 14 being in chute channel cavity (i.e., potion 19 in Figure 5), closing the two tool halves (Figure 5; paragraph 0035, upper mold tool part 17 is moved downwards) and introducing a matrix material into the cavity to form the airbag assembly (paragraph 0035, channels through which an initially flowable injection molding material 16 can be guided into the spaces.).
Regarding claim 18, Rump teaches all the elements of claim 17 and further discloses the material web is a woven fabric (paragraph 0020, discloses the insert being a fabric and being knitted or woven).
Regarding claim 19, Rump teaches all the elements of claim 17 and further discloses a thermoplastic material is injected into the cavity (paragraph 0035, discloses injection molding material 16 can be a thermoplastic polymer).
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.
Claim(s) 12, 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rump.
Regarding claim 12, Rump teaches all the elements of claim 11, but does not disclose a further bending element, which is configured to introduce a further section of the material web into the chute channel cavity by moving from the insertion position into the bending position, wherein the two bending elements are arranged on opposite sides of the flap cavity.
However, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the bending element (i.e., element 5), since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the bending element for the purpose of even bending and/or insertion of the overhang 14 into the chute cavity (i.e., portion 19 in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Rump teaches all the elements of claim 13, but does not disclose the chute channel cavity adjoining the slider has a width of no more than 4 mm. However, Rump discloses the insert has a thickness at most 4mm, preferably at most 2mm (paragraph 0020). As the overhang portion (14) of the insert is positioned within the chute channel cavity (Figure 5), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art the chute channel cavity is also at most 4mm, preferably at most 2mm to accommodate the overhang portion.
Regarding claim 20, Rump teaches all the elements of claim 17 and further discloses a tool according to claim [13] (reference claim 13), in which the shoulder surface (15’ in Figure 3) of the at least one slider (5), when the latter is in the insertion position (Figure 1, showing element 5 in the insertion position), is spaced apart from the first cavity wall section by a distance (Figure 1, from mold surface 8), and wherein this distance is at least as great as a distance by which the material web is drawn into the chute channel cavity when the slider is retracted into the bending position (Figures 2-5, showing distance being greater than distance in which overhang portion 14 is drawn into chute channel 19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see pages 6-7, Rump fails to teach or suggest "at least one bending element, which can be moved between an insertion position and a bending position and is configured to insert a material web, which is attached to the first cavity wall section and of which one section projects beyond the chute channel cavity, section by section into the chute channel cavity when moving from the insertion position into the bending position." Specifically, Applicant contends Rump's element 5 (i.e., slider) is not configured to insert nor draw the material web (i.e., insert 12) into a cavity and merely performs the function of folding and/or bending the insert between the first and second mold elements; nor, would one not look to duplicate element 5 for the same reason.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed by Rump and reiterated by Applicant, slide 5 folds the insert into a gap between the mold elements; the act of folding the insert between the mold elements necessarily inserts the insert to the gap (i.e., cavity). Further, it nis noted that a feature which Applicant relies (ie.., a retraction movement that draws material in) is not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence, the rejection(s) of claim 11 and 12 are maintained.
With respect to claim 14, Applicant argues Rump fails to teach of suggest the cavity has a width no more than 4mm. Specifically, Applicant contends thickness of an insert positioned within said cavity does not establish the width of the cavity and asserts a cavity must necessarily be larger than the insert it accommodates to account for the insert and any injection material.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by Rump, the insert has a thickness of at most 4mm and preferably at most 2mm and further discloses injection material penetrates with depressions of the insert (paragraph 0022). Hence, Applicant’s assertion that the cavity must necessarily be larger than the insert is not persuasive. The rejection of the claim is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights