DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 4, 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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation "the short section" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the long section" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation 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 1-5, 7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwasnik et al. (US 2016/0075301 A1) and Obashi et al. (WO 2009/150860 A1). Kwasnik teaches a cover element (e.g., 10) for an airbag module (e.g., 24, and optionally also cover element 10) comprising a tear area comprising a tear line (e.g., 20) and at least one hinge area (e.g., between flap 72 and fourth wall 54) for opening the cover element by swiveling at least one flap (e.g., 72) which is formed by the tear line when the cover element is opened, wherein at least one stiffening rib (e.g., 78) extends along the at least one flap from the tear area to the at least one hinge area (Figs. 3, 5 and 6) about which the least one flap swivels. The at least one stiffening rib ends at the tear line or at a distance in front of the tear line (Figs. 3, 5 and 6). The tear line is disposed between two flaps (e.g., 70 and 72) each having a hinge area for opening the cover element (Figs. 3, 5 and 6). The cover element is part of an airbag module (e.g., 24 and 10), an instrument panel 30 and a vehicle safety system (e.g., a system including an air bag 28). Kwasnik does not teach a weakened material portion as claimed. Obashi teaches a cover element (e.g., 4) for an airbag module (e.g., 1) comprising a tear area comprising a tear line (e.g., 41a) and at least one hinge area (e.g., at 44) for opening the cover element by swiveling at least one flap 43 which is formed by the tear line when the cover element is opened, wherein at least one stiffening rib (e.g., 5, and optionally also 44a and/or 41b) having a weakened material portion 6 extends to the at least one hinge area (Fig. 2(A)), wherein the weakened material portion is configured on the side of the at least one hinge area about which the at least one flap swivels (Figs. 1, 2(A), 3(A) and 6; see paragraph 0037 of applicant’s specification). The weakened material portion is configured at an axial end of the at least one stiffening rib which is disposed proximate to the at least one hinge area (e.g., the weakened material portion 6 is configured at an end of an axis that passes through cutout portion 61 and is perpendicular to opposite side portion 51 (shown as a dot-dashed line in Fig. 2(B)), both axial ends of the weakened material portion being proximate (i.e., close) to the hinge area, as shown in Figs. 1-6). The at least one hinge area comprises a hinge line about which the at least one flap can be swiveled for opening, wherein the weakened material portion is disposed in the area of the hinge line (Figs. 1-6). The at least one stiffening rib ends at the tear line or at a distance in front of the tear line (Figs. 1, 2(A), 3(A) and 6). At least one stiffening rib is disposed on each of both sides of the tear line having a weakened material portion which is configured on the respective side of the at least one hinge area (Figs. 1, 2(A), 3(A) and 6). The tear line is disposed between two flaps 43 each having a hinge area (e.g., at 44) for opening the cover element (Figs. 1, 2(A), 3(A) and 6). The weakened material portion extends transversely to a longitudinal extension of the at least one stiffening rib (Figs. 4 and 5). In plural stiffening ribs the respective weakened material portion extends along the hinge line (Fig. 2(A)). The weakened material portion comprises an area of reduced wall thickness of the at least one stiffening rib (Figs. 4(B and C); paragraphs 0029-0030). The weakened material portion is U-shaped or V-shaped (Figs. 1, 2(B) and 4-6; paragraphs 0029-0030). The cover element is part of an airbag module (e.g., 1), an instrument panel (paragraphs 0001, 0016 and 0017) and a vehicle safety system (e.g., a system including an “airbag device” – see paragraph 0001). A method for opening the cover element comprises: a) configuring the airbag module to be released (Fig. 1), b) configuring the tear line to tear so that a moment acts upon the at least one stiffening rib, said moment being configured to generate a stress concentration in the area of the weakened material portion, c) configuring the at least one stiffening rib to break at the weakened material portion so that the cover element swivels about the at least one hinge area and unfolds (Fig. 3). The stiffening rib extends on both sides of the hinge area (Figs. 2(A) and 6(A)). The at least one stiffening rib has a length and a height that varies along the length, the height of the at least one stiffening rib increasing in the direction of the at least one hinge area (Figs. 1, 2(B), 4(A) and 4(D)-6(C)). The weakened material portion is disposed on the hinge line (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one stiffening rib as taught by Kwasnik with a weakened material portion configured on the side of the hinge area, according to the known technique taught by Obashi, so that “the rib can be stably broken at the time of rotation of the door portion by forming the fracture start point portion in the rib, and the resistance of rotation of the door portion and the thinning of the wall portion at the time of breakage can be reduced at the time of inflation and deployment of the airbag, and the airbag can be smoothly inflated and deployed” (paragraph 0012 of Obashi) and “the hinge portion can be easily bent and the door