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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 4/23/26 has been entered. Claims 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/27/25.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11, 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 Line 8 before “injected fluid” delete “an” and substitute –the—for proper antecedent basis with Claim 11 Line 2, and to provide proper antecedent basis with at least Claim 11 Lines 12, 20
Claim 11 Line 20 delete “the side” and substitute –the sides—as there is a side of the first body and a side of the second body as established in Claim 11 Lines 3-4, 10-11
Claim 16 Line 2 before “accept” add –are configured to—as the fluid is not positively claimed; disagreement may warrant a U.S.C. 101 rejection
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pettinato et al (EP 2745720), herein Pettinato.
Regarding Claim 11, Pettinato teaches an airbag structure (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; however, see Figs. 3, 7; [0021] "protective device 10 comprises…an inflatable and deflatable bag 21"), comprising:
a first body configured to accept an injected fluid (see annotated Fig. 3 below; [0022] The inflatable bag 21 is structured such as to comprise a central bag 22 from which a plurality of pairs of bags 23 branch symmetrically about its central vertical axis and are preferably connected together"; Pettinato teaches the inflatable bag’s first body which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being injected with fluid, especially in light of [0022] “bag 21 comprises one or more inflating pumps 24….one or more air discharge valves 26”, wherein the first body is of bag 21, and wherein it is known in the art that air is a fluid),
PNG
media_image1.png
622
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a plurality of first predetermined points spaced apart from each other is arranged on one side of the first body along a lengthwise direction (see annotated Fig. 3 below);
PNG
media_image2.png
622
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first protrusion configured to accept the fluid injected from the first body (see annotated Fig. 3 below; Pettinato teaches the first protrusion which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of having the injected fluid, especially in light of [0022] wherein the protrusion is of bag 21),
PNG
media_image3.png
622
625
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the first protrusion extending from two adjacent first predetermined points in a direction facing away from the side of the first body (see Fig. 3);
a second body configured to accept the injected fluid (see annotated Fig. 3 below, wherein the rest of the recitations are just the mirror annotations aforementioned),
PNG
media_image4.png
622
625
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the second body positioned parallel to the first body (see Fig. 3),
wherein a plurality of second predetermined points spaced apart from each other is arranged on one side of the second body along the lengthwise direction (see Fig. 3),
a second protrusion configured to accept the fluid injected from the second body (see Fig. 3; Pettinato teaches the second protrusion which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of having the injected fluid, especially in light of [0022] wherein the protrusion is of bag 21),
the second protrusion extending from two adjacent second predetermined points in a direction facing away from the side of the second body (see Fig. 3); and
a connecting portion formed between the first body and the second body (see Fig. 3; [0022] “central bag 22”);
wherein the first protrusion has a smaller width of a farthest end of the first body than a width of an opposite end connected to the first body (see Fig. 3, wherein the diagonal shows width is smaller as recited), and
the second protrusion has a smaller width of a farthest end from the second body than a width of an opposite end connected to the second body (see Fig. 3 wherein the diagonal shows width is smaller as recited);
wherein when the first and second protrusions accept the injected fluid, the side of the first and second bodies where the first and the second protrusions are formed reduces in length (Pettinato teaches the first protrusion on the side of the first body and the second protrusion on the side of the second body which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of meeting the recitation, especially in light of [0022] " a bending flexibility of the bag 21 about horizontal axes is achieved"),
whereby the first and second bodies and the connecting portion bend (Pettinato teaches the first/second protrusions, the first/second bodies, and the connecting portion as recited which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of meeting the recitation, especially in light of [0022] " a bending flexibility of the bag 21 about horizontal axes is achieved").
Regarding Claim 13, Pettinato further teaches the airbag structure of claim 11, wherein when the first protrusion and the second protrusion each accept the injected fluid, the first body the second body and the connecting portion bend in a direction perpendicular to an imaginary horizontal line connecting the side of the first body where the first protrusion is formed and the side of the second body where the second protrusion is formed (Pettinato teaches the first/second protrusions, the first/second bodies, and the connecting portion as recited which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of meeting the recitation, especially in light of [0022] " a bending flexibility of the bag 21 about horizontal axes is achieved", wherein perpendicular is met by curving at/away from the line).
