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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/7/2026 has been entered.
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No claim is hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Specification
The Amendment to the Specification filed 4/7/2026 has been approved by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informality: in claim 2 line 2, “bellows shaped” should be changed to --bellows-shaped-- (see claims 3-7 and 9). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinke et al. (US 11,685,327 B2), previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Steinke et al. (at least Figs. 1-19; also annotated Fig. 1 attached herewith) discloses a vehicle occupant restraint device 1 comprising:
a seat belt 11, 111 configured to restrain an occupant 4 seated on a vehicle seat 21 to the vehicle seat 21;
a belt support airbag 52, 5, 53, 530 configured to inflate and deploy at least between a shoulder belt 111 in the seat belt 11, 111 and a shoulder of the occupant 4 by being supplied with gas from an inflator 7 in an event of a frontal collision of a vehicle, to move toward a front side of the vehicle following the occupant 4, who moves toward the front side of the vehicle due to an inertial force, and configured to restrain the shoulder of the occupant 4;
a gas supply pipe 71, 521 having a first end portion 71 connected to the inflator 7 and a second end portion 521 connected to the belt support airbag 52, 5, 53, 530; and
a cover member 3, 6 accommodating an expandable portion 521 of the gas supply pipe 71, 521, the belt support airbag 52, 5, 53, 530 that is folded, and a covered portion of the seat belt 11, 111 (at least Fig. 1),
wherein a predetermined region 521 of the gas supply pipe 7, 521 on a second end portion side is configured to extend following movement of the belt support airbag 52, 5, 53, 530 toward the front side of the vehicle, and
wherein an entirety of the covered portion of the seat belt 11, 111 is configured to be positioned further from the occupant 4 than the belt support airbag 52, 5, 53 (at least a part thereof) and the gas supply pipe 521 within the cover member 3, 6.
PNG
media_image1.png
808
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-6, 9 and 10, Steinke et al. (at least Figs. 1-19; also annotated Fig. 1 attached herewith) discloses the vehicle occupant restraint device 1,
(claim 2) wherein the expandable portion 521 is a bellows shaped expandable portion and is provided in the predetermined region 521 of the gas supply pipe 71, 521;
(claim 3) wherein:
the bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 is configured to be shortened when the bellows-shaped expandable portion is accommodated in the cover member 3, 6;
the bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 is configured to extend and expand to a predetermined outer diameter when the 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 the front side of the 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 the shoulder belt 111 when the bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 is accommodated in the cover member 3, 6 (at least Fig. 1);
(claim 6) wherein the shoulder belt 111 is movably inserted through a guide member 31, 8 accommodated in the 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 521 is a bellows-shaped expandable portion 521 that is provided in the predetermined region 521 of the 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;
(claim 10) wherein the cover member 3, 6 (at least a part thereof) is positioned outside of the vehicle seat 21.
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Steinke et al. (US 11,685,327 B2) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 8,447,473 B2).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Steinke et al. (at least Figs. 1-19; also annotated Fig. 1 attached herewith) discloses the claimed invention,
(claim 7) wherein:
a retractor 10 that winds the seat belt 11, 111; and
(claim 8) wherein the inflator 7 is embedded in a seat back 21 of the vehicle seat together with the retractor 10.
But Steinke et al. (at least Figs. 1-19; also annotated Fig. 1 attached herewith) does not explicitly disclose (claim 7) a force limiter mechanism provided in the retractor 10 that winds the seat belt 11, 111; and
the expandable portion 521 of the gas supply pipe 71, 521 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 (claim 7) 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 retractor of Steinke et al. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the REMARKS,
PNG
media_image2.png
244
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
680
725
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Steinke discloses at least in Fig. 1, “wherein an entirety of the covered portion of the seat belt 11, 111 is configured to be positioned further from the occupant 4 than the belt support airbag 52, 5, 53 (at least a part thereof in Fig. 1; also see annotated Fig. 1 attached herewith) and the gas supply pipe 521 within the cover member 3, 6” as recited in claim 1.
Examiner notes that Applicant does not claim “an entirety of the covered portion of the seat belt is configured to be positioned further from the occupant than an entirety of the belt support airbag and the gas supply pipe within the cover member”.
Further, Examiner notes that force applied to an occupant in Steinke et al. is transmitted first to the airbag and then to the seat belt, contrary to Applicant’s argument.
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that claim 1 as amended is still sufficiently broad that the reference to Steinke et al. (US 11,685,327 B2) is still applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
Prosecution Insights