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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of non-provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over Claims 21-29, 32-39 and 41-48 of copending Application No US 12,227,294 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 21-29, 32-39 and 41-48 of 18/184,541 (US 12,227,294 B2) contains a similar independent claim than claims 2, 14 and 19 of the instant application, in addition to that Application No: 19/011,481 is Broader than the scope of the copending patent (US 12,227,294 B2) and all the dependent claims of the claim sets are similar. The claim numbers of the patent are used.
This is a non-provisional nonstatutory double patenting (anticipatory type) rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have been patented.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of non-provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over Claims 15-25, 27-33 and 35-39 of copending Application No US 11,628,937 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 15-25, 27-33 and 35-39 of 16/453,918 (US 11,628,937 B2) contains a similar independent claim than claims 2, 14 and 19 of the instant application as shown below in the table, in addition to that Application No: 19/011,481 is Broader than the scope of the copending patent (US 11,628,937 B2) and all the dependent claims of the claim sets are similar. The claim numbers of the patent are used.
This is a non-provisional nonstatutory double patenting (anticipatory type) rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have been patented.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Estep (US 5,879,024 A) in view of Lehnst (US 6,329,911 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Estep discloses a method of testing an electronics module assembly (EMA) for a personal restraint system, the method comprising: (see Estep figure 1 (a controller 30 through the ignition Switch 20) and col 2, lines 12-16 “The controller evaluates whether to deploy the air bag based upon the State of the Signal”),
selectively activating a circuit of the EMA to conduct a first current along a first electrical path that includes an initiator of the EMA, wherein: the first current is insufficient to activate the initiator (see Estep col 5; lines 14-27 “In operation, when the ignition switch 20 and the seat belt unbuckled, seat belt switch 25 is closed and the circuit is connected to ground through the coil of relay 120, so the seat belt indicator 22 turns on, while the relay 120 contacts leave an open in the circuit between the controller 30 and LED 125, leaving the air bag deactivated so it will not deploy. When the seat belt is buckled, seat belt switch 25 opens. No current flows through the coil of relay 120, closing the contacts and closing the circuit between the controller 30 and LED 125. The indicator LED 125 now has a complete path to the supply voltage, and the LED 125 turns on, giving the vehicle occupant a visual signal that the air bag 90 has not been disabled for failure to buckle the seat belt”)
at least a portion of the first electrical path is different from a second electrical path of the EMA (i) that extends at least partway between a power source and the initiator (see Estep figure 1 (a controller 30 through the ignition Switch 20), claim 1 and col 2, lines 12-16 “The controller evaluates whether to deploy the air bag based upon the State of the Signal”),
and (ii) that is configured to receive a second current in response to a signal from a crash sensor, and the second current is sufficient to activate the initiator (see Estep figure 1 and col 3 thru 4; line 67 and col 4; lines 6-16 “Although a single crash sensor 40, which may be an acceleration sensor or other device well known in the art providing warning of an impending collision, is shown in the schematic, it will be understood that the circuit may contain a plurality of crash sensors. The evaluation circuit 50 makes a decision to deploy the air bag 90, usually by evaluating an algorithm or series of algorithms” and “It will be understood that the Signals input to and output from the controller 30 are typically on the order of milliamperes. Upon receiving a signal to deploy the air bag 90, the air bag inflator actuation circuit 60 will send a current on the order of about 5 amperes to the squib 70, igniting the squib 70 to activate the air bag inflator 80 and inflating the air bag 90”)
PNG
media_image1.png
691
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Estep fails to explicitly teach the circuit tests an electrical integrity of the first electrical path.