Regarding Claim 14, Pettinato further teaches the airbag structure of claim 11, further comprising an inflatable portion at one end of the first body and the second body (see annotated Fig. 3 below),
PNG
media_image5.png
622
622
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the inflatable portion is in fluid communication with the first body, the second body, and the connecting portion (Pettinato teaches the first/second bodies, the connecting portion and the inflatable portion in one bag which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being in fluid communication, especially in light of [0022] "bag 21 comprises one or more inflating pumps 24 connected to the bag 21 by a conduit 25").
Regarding Claim 16, Pettinato further teaches the airbag structure of claim 14, wherein the first and second bodies and the connecting portion accept the injected fluid via the inflatable portion (Pettinato teaches the first/second bodies, the connecting portion and the inflatable portion in one bag which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of meeting the recitation, especially in light of [0022] "bag 21 comprises one or more inflating pumps 24 connected to the bag 21 by a conduit 25").
Regarding Claim 18, Pettinato further teaches the airbag structure of claim 11, wherein the connecting portion further comprises a plurality of protrusions along the length of the first and second bodies (see Fig. 3),
wherein each protrusion of said plurality of protrusions is perpendicular to the length of the first and second bodies (see Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification--
Pertaining to remarks on page 8 that Pettinato’s bending is achieved between upper/lower pairs of the central bag 22 undergoing a width reduction and is not a result of fluid being injected—examiner respectfully disagrees. Pettinato teaches all of the recited structures which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of bending with fluid injection, especially as indicated with the bending functionality in [0022] included in the remarks themselves. There is no evidence that there is no bending as a result of a fluid being injected. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the width reduction of bag 22 is due to fluid injection.
Pertaining to remarks on page 8 that Pettinato’s bag 21 does not bend even when fluid is injected because the vertical length of the bag 21 merely decreases uniformly across the entire area as it inflates based on Figs. 4, 5—examiner respectfully disagrees. [0022] clearly states otherwise ([0022] “…the central bag 22 undergoing a width reduction. In this manner a bending flexibility of the bag 21 about horizontal axes is achieved”), regardless of what is illustrated, not to scale, in Figs. 4, 5.
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that Pettinato fails to disclose the length of a specific area reduces more than other areas to induce bending—examiner respectfully disagrees. This specificity of length reduction relative to another element is not claimed. Examiner notes that the claims can be read in light of the specification to help disclose what is included within broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, but that limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969), MPEP 2111. Nevertheless, even if the recitation were claimed, the remarks would not be persuasive-- as aforementioned, all structure required for this functionality, as laid out in specification page 14 Lines 1-15, especially starting page 10 Line 23, is recited by the prior art of record, and therefore the function as recited is met.
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that the application automatically forms a 3-D shape upon injection of fluid while Pettinato fails to disclose a 3D shape through fluid injection alone and therefore Pettinato does not apply—examiner respectfully disagrees. No such specificity is in the claims. Furthermore, the existence of the structure of Pettinato is a (first) 3D shape, inflated or uninflated, and there is no evidence that there is no (second) 3D shape through fluid injection alone.
Pertaining to remarks on page 10 that Pettinato relates to an air bag structure that bends passively to match the anatomical shape of the spine as opposed to automatically bending upon fluid injection and therefore does not apply—examiner respectfully disagrees. As aforementioned, [0022] clearly indicates otherwise, that there is bending based on the structure of the airbag, said structure being the structure currently claimed.
Pertaining to remarks on page 10 that a comparative air bag was constructed and therefore Pettinato does not apply—examiner respectfully disagrees. A comparative air bag is not proven to be the exact same product as Pettinato itself (material, testing conditions, shape, thickness, etc), and therefore cannot be utilized to discount Pettinato.
Summarily, claims have not yet structurally differentiated the elected embodiment of Figs. 5, 6 from the prior art of record. If there is alleged function of the invention that is not of the prior art, the structure contributing to the alleged function should be claimed in order to further move prosecution forward.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Riess et al (US Publication 2025/0057262) directed to airbag with first/second bodies with first/second protrusions, Oliver (US Publication 2025/0304253) directed to length reduction.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights