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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 20 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimai et al. (JP 2010-132016 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’) in view of Bang (KR 2022-0162209 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’).
With respect to claim 1, Shimai et al. discloses a safety device storage kit for a personal mobility apparatus, comprising: an airbag module (1) wearable on a user, wherein the airbag module includes an airbag (2) adapted to wrap around the user while being worn (figs. 4-5); a housing (13) to receive the airbag module (1) therein (fig. 6), wherein the airbag module (1) is removable from the housing (13) to be worn by the user (figs. 4-6); a cover (15) adapted to cover the housing (13). (Figs. 1-6, MTD paragraphs 12-59.) Shimai et al. is silent regarding a fastening portion adapted to mount the housing to the personal mobility apparatus. Bang teaches of a fastening portion (130) adapted to mount the housing (110) to the personal mobility apparatus (200). (Figs. 1-10, MTD paragraphs 21-77.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have the housing of a wearable protection device mounted to a personal mobility apparatus as described in Bang into the invention of Shimai et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to safely stores a protection device worn when using not only personal electric scooters but also shared electric scooters used by an unspecified number of people, encourages users to wear a protection device to reduce the risk of safety accidents, and keeps a protection device used by an unspecified number of people clean so that users can wear them without hesitation. (MTD paragraph 13.)
Claims 2, 4-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimai et al. and Bang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (SG 10-2020-00753 S A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’).
With respect to claim 2 and 4-5, Shimai et al., as modified, is silent regarding a battery. Li teaches of a sensor (130) configured to sense an external impact, a controller (142) configured to determine whether to deploy the airbag (120), a battery configured to provide power (page 5, lines 29-32, page 6, lines 1-3), and a charging portion (‘power supply cable’; page ) configured to receive power for charging the battery in the housing (page 5, lines 29-32, page 6, lines 1-3); and wherein the housing comprises: an inner wall portion (fig. 4) configured to support an inner circumferential surface of the airbag module (120), and a mounting portion (area where 182 is mounted) recessed on a rear of the housing configured to receive the charging portion (182) therein; a charging terminal (182) adapted to provide power for charging the battery or for charging a smart device; a guide portion (opening of 182) extending toward both sides of the charging terminal configured to temporarily retain two sides of the smart device. (Figs. 1-8, pages 5-8.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Li into the invention of Shimai et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to appropriately power the airbag and reduce injury. (Pages 1, 8.) Shimai, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the mounting portion on the recessed bottom of the housing (as opposed to the rear of the housing as taught by Li). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the mounting portion on the recessed bottom of the housing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Furthermore, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the mounting portion on the recessed bottom of the housing (as opposed to the rear of the housing as taught by Li) since applicant has not disclosed that the mounting portion on the recessed bottom of the housing (as opposed to the rear of the housing as taught by Li) solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the mounting portion on the rear of the housing as taught by Li.
With respect to claim 9, Shimai et al., as modified, is silent regarding a battery. Li teaches of a detachable battery (160) adapted to provide power for charging the airbag module through a charging portion (182); and a battery receiving portion (fig. 4) configured to provide a space in which the detachable battery (160) is mounted, located on a bottom surface (fig. 4) of the housing, and configured to be electrically connected to the charging portion (182). (Figs. 1-8, pages 5-8.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Li into the invention of Shimai et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to appropriately power the airbag.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimai et al. in view of Bang, and Kim (US 2022/0145526) and Pascasio et al. (US 5,716,026).
With respect to claim 20, Shimai et al. discloses a safety device storage kit for a personal mobility apparatus, comprising: a housing (13) including inner walls (fig. 6) and the housing (13) being configured to receive a user-wearable airbag device (1) therein within bounds of the inner walls; a housing (13) to receive the airbag module (1) therein (fig. 6), wherein the airbag module (1) is removable from the housing (13) to be worn by the user (figs. 4-6). (Figs. 1-6, MTD paragraphs 12-59.) Shimai et al. is silent regarding details of the inner housing or a fastening portion or diodes. Bang teaches of a fastening portion (130) adapted to mount the housing (110) to the personal mobility apparatus (200). (Figs. 1-10, MTD paragraphs 21-77.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the housing of a wearable protection device mounted to a personal mobility apparatus as described in Bang into the invention of Shimai et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to safely stores a protection device worn when using not only personal electric scooters but also shared electric scooters used by an unspecified number of people, encourages users to wear a protection device to reduce the risk of safety accidents, and keeps a protection device used by an unspecified number of people clean so that users can wear them without hesitation. (MTD paragraph 13.) Kim teaches of a plurality of sterilizing elements disposed on the inner walls of the housing and configured to radiate on at least some surfaces of an element inside the housing for sterilization. (Figs. 2-8, paragraphs 99-109.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Kim into the invention of Shimai et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to sanitize elements within a housing for a personal mobility apparatus. (Paragraph 99.) Pascasio et al. teaches of using a plurality of ultraviolet-spectrum light-emitting diodes distributed and configured to radiate on at least some surfaces of the airbag device. (Col. 3, lines 18-30.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Pascasio et al. into the invention of Shimai et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to sanitize critical spots. (Col. 3, lines 18-30.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-19 are allowed.
Claims 3, 6-8 and 10 are 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 JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday.
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.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights