CTFR 19/005,097 CTFR 90597 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 In response to the office action mailed 02/18/2026, applicant amended Claims 1, 3, cancelled Claims 2, 4-6, and added NEW claims 7-11. Claims 1, 3, and 7-11 are currently pending. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 04/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 over SHIN (U.S. 2020/0122665) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection with respect to amended Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. 2022/0063537A1) as detailed below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. 2022/0063537A1). Fig. 2-4 are reproduced below for purpose of discussion and show the selective deployment of front airbag 100 and an upper (roof/ceiling) air bag 200 in response to the detected sliding position and seatback angle position of a passenger seat. The figures also illustrate seat (and driver) position relative to vehicle front dashboard 400 . PNG media_image1.png 511 537 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 428 530 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 477 498 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses: A control device (Fig. 1) for a vehicle airbag (Fig. 1, 100, 200) , comprising a control unit (Fig. 1, controller 20) configured to switch between deploying, among a ceiling airbag (200) stored above an occupant (Fig. 2-4, occupant shown seated) seated on a seat (600) and a front-collision airbag (100) stored in front of the occupant, only the front-collision airbag (Fig. 2) and deploying both the ceiling airbag and the front-collision airbag (Fig. 3-5) in a case where a vehicle front collision (¶0060) occurs, according to a front-rear slide position (Fig. 2-5; slide detecting sensor 11) and a seat back angle (Fig. 2-5, angle detecting part 12) of the seat, wherein: the front-rear slide position is located within one of a first reference range (Fig. 2, sliding position nearest to dashboard 400) a second reference range (Fig. 4, sliding position in-between positions shown in Fig. 2 and 3) , and a third reference range (Fig. 3, sliding position towards rear of vehicle, furthest from dashboard 400) ; the first reference range is a range positioned on a vehicle front side (Fig. 2, sliding position nearest to dashboard 400) relative to the second reference range, and includes a foremost point of a movable range of the seat in a front-rear direction of a vehicle; the second reference range is a range positioned between the first reference range and the third reference range (Fig. 4, sliding position in-between positions shown in Fig. 2 and 3) and includes a midpoint of the movable range in the front-rear direction; the third reference range is a range positioned on a vehicle rear side (Fig. 3, sliding position towards rear of vehicle, furthest from dashboard 400) relative to the second reference range and includes a last point of the movable range in the front-rear direction; and the control unit is configured to deploy the ceiling airbag and the front-collision airbag simultaneously (¶0019, ¶0068) at a time of the vehicle front collision in a case where the seat back angle is within a first angular range corresponding to a normal riding posture and the front-rear slide position is located within the third reference range (Fig. 3, slide position in third range and seat back angle is less than a first preset angle; ¶0068; “ the controller 20 controls both the front airbag 100 and the upper airbag 200 to be activated at the same time.”) , and in a case where the seat back angle is within a second angular range corresponding to a comfortable posture and the front-rear slide position is located within the second reference range (Fig. 4, slide position in second range and seat back angle is larger than the first preset angle and less than a second preset angle; ¶0074) Regarding Claim 7, Lee further discloses wherein the first angular range (Fig. 3) is closer to the vehicle front side than the second angular range (Fig. 4) Regarding Claim 9, Lee further discloses wherein the second reference range does not include the foremost point and the last point (Fig. 4; slide position located between forward range (Fig. 2) and third range (Fig. 3)) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 2022/0063537A1) . Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses all the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above. Lee further discloses “The first preset angle is an angle at which the seatback 610 faces upward and the passenger looks forward, and the first preset angle may be preset by a system design er. ” (¶0071) and “The second preset angle is an angle at which the seatback 610 is reclined and the upper body of the passenger is reclined, and may be preset by the system design er . [0076] When the angle detecting part 12 detects that the angle of the seatback 610 of the vehicle is equal to or larger than the first preset angle and less than the second preset angle, the upper body of the passenger is in a rearward moved state and a state away from the dashboard 400 . Accordingly, the controller 20 unfolds the front airbag 100 and the upper airbag 200 on the basis of the angle data detected by the angle detecting part 12 .”. Lee does not explicitly teach: wherein the first angular range is located on an obtuse-angle side relative to the second angular range in a case where a straight line that forms an angle of 35 degrees, from a vertex, with respect to a horizontal line extending to the vehicle rear side from the vertex is a boundary between the first angular range and the second angular range However, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lee to include wherein the first angular range is located on an obtuse-angle side relative to the second angular range in a case where a straight line that forms an angle of 35 degrees, from a vertex, with respect to a horizontal line extending to the vehicle rear side from the vertex is a boundary between the first angular range and the second angular range , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In this instance, since the prior art discloses the general conditions of the claim (i.e. a vehicle occupant safety designer may establish the optimum preset seat back angle ranges suitable for deploying one or both vehicle airbags through routine experimentation) it would have been obvious and therefore is not considered inventive to merely discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson , 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”). Regarding Claim 