However, Lehnst teaches the circuit tests an electrical integrity of the first electrical path (see Lehnst col 2; lines 12-14 and col 4; lines 5-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to protect the driver or passenger against an impact with hard parts of the vehicle structure in the event of a collision (Lehnst col 2; lines 12-14 and col 4; lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 19, Estep discloses a method of operating an electronics module assembly (EMA), the method comprising (see Estep figure 1 (a controller 30 through the ignition Switch 20) and col 2, lines 12-16 “The controller evaluates whether to deploy the air bag based upon the State of the Signal”),
see Estep col 5; lines 14-27 “In operation, when the ignition switch 20 and the seat belt unbuckled, seat belt switch 25 is closed and the circuit is connected to ground through the coil of relay 120, so the seat belt indicator 22 turns on, while the relay 120 contacts leave an open in the circuit between the controller 30 and LED 125, leaving the air bag deactivated so it will not deploy. When the seat belt is buckled, seat belt switch 25 opens. No current flows through the coil of relay 120, closing the contacts and closing the circuit between the controller 30 and LED 125. The indicator LED 125 now has a complete path to the supply voltage, and the LED 125 turns on, giving the vehicle occupant a visual signal that the air bag 90 has not been disabled for failure to buckle the seat belt”)
wherein the EMA includes a second electrical path that extends between a power source and the initiator to supply a second current to the initiator based at least in part on a signal from a crash sensor of the EMA, and wherein the second current is sufficient to activate the initiator and providing an indication of the electrical integrity of the first electrical path (see Estep figure 1 (a controller 30 through the ignition Switch 20), claim 1 and col 2, lines 12-16 “The controller evaluates whether to deploy the air bag based upon the State of the Signal” and via col 3 thru 4; line 67 and col 4; lines 6-16 “Although a single crash sensor 40, which may be an acceleration sensor or other device well known in the art providing warning of an impending collision, is shown in the schematic, it will be understood that the circuit may contain a plurality of crash sensors. The evaluation circuit 50 makes a decision to deploy the air bag 90, usually by evaluating an algorithm or series of algorithms” and “It will be understood that the Signals input to and output from the controller 30 are typically on the order of milliamperes. Upon receiving a signal to deploy the air bag 90, the air bag inflator actuation circuit 60 will send a current on the order of about 5 amperes to the squib 70, igniting the squib 70 to activate the air bag inflator 80 and inflating the air bag 90”)
PNG
media_image1.png
691
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Estep fails to explicitly t testing an electrical integrity of a first electrical path.
However, Lehnst teaches testing an electrical integrity of a first electrical path (see Lehnst col 2; lines 12-14 and col 4; lines 5-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to protect the driver or passenger against an impact with hard parts of the vehicle structure in the event of a collision (Lehnst col 2; lines 12-14 and col 4; lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 20, Estep teaches wherein providing the indication includes providing a visual indication on the EMA (see Estep col 3; lines 10-12).
Claims 3-4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Estep (US 5,879,024 A) in view of Lehnst (US 6,329,911 B1) in view of Tabe (US 8,251,397 B2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Estep fails to explicitly teach wherein selectively activating the circuit includes selectively activating the circuit in response to manual user input.
However, Tabe teaches wherein selectively activating the circuit includes selectively activating the circuit in response to manual user input (see Tabe claims 1 & 13 “manually operable check button for testing airbag components resulting in an audio read out of test results”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to test the airbag components to adjust the deployment force to compensate for the presence of smaller occupants and to enable variable deployment of the airbag for the safety of the occupants (Tabe claims 1 & 13).
Regarding claim 4, modified Estep fails to explicitly teach wherein selectively activating the circuit includes selectively activating the circuit based at least in part on actuation of a pushbutton of the EMA.
However, Tabe teaches further wherein selectively activating the circuit includes selectively activating the circuit based at least in part on actuation of a pushbutton of the EMA (see Tabe claims 1 & 13 “manually operable check button for testing airbag components resulting in an audio read out of test results”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to test the airbag components to adjust the deployment force to compensate for the presence of smaller occupants and to enable variable deployment of the airbag for the safety of the occupants (Tabe claims 1 & 13).
Regarding claim 16, modified Estep fails to explicitly teach wherein activating the test circuit includes activating the test circuit in response to actuation of a pushbutton of the EMA.
However, Tabe teaches wherein activating the test circuit includes activating the test circuit in response to actuation of a pushbutton of the EMA (see Tabe claims 1 & 13 “manually operable check button for testing airbag components resulting in an audio read out of test results”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to test the airbag components to adjust the deployment force to compensate for the presence of smaller occupants and to enable variable deployment of the airbag for the safety of the occupants (Tabe claims 1 & 13).
Claims 5, 14, 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Estep (US 5,879,024 A) in view of Lehnst (US 6,329,911 B1) in view of Breed (US 2012/0089299 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Estep fails to explicitly teach further comprising detecting a voltage when the circuit is selectively activated.
However, Breed teaches further comprising detecting a voltage when the circuit is selectively activated (see Breed paragraph “0956” “the electronic module 435 can monitor the power supply voltage, to assure that sufficient energy is stored to initiate the inflator assembly 432 when required, and power the other processes, and can report periodically over the vehicle bus 436 to the central diagnostic module, shown schematically at 437, to indicate that the module is ready, i.e., there is sufficient power of inflate or deploy the airbag 431 and operate the occupant position sensor transmitter/receiver pair 433”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to monitor a vehicle and/or components thereon and possibly control or adjust the components based on the data obtained by the sensors (Breed paragraph “0956”).
Regarding claim 14, Estep discloses a method, comprising: (see Estep figure 1 (a controller 30 through the ignition Switch 20) and col 2, lines 12-16 “The controller evaluates whether to deploy the air bag based upon the State of the Signal”),
see Estep col 5; lines 14-27 “In operation, when the ignition switch 20 and the seat belt unbuckled, seat belt switch 25 is closed and the circuit is connected to ground through the coil of relay 120, so the seat belt indicator 22 turns on, while the relay 120 contacts leave an open in the circuit between the controller 30 and LED 125, leaving the air bag deactivated so it will not deploy. When the seat belt is buckled, seat belt switch 25 opens. No current flows through the coil of relay 120, closing the contacts and closing the circuit between the controller 30 and LED 125. The indicator LED 125 now has a complete path to the supply voltage, and the LED 125 turns on, giving the vehicle occupant a visual signal that the air bag 90 has not been disabled for failure to buckle the seat belt”)
wherein the first electrical path differs from a second electrical path that (a) extends between a power source and the initiator (see Estep figure 1 (a controller 30 through the ignition Switch 20), claim 1 and col 2, lines 12-16 “The controller evaluates whether to deploy the air bag based upon the State of the Signal”),
and (b) is configured to conduct a second current based at least in part on a signal from a crash sensor, and wherein the second current is sufficient to activate the initiator (see Estep figure 1 and col 3 thru 4; line 67 and col 4; lines 6-16 “Although a single crash sensor 40, which may be an acceleration sensor or other device well known in the art providing warning of an impending collision, is shown in the schematic, it will be understood that the circuit may contain a plurality of crash sensors. The evaluation circuit 50 makes a decision to deploy the air bag 90, usually by evaluating an algorithm or series of algorithms” and “It will be understood that the Signals input to and output from the controller 30 are typically on the order of milliamperes. Upon receiving a signal to deploy the air bag 90, the air bag inflator actuation circuit 60 will send a current on the order of about 5 amperes to the squib 70, igniting the squib 70 to activate the air bag inflator 80 and inflating the air bag 90”)
PNG
media_image1.png
691
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Estep fails to explicitly teach activating a test circuit.
However, Lehnst teaches activating a test circuit (see Lehnst col 2; lines 12-14 and col 4; lines 5-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to protect the driver or passenger against an impact with hard parts of the vehicle structure in the event of a collision (Lehnst col 2; lines 12-14 and col 4; lines 5-15).
But modified Estep fails to explicitly teach based at least in part on conduction of the first current along the first electrical path, detecting a voltage; and providing, based at least in part on the voltage, an indication of an electrical integrity of the first electrical path.
However, Breed teaches based at least in part on conduction of the first current along the first electrical path, detecting a voltage; and providing, based at least in part on the voltage, an indication of an electrical integrity of the first electrical path (see Breed paragraph “0956” “the electronic module 435 can monitor the power supply voltage, to assure that sufficient energy is stored to initiate the inflator assembly 432 when required, and power the other processes, and can report periodically over the vehicle bus 436 to the central diagnostic module, shown schematically at 437, to indicate that the module is ready, i.e., there is sufficient power of inflate or deploy the airbag 431 and operate the occupant position sensor transmitter/receiver pair 433”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to monitor a vehicle and/or components thereon and possibly control or adjust the components based on the data obtained by the sensors (Breed paragraph “0956”).
