DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on March 7th, 2025 in which claims 1-10 were presented for examination, amended by preliminary amendment on 5/8/25 to present Claims 11-18 for examination.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A depicted in Figs. 1-4
Species B depicted in Figs. 5-6
Species C depicted in Figs. 7-8
The species are independent or distinct because:
Species A illustrates airbag type 1
Species B illustrates airbag type 2
Species C illustrates airbag type 3
In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Brandon Chan on 9/2/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species B (Figs. 5-6), claim(s) 11-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. No Claims are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following:
Figure 9 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (page 1 Line 21, page 6 Line 19). See MPEP § 608.02(g).
No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 15 “wherein the connecting portion is perpendicular to the first body, the second body, and the inflatable portion” is not in the specification
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11, 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 Line 5 before “two” delete “the” for proper antecedent basis, or substitute for --an adjacent two of the first predetermined points—; otherwise, 112(b) indefiniteness could also be warranted for Claim 18 for not clearly relating how Claim 8 protrusions relate to points and protrusions of Claim 11
Similarly, Claim 11 Line 11 before “two” delete “the” for proper antecedent basis, or substitute for --an adjacent two of the second predetermined points—
Claim 16 Line 1 before “first” add –the—for proper antecedent basis
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. There is no specification antecedent basis for Claim 17 “wherein the inflatable portion has a width that is greater than a length of the first protrusion and the second protrusion”, and there was no original disclosure indicating that the drawings are to scale.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 11-18 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “fluid is injected” beginning in Claim 11 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the fluid is positively or functionally claimed. If the latter, the term should read “fluid is configured to be injected”. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, especially as Claim 12 indicates that the fluid is functionally claimed, and depends on Claim 11, the term in Claim 11 will be considered functional; as such, Lines 2, 7, and 10 will be “configured to be injected”, as will Claim 16 Line 1. Examiner notes that if the fluid is positively claimed, the injected fluid will be interpreted as product by process met by the structure of fluid.
The term “on one side” in Claim 1 Line 3 in unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what structure “side” belongs to—is it the airbag structure, or is the first body? For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, especially in order to provide antecedent basis for Claim 12 Line 2, the term will be considered “of the first body.”
The term “on one side” in Claim 11 Line 9 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what structure “side” belongs to—is it the airbag structure, or is the second body? For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, especially in order to provide antecedent basis for Claim 12 Line 4, the term will be considered “of the second body.”
The term “bend in a direction perpendicular to an imaginary line” in Claim 13 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The line of bending seems to be parallel to the imaginary line. It is unclear if the term is meant to be interpreted such that any bend meets the recitation, in that as a bend is “upward” and a line is “horizontal”, there is a bend in a perpendicular direction. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met by any bending capability.
The term “wherein the connecting portion is perpendicular to the first body, the second body, and the inflatable portion” in Claim 15 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the lack of specification antecedent basis, the term is unclear. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as an extent of the connecting portion is in a direction perpendicular to a respective extent the first body, the second body, and the inflatable portion.
The term “inflatable portion ahs a width that is greater than a length of the first protrusion and the second protrusion” in Claim 17 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the 112(a) new matter rejection without specification antecedent basis, it is unclear whether Claim 17 is reciting that the width is greater than a combination of lengths of the first/second protrusions, or whether the width is greater than each of a length of the first/second protrusions. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the latter interpretation will be taken.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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) 1-18 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 into which a fluid is injected (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- 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 along a lengthwise direction (see annotated Fig. 3 below);
PNG
media_image2.png
622
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first protrusion into which the fluid is 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 the two adjacent first predetermined points in a direction facing away from the side of the first body (see Fig. 3);
a second body into which the fluid is injected (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 along the lengthwise direction (see Fig. 3),
a second protrusion into which the fluid is 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 the 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).
Regarding Claim 12, Pettinato further teaches the airbag structure of claim 11, wherein when the fluid is injected into the first protrusion, the side of the first body where the first protrusion is formed reduces in length (Pettinato teaches the first protrusion on the side of the first body which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of meeting the recitation), and
when the fluid is injected into the second protrusion, the side of the second body where the second protrusion is formed reduces in length (Pettinato teaches 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).
Regarding Claim 13, Pettinato further teaches the airbag structure of claim 11, wherein when the fluid is injected into the first protrusion and the second protrusion, the first body the second body and the connecting portion bend in a direction perpendicular to an imaginary 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 (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--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 15, Pettinato further teaches the airbag structure of claim 14, wherein the connecting portion is perpendicular to the first body, the second body, and the inflatable portion (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—some extent of the connecting portion is extending perpendicular to some extent of the inflatable portion, especially as the inflatable portion extends wider left/right than the connecting portion; wherein there is at least some extending length, if not the entirety, of the connecting portion that is perpendicular to at least some extending length, if not the entirety, of each of the first/second bodies).
Regarding Claim 16, Pettinato further teaches the airbag structure of claim 14, wherein the fluid is injected into first and second bodies and the connecting portion 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 17, Pettinato further teaches the airbag structure of claim 14, wherein the inflatable portion has a width that is greater than a length of the first protrusion and the second protrusion (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Fig. 3; there is some width in the inflatable portion that is greater than some length in each of the first/second protrusions).
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Aranzulla et al (USPN 10618492), Kawamura et al (USPN 11758955), Azzolin (US Publication 2021/0076759), Piovesan (US Publication 2021/0212392) directed to an airbag structure with first/second bodies with plurality of protrusions between points, a connecting portion between bodies, and an inflatable portion; Lofgran (US Publication 2019/0261705), Lenormand et al (US Publication 2004/0111782), Cahill (USPN 1532037) also directed to airbag structures; Leivesley et al (USPN 9175931), Klass (USPN 5157789) directed to non-elected embodiment of Figs. 1-4.
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