10, Lee does not explicitly disclose: wherein the second angular range is located between the horizontal line and the boundary . However, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lee to include wherein the second angular range is located between the horizontal line and the boundary , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In this instance, since the prior art discloses the general conditions of the claim (i.e. a vehicle occupant safety designer may establish the optimum preset seat back angle ranges suitable for deploying one or both vehicle airbags through routine experimentation) it would have been obvious and therefore is not considered inventive to merely discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson , 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 2022/0063537A1) in view of SHIN (U.S. 2020/0122665) . Regarding Claim 3, Lee does not explicitly teach: wherein the control unit is configured to adjust a deployment direction of the ceiling airbag using an actuator capable of changing the deployment direction. Shin teaches : wherein the control unit is configured to adjust a deployment direction of the ceiling airbag using an actuator (Fig. 2, third airbag module unit 300) capable of changing the deployment direction (¶0042; third airbag changes deployment direction of ceiling airbag 210; “the controller C may be configured to operate the second airbag module unit 200 to deploy the second cushion 210 while operating the third airbag module unit 300 to deploy the third cushion 310 and thus, the second cushion 210 may be supported by the third cushion 310 toward the passenger side.”) in order to provide “a multi-frontal airbag for a vehicle and an airbag deployment system using the same, which may include a plurality of airbag modules disposed at various locations in a vehicle for passengers in all the seats, and the location and/or operation timing of the airbag deployed may be adjusted the degree of sliding of the seat and the degree of tilting of the seat back, thus safely protect ing the passenger .” (¶0006) It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the airbag deployment system of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Shin to include wherein the control unit is configured to adjust a deployment direction of the ceiling airbag using an actuator capable of changing the deployment direction in order to provide “a multi-frontal airbag for a vehicle and an airbag deployment system using the same, which may include a plurality of airbag modules disposed at various locations in a vehicle for passengers in all the seats, and the location and/or operation timing of the airbag deployed may be adjusted the degree of sliding of the seat and the degree of tilting of the seat back, thus safely protect ing the passenger .” (¶0006) Regarding Claim 11, Lee further discloses wherein the control unit is further configured to: detect a physique of a seated occupant based on either an image of the seated occupant captured by an in-vehicle camera (¶0058, “camera sensor”; “The seat detector 10 may detect the seating posture of the seat 600 through a camera sensor mounted in the vehicle.[0059] The controller 20 may control unfolding of the front airbag 100 and the upper airbag 200 on the basis of the location of the seat 600 or the angle of the seatback 610 detected by the seat detector 10 .[0060] Therefore, the front of the passenger may be protected during a vehicle collision even when the passenger takes any seating posture .”) and set at least one of (i) the first angular range and the second angular range, and (ii) the first reference range, the second reference range, and the third reference range, based on the detected physique (¶0059; “The controller 20 may control unfolding of the front airbag 100 and the upper airbag 200 on the basis of the location of the seat 600 or the angle of the seatback 610 detected by the seat detector 10 ”; see also ¶0088-0090; e.g. “The seat detector 10 detects that the passenger's seating posture is in a relax mode in which the passenger's upper body is reclined or a long-sliding mode in which the seat 600 is moved to the rear in the vehicle”) . Conclusion This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information. General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal. If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees. If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier. A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance. If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE. The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b). 07-40 AIA 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. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujita et al. (U.S. 5074583) discloses “An air bag system for an automobile comprises a collision detector for detecting a collision of the automobile, an inflater for generating gas under pressure, based on an output from the collision detector, and air bag device, mounted on a front body member located in front of a seat, for receiving the gas from the gas generator, the gas causing the air bag device to take a predetermined inflated configuration. A seating condition sensor detects a seating condition of a passenger seated on the seat, taking into consideration seat position, reclining angle, passenger size, and posture. A control unit controls operation of the air bag device, in accordance with the seating condition of the passenger, so that the air bag inflated is brought into an optimal contact with the passenger.” (Abstract) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R KIRBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3665. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: M-F, 9a-5p. 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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. /BRIAN R KIRBY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747 /LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/005,097 Page 2 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/005,097 Page 3 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/005,097 Page 4 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/005,097 Page 5 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/005,097 Page 6 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/005,097 Page 7 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/005,097 Page 8 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/005,097 Page 9 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/005,097 Page 10 Art Unit: 3747
Prosecution Insights