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 .
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenegae et al. (2022/0063555) in view of JP 5199604.
Kanegae discloses in figures 1A – 5D an occupant restraint device for a vehicle, comprising: a three-point seatbelt device (210) that restrains an occupant sitting on a vehicle seat at the vehicle seat (10);a front impact airbag (300) that inflates and expands from a vehicle front side toward the occupant when gas is supplied to the front impact airbag from an inflator (32) at a time of frontal collision of the vehicle; and a belt backing airbag (200) that, when gas is supplied to the belt backing airbag from an inflator (400) at a time of frontal collision of the vehicle, inflates and expands so as to extend in a seat width direction between a shoulder belt of a seatbelt of the seatbelt device and shoulder areas of the occupant, the belt backing airbag restraining both of the shoulder areas of the occupant including clavicles of the occupant (claim 1). Kanegae does not explicitly disclose an internal pressure of the inflated and expanded belt backing airbag is higher than an internal pressure of the inflated and expanded front impact airbag. However JP ‘604 discloses airbags having multiple chambers which hen pressure ratio between the chambers is intentionally controlled during inflation. At the time of filing PHOSITA would have found it obvious to modify Kenegae in view of JP ‘640. The motivation would have been to optimize the characteristics of the restraint system, adjust the pressure ratio of each airbag at the time of expansion and deployment, or to change the expansion behavior of each airbag at the time of expansion and deployment. the belt backing airbag starts restraining the occupant with the shoulder belt serving as a reaction force member and subsequently, in association with movement of the occupant toward the vehicle front side due to inertial force, the belt backing airbag continues restraining the occupant with the front impact airbag serving as a further reaction force member (figure 5) (claim 3). the belt backing airbag is configured so as to inflate and expand to a predetermined shape earlier than the front impact airbag (claim 4). an internal pressure of the inflated and expanded belt backing airbag is higher (smaller volume) than an internal pressure of the inflated and expanded front impact airbag (claim 5). activation of a pre-tensioner mechanism of the seatbelt device is set to be subsequent to completion of inflation and expansion of the belt backing airbag (paragraph 36) (claim 6). activation of a pre-tensioner mechanism of the seatbelt device is prohibited during inflation and expansion of the belt backing airbag (paragraph 36) (claim 7). further comprising a gas supply (400) connecting the belt backing airbag with the inflator to supply gas from the inflator to the belt backing airbag (claim 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 Nicole Verley whose telephone number is (571)270-3542. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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.
/NICOLE T VERLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614