Regarding claim 17, Estep teaches wherein providing the indication includes providing a visual indication (see Estep col 3; lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 18, Estep teaches wherein providing the visual indication includes providing the visual indication via light emitting diode(s) of the EMA (see Estep col 3; lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 21, modified Estep fails to explicitly teach wherein the testing includes: detecting a voltage on the first electrical path; and comparing the voltage to a threshold.
However, Breed teaches wherein the testing includes: detecting a voltage on the first electrical path; and comparing the voltage to a threshold (see Breed paragraph “0956” “the electronic module 435 can monitor the power supply voltage, to assure that sufficient energy is stored to initiate the inflator assembly 432 when required, and power the other processes, and can report periodically over the vehicle bus 436 to the central diagnostic module, shown schematically at 437, to indicate that the module is ready, i.e., there is sufficient power of inflate or deploy the airbag 431 and operate the occupant position sensor transmitter/receiver pair 433”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to monitor a vehicle and/or components thereon and possibly control or adjust the components based on the data obtained by the sensors (Breed paragraph “0956”).
Claims 6-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Estep (US 5,879,024 A) in view of Lehnst (US 6,329,911 B1) in view of Breed (US 2012/0089299 A1) in view of Barnes (US 5,711,574 A).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Estep fails to explicitly teach further comprising providing, based at least in part of the detected voltage, a visual status via a visual indicator of the EMA, wherein the visual status indicates results of the test of the electrical integrity of the first electrical path.
However, Barnes teaches further comprising providing, based at least in part of the detected voltage, a visual status via a visual indicator of the EMA, wherein the visual status indicates results of the test of the electrical integrity of the first electrical path (see Barnes col 7; lines 37-67 “If the voltage to the system falls below the selected zener diode voltage, op-amp 74 will not supply enough current to bias transistor 76, which, in turn, will disable the B input of AND gate 80' thereby causing the alarm 82 to sound”, “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired” and “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to monitor the air bag system for delivering a notification signal that the seat is properly installed and functional for safe deployment of the airbag (Barnes col 7; lines 37-67).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Estep fails to explicitly teach comparing the detected voltage to a predetermined voltage threshold; and based at least in part on the comparison, providing a visual indication of results of the electrical integrity of the first electrical path.
However, Barnes teaches comparing the detected voltage to a predetermined voltage threshold; and based at least in part on the comparison, providing a visual indication of results of the electrical integrity of the first electrical path (see Barnes col 7; lines 37-67 “If the voltage to the system falls below the selected zener diode voltage, op-amp 74 will not supply enough current to bias transistor 76, which, in turn, will disable the B input of AND gate 80' thereby causing the alarm 82 to sound”, “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired” and “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to monitor the air bag system for delivering a notification signal that the seat is properly installed and functional for safe deployment of the airbag (Barnes col 7; lines 37-67).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Estep fails to explicitly teach further comprising comparing the voltage to a threshold, wherein providing the indication includes providing the indication based at least in part on the comparison of the voltage to the threshold.
However, Barnes teaches further comprising comparing the voltage to a threshold, wherein providing the indication includes providing the indication based at least in part on the comparison of the voltage to the threshold (see Barnes col 7; lines 37-67 “If the voltage to the system falls below the selected zener diode voltage, op-amp 74 will not supply enough current to bias transistor 76, which, in turn, will disable the B input of AND gate 80' thereby causing the alarm 82 to sound”, “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired” and “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to monitor the air bag system for delivering a notification signal that the seat is properly installed and functional for safe deployment of the airbag (Barnes col 7; lines 37-67).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Estep (US 5,879,024 A) in view of Lehnst (US 6,329,911 B1) in view of Barnes (US 5,711,574 A).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Estep fails to explicitly teach selectively activating, based at least in part on the signal from the crash sensor, another circuit to conduct the second current along the second electrical path.
