7DETAILED 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 .
Acknowledgement
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s Amendment to the Claims (filed 7/23/2026).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B of Figs. 13-15 in the reply filed on 7/7/2025 is acknowledged.
No claim is hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/7/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Specht (DE 10 2011 116 146 A1), previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Specht (at least Figs. 1-7) discloses
(claim 1) a vehicle occupant restraint device (at least Figs. 1-7) comprising:
a seat belt 1, 18 configured to restrain an occupant (at least Figs. 1-4) seated on a vehicle seat 13 to the vehicle seat 13;
a belt support airbag 4, 7 configured to inflate and deploy at least between a shoulder belt 1 in the seat belt 1, 18 and a shoulder of the occupant by being supplied with gas from an inflator 8 in an event of a frontal collision of a vehicle, to move toward a front side of the vehicle following the occupant, who moves toward the front side of the vehicle due to an inertial force, and configured to restrain the shoulder of the occupant (at least Figs.1-4);
a gas supply pipe 9, 20 having a first end portion connected to the inflator 8 and a second end portion connected to the belt support airbag 4, 7; and
a cover member 17 accommodating an expandable portion (at least Figs. 6, 7) of the gas supply pipe 9, 20, the belt support airbag 4, 7 that is folded, and a covered portion of the seat belt 1 (at least Figs. 6, 7),
wherein a predetermined region of the gas supply pipe 9, 20 on a second end portion side is configured to extend following movement of the belt support airbag 4, 7 toward the front side of the vehicle (at least Figs. 6, 7), and
wherein an entirety of the covered portion of the seat belt 1 (at least Figs. 1, 2, 6) is configured to be positioned further from the occupant than an entirety of the belt support airbag 4, 7 and the gas supply pipe 9, 20 within the cover member 17;
(claim 10) wherein the cover member 17 is positioned outside of the vehicle seat 13.
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.
Claims 2-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Specht (DE 10 2011 116 146 A1) in view of Steinke et al. (US 11,685,327 B2), both previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 9, Specht (at least Figs. 1-7) discloses the claimed invention,
(claim 6) wherein the shoulder belt 1 is movably inserted through a guide member 5, 10 accommodated in the cover member 17 and is not in contact with the expandable portion of the gas supply pipe 9, 20;
(claim 9) wherein the expandable portion is provided between a seat back and the belt support airbag 4, 7.
But Specht (at least Figs. 1-7) does not explicitly disclose
(claim 2) wherein the expandable portion is a bellows-shaped expandable portion and is provided in the predetermined region of the gas supply pipe;
(claim 3) wherein:
the bellows-shaped expandable portion is configured to be shortened when the bellows-shaped expandable portion is accommodated in the cover member 17;
the bellows-shaped expandable portion is configured to extend and expand to a predetermined outer diameter when the belt support airbag 4, 7 inflates and deploys; and
the bellows-shaped expandable portion is configured to further extend and contract to a predetermined inner diameter when the belt support airbag 4, 7 moves toward the front side of the vehicle;
(claim 4) wherein the bellows-shaped expandable portion of the gas supply pipe 9, 20 is provided with a stent member that restricts excessive expansion;
(claim 5) wherein the bellows-shaped expandable portion of the gas supply pipe 9, 20 is formed in a flattened shape along the shoulder belt 1 when the
bellows-shaped expandable portion is accommodated in the cover member 17;
(claim 6) wherein the shoulder belt 1 is not in contact with the bellows-shaped expandable portion of the gas supply pipe 9, 20;
(claim 9) wherein
the expandable portion is a bellows-shaped expandable portion that is provided in the predetermined region of the gas supply pipe; and
the bellows-shaped expandable portion is provided between a seat back and the belt support airbag.
But Steinke et al. (at least Figs. 1-19) discloses that it is known in the art to provide
(claim 2) wherein an expandable portion 521 is a bellows-shaped expandable portion and is provided in a predetermined region 521 of a gas supply pipe 71, 521 to provide additional length to the expandable portion;
(claim 3) wherein:
the bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 is configured to be shortened when the bellows-shaped expandable portion is accommodated in a cover member 3, 6;
the bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 is configured to extend and expand to a predetermined outer diameter when a belt support airbag 52, 5, 53, 530 inflates and deploys; and
the bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 is configured to further extend and contract to a predetermined inner diameter when the belt support airbag 52, 5, 53, 530 moves toward a front side of a vehicle;
(claim 4) wherein the bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 of the gas supply pipe 71, 521 is provided with a stent member 522 that restricts excessive expansion (at least Figs. 3, 8-10, column 9 lines 35-48, column 11 lines 35-61);
(claim 5) wherein the bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 of the gas supply pipe 71, 521 is formed in a flattened shape along a shoulder belt 111 when the bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 is accommodated in a cover member 3, 6 (at least Fig. 1);
(claim 6) wherein a shoulder belt 111 is movably inserted through a guide member 31, 8 accommodated in a cover member 3, 6 and is not in contact with the bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 of the gas supply pipe 71, 521;
(claim 9) wherein
the expandable portion is a bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 that is provided in a predetermined region 521 of a gas supply pipe 71, 521; and
the bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 is provided between a seat back 21 and the belt support airbag 52, 5, 53, 530.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the expandable portion of Specht according to the teachings of Steinke et al., in order to achieve the desirable result providing additional length to the expandable portion.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Specht (DE 10 2011 116 146 A1) in view of Steinke et al. (US 11,685,327 B2) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 8,447,473 B2), all previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Specht (at least Figs. 1-7) and Steinke et al. (at least Figs. 1-19) as modified above discloses the claimed invention, wherein:
a retractor 14, 19 that winds the seat belt 1 is provided (Specht).
But the combination of Specht (at least Figs. 1-7) and Steinke et al. (at least Figs. 1-19) as modified above does not explicitly disclose
wherein a force limiter mechanism is provided in the retractor 14, 19 that winds the seat belt 1; and
the bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 of the gas supply pipe 71, 521 is configured to extend under a load lower than a force limiter load of the force limiter mechanism.
Sugiyama et al. (at least Figs. 1-15) discloses that it is known in the art to provide a force limiter mechanism 26 provided in a retractor 14 that winds a seat belt 12, 12A for limiting a restraint load applied to an occupant by the seatbelt 12, 12A (at least Abstract); and
an expandable portion 78, 54 of the gas supply pipe 78, 54 configured to extend under a load lower than a force limiter load of the force limiter mechanism 26.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the retractor of the combination of Specht and Steinke et al. as modified above with force limiter mechanism according to the teachings of Sugiyama et al., in order to achieve the desirable result of limiting a restraint load applied to the occupant by the seatbelt.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Specht (at least Figs. 1-7), Steinke et al. (at least Figs. 1-19), and Sugiyama et al. as modified above discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the inflator 8 (Specht) is embedded in a seat back of the vehicle seat together with the retractor 14, 19.
However, Steinke et al. (at least Figs. 1-19) further discloses that it is known in the art to embed the inflator 7 in a seat back 21 of the vehicle seat together with the retractor 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to embed the inflator 8 of the combination of Specht, Steinke et al., and Sugiyama et al. as modified above in a seat back of the vehicle seat together with the retractor 14, 19 according to the teachings of Steinke et al., in order to achieve the desirable result of improving aesthetics of the vehicle occupant restraint device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to at least claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOSELYNN Y SLITERIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6675. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Jason D. 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.
/JOSELYNN Y SLITERIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