portion can be more smoothly rotated” (paragraph 0013 of Obashi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend a rib as taught by Obashi to the tear area, according to the known technique taught by Kwasnik, to “provide for increased rigidity of cover 18 and, accordingly increased support for portions of instrument panel 30 disposed thereover” (paragraph 0025 of Kwasnik). Such a combination would naturally result in an invention wherein the weakened material portion is configured on the side of the at least one hinge area about which the at least one flap swivels, wherein the weakened material portion is configured at an axial end of the at least one stiffening rib which is disposed proximate to the at least one hinge area, wherein the weakened material portion divides the at least one stiffening rib into a long section (e.g., between the weakened material portion and the tear line) of the at least one stiffening rib and a short section (e.g., opposite the weakened material portion from the long section) of the at least one stiffening rib, wherein the short section is positioned proximate the at least one hinge area, and wherein the short section remains substantially stationary and does not swivel with the at least one flap when the at least one stiffening rib breaks at the weakened material portion, and wherein the long section is configured to swivel open with the at least one flap, since the weakened material portion in Obashi is on the side of the at least one hinge area about which the at least one flap swivels (see paragraph 0037 of applicant’s specification). 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 July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As noted in the first paragraph on page 9 of the remarks, the rejection is not based on hinge area 22 of Kwasnik. Thus, differences between the hinge area 22 of Kwasnik and the claimed invention are not relevant to the rejection.
Contrary to applicant’s assertions in the first and second paragraphs on page 9 of the remarks, the second section 70 and third section 72 in Kwasnik include a hinge area. Even though Kwasnik may not explicitly use the term “hinge” in association with the second section 70 and the third section 72, Kwasnik clearly discloses hinges associated with the second section 70 and the third section 72 (e.g., paragraphs 0021-0024 and Fig. 6).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (e.g., “There are no such structures/reductions in thickness at any other point where the sections 68, 70, 72 deflect relative to the walls 16, 52, 54.” – see the last paragraph on page 9 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). That is, Kwasnik is not relied upon for reductions in thickness. Obashi teaches reductions in thickness, as explained in the rejection.
Contrary to applicant’s assertions in the first paragraph on page 10, Kwasnik does show a stiffening rib at the location “between flap 72 and fourth wall 54”, particularly in Figs. 3, 5 and 6, which clearly show ribs (e.g., 78) that extend to a hinge area (e.g., between flap 72 and fourth wall 54). In the second paragraph on page 10 of the remarks, applicant’s remarks (“allow the sections to bend/deflect despite the presence of ribs”) actually suggest that Kwasnik includes ribs at a hinge area.
Regarding applicant’s arguments in the second paragraph on page 10 of the remarks, the fact that Kwasnik discloses advantages associated with providing gaps in support ribs associated with one flap (i.e., 68) does not negate advantages that would result from providing weakened material portions in support ribs associated with other flaps (i.e., 70 and 72).
Regarding applicant’s arguments in the last paragraph on page 10 of the remarks, as previously noted, the rejection is not based on hinge area 22 of Kwasnik, and therefore differences between the hinge area 22 of Kwasnik and the claimed invention are not relevant to the rejection.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, particularly applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18, 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). That is, the rejection is based on a combination of Kwasnik and Obashi, and a combination of Kwasnik and Obashi, as set forth in the above rejection, would naturally result in an invention wherein the weakened material portion divides the at least one stiffening rib into a long section (e.g., between the weakened material portion and the tear line) of the at least one stiffening rib and a short section (e.g., opposite the weakened material portion from the long section) of the at least one stiffening rib, wherein the short section is positioned proximate the at least one hinge area, since the weakened material portion in Obashi is on the side of the at least one hinge area about which the at least one flap swivels (see paragraph 0037 of applicant’s specification).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (e.g., in Obashi, “The rib extends only in the small area of the hinge, nowhere near the tear line” – see the paragraph spanning pages 12 and 13 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). That is, a combination of Kwasnik and Obashi would naturally result in an invention wherein the rib extends near the tear line, since the ribs (e.g., 78) in Kwasnik extend near the tear line (e.g., 20).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a rib having a “taper” – see the paragraph spanning pages 12 and 13 of the remarks) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). That is, the claims do not use the term “taper”.
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