However, Barnes teaches selectively activating, based at least in part on the signal from the crash sensor, another circuit to conduct the second current along the second electrical path (see Barnes col 7; lines 37-67 “If the voltage to the system falls below the selected zener diode voltage, op-amp 74 will not supply enough current to bias transistor 76, which, in turn, will disable the B input of AND gate 80' thereby causing the alarm 82 to sound”, “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired” and “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to monitor the air bag system for delivering a notification signal that the seat is properly installed and functional for safe deployment of the airbag (Barnes col 7; lines 37-67).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Estep fails to explicitly wherein selectively activating the other circuit includes activating a transistor based at least in part on the signal from the crash sensor.
However, Barnes teaches wherein selectively activating the other circuit includes activating a transistor based at least in part on the signal from the crash sensor (see Barnes col 7; lines 37-67 “If the voltage to the system falls below the selected zener diode voltage, op-amp 74 will not supply enough current to bias transistor 76, which, in turn, will disable the B input of AND gate 80' thereby causing the alarm 82 to sound”, “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired” and “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to monitor the air bag system for delivering a notification signal that the seat is properly installed and functional for safe deployment of the airbag (Barnes col 7; lines 37-67).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Estep fails to explicitly wherein activating the transistor includes completing the second electrical path between the power source and the initiator.
However, Barnes teaches wherein activating the transistor includes completing the second electrical path between the power source and the initiator (see Barnes col 7; lines 37-67 “If the voltage to the system falls below the selected zener diode voltage, op-amp 74 will not supply enough current to bias transistor 76, which, in turn, will disable the B input of AND gate 80' thereby causing the alarm 82 to sound”, “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired” and “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to monitor the air bag system for delivering a notification signal that the seat is properly installed and functional for safe deployment of the airbag (Barnes col 7; lines 37-67).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Estep fails to explicitly teach wherein selectively activating the circuit includes activating a transistor that facilitates conduction of the first current along the first electrical path.
However, Barnes teaches wherein selectively activating the circuit includes activating a transistor that facilitates conduction of the first current along the first electrical path (see Barnes col 7; lines 37-67 “If the voltage to the system falls below the selected zener diode voltage, op-amp 74 will not supply enough current to bias transistor 76, which, in turn, will disable the B input of AND gate 80' thereby causing the alarm 82 to sound”, “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired” and “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to monitor the air bag system for delivering a notification signal that the seat is properly installed and functional for safe deployment of the airbag (Barnes col 7; lines 37-67).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Estep fails to explicitly teach wherein activating the transistor includes completing the first electrical path.
However, Barnes teaches wherein activating the transistor includes 12. completing the first electrical path. (see Barnes col 7; lines 37-67 “If the voltage to the system falls below the selected zener diode voltage, op-amp 74 will not supply enough current to bias transistor 76, which, in turn, will disable the B input of AND gate 80' thereby causing the alarm 82 to sound”, “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired” and “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to monitor the air bag system for delivering a notification signal that the seat is properly installed and functional for safe deployment of the airbag (Barnes col 7; lines 37-67).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Estep fails to explicitly teach further comprising selectively activating, based at least in part on the signal from the crash sensor, another circuit to conduct the second current along the second electrical path.
However, Barnes teaches further comprising selectively activating, based at least in part on the signal from the crash sensor, another circuit to conduct the second current along the second electrical path (see Barnes col 7; lines 37-67 “If the voltage to the system falls below the selected zener diode voltage, op-amp 74 will not supply enough current to bias transistor 76, which, in turn, will disable the B input of AND gate 80' thereby causing the alarm 82 to sound”, “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired” and “It will be noted that the foregoing alarm and melody generator could be replaced or complimented with a visual indicator such as a light 100 (see FIGS. 1-3) for the hearing impaired”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Air bag deployment inhibitor circuit of Estep in order to monitor the air bag system for delivering a notification signal that the seat is properly installed and functional for safe deployment of the airbag (Barnes col 7; lines 37-67).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664