DETAILED ACTION
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 4, 5, 10, 20 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN 109109810 A) in view of Bertin et al. (WO 2018/220300 A1) and Faruque et al. (US 2024/0034264 A1). Deng teaches a vehicle seat 4 comprising: a seat bottom (at 43) having a first side, a second side, and a top surface extending from the first side to the second side, the seat bottom having a midline equidistantly spaced from the first side and the second side; the seat bottom having a forward face (at 3 in Fig. 1; on the left side of the seat 4, as shown in Fig. 5) extending downwardly directly from the top surface of the seat bottom; and an airbag 1 supported by the seat bottom and inflatable to an inflated position (Figs. 2, 3 and 6); the airbag in the inflated position including a middle portion 11 extending seat-forward from the forward face of the seat bottom in parallel with the midline; the airbag in the inflated position including a first forward portion (e.g., 121) extending laterally from the middle portion, the first forward portion being spaced from the seat bottom, a top surface of the first forward portion in the inflated position being higher than the top surface of the seat bottom (Fig. 6); the airbag in the inflated position including a second forward portion (e.g., 122) extending laterally from the middle portion away from the first forward portion, the second forward portion being spaced from the seat bottom, a top surface of the second forward portion in the inflated position being higher than the top surface of the seat bottom (Fig. 6); and the airbag including an inflation chamber extending in the middle portion, the first forward portion, and the second forward portion (Figs. 2, 3 and 6). In the inflated position, the middle portion is supported by the seat bottom, and the first forward portion is supported by the middle portion (Figs. 2 and 6). The middle portion and the first forward portion are unitary (Figs. 2, 3 and 6). The middle portion of the airbag is on the midline (Fig. 6). The seat bottom defines a leg area seat forward of the seat bottom, the leg area being configured to receive the legs of an occupant of the vehicle seat, the middle portion extending into the leg area, and the leg area being between the first forward portion and the seat bottom when the airbag is in the inflated position (Fig. 6). Deng does not teach first and second wing portions. Bertin teaches an airbag 36 supported by a seat bottom (10, and also, optionally, 31), the airbag in an inflated position having first and second wing portions (at the outer ends of lobes 36b) spaced from a middle portion 36a and extending seat-rearward from first and second forward portions (between the first and second wing portions and the middle portion). In the inflated position, the middle portion is supported by the seat bottom, the first forward portion is supported by the middle portion, and the first wing portion is supported by the first forward portion (Figs. 2, 3 and 6). The middle portion, the first forward portion, and the first wing portion are unitary (Figs. 2, 3 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an airbag as taught by Deng with first and second wing portions, as taught by Bertin, “to maintain the knee of the user” (paragraph 0040). Such a combination of Deng and Bertin would naturally result in an airbag including an inflation chamber extending in the middle portion, the first forward portion, the first wing portion, the second forward portion, and the second wing portion; wherein in the inflated position, the middle portion is supported by the seat bottom, the first forward portion is supported by the middle portion, and the first wing portion is supported by the first forward portion; and wherein the middle portion, the first forward portion, the first wing portion, the second forward portion, and the second wing portion are unitary. Such a combination of Deng and Bertin would also naturally result in an airbag wherein, in the inflated position, the middle portion is supported by the seat bottom, the first and second forward portions are supported by the middle portion, and the first and second wing portions are supported by the first and second forward portions, respectively. Such a combination of Deng and Bertin would also naturally result in an airbag wherein the middle portion, the first forward portion, and the first wing portion define a first cavity configured to receive a first leg of an occupant, and the middle portion, the second forward portion, and the second wing portion define a second cavity configured to receive a second leg of the occupant. Neither Deng nor Bertin teaches tethers. Faruque teaches tethers 62. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide tethers as taught by Faruque that extend from the first forward portion to the first wing portion, from the first forward portion to the middle portion, from the second forward portion to the second wing portion, and from the second forward portion to the middle portion of an airbag based on a combination of Deng and Bertin, as set forth above, in order to “restrain movement of parts of the airbag 18 to control the shape and position of the airbag 18 in the inflated position. For example, the external tethers create the curve of the first wing 24, the second wing 26, and the top panel 28 and/or maintain the position of the first wing 24, the second wing 26, and the top panel 28 relative to each other and/or the seat 32 in the inflated position” (paragraph 0053). 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 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (as in lines 6-15 on page 6 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).
Contrary to applicant’s assertions, the disclosures of Deng, Bertin and Faruque would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed configuration of tethers. Faruque uses bilaterally arranged tethers 62 to control the position(s) of rearwardly extending portions (24, 26) of an airbag 18 with respect to a forward portion 22 of the airbag. Similarly arranging tethers on an airbag based on a combination of Deng and Bertin, as set forth above, would result in an airbag having the claimed configuration of tethers. A motivation for using tethers thusly is provided by Faruque (i.e., to “restrain movement of parts of the airbag 18 to control the shape and position of the airbag 18 in the inflated position. For example, the external tethers create the curve of the first wing 24, the second wing 26, and the top panel 28 and/or maintain the position of the first wing 24, the second wing 26, and the top panel 28 relative to each other and/or the seat 32 in the inflated position” (paragraph 0053)).
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).
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