DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement
Examiner acknowledges receipt of applicant’s Amendment to the Claims (filed 10/23/2025).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claims 7-10 are already recited in claim 1 from which claims 7-10 depend indirectly. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enders (US 7,261,318 B2) in view of Webber et al. (US 6,631,920 B1), previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claims 1 and 7-9, Enders (at least Figs. 1-15) discloses an occupant protection device 322 for a passenger seat 20 of a vehicle 310, for protecting an occupant 18, 382, 384 seated in the passenger seat 20, comprising, when front and rear in a front-rear direction of the vehicle 310 are referred to as front and rear, respectively:
an outer member 371 is configured to close an opening (at least Figs. 14-15) provided, in front of a knee 382 of the occupant 18, 382, 384, in an instrument panel 312 of the vehicle 310; and
an air bag device 322 including an air bag 328 configured to be deployed and inflated by supply of a gas, wherein
the air bag device 322 is disposed in front of the outer member 371,
the outer member 371 is configured to move rearward away from the instrument panel 312 by receiving a pressure from the air bag 328 that is deployed and inflated,
the air bag 328 is deployed and inflated upward through a space between the instrument panel 312 and the outer member 371, which is in a state of being away from the instrument panel 312,
the occupant protection device 322 for the passenger seat 20 further comprises an inner member 326 disposed in front of the outer member 371,
the air bag device 322 is disposed in a space between the outer member 371 and the inner member 326,
the outer member 371 is configured to be engaged with the inner member 326 so as not to be movable with respect to the inner member 326 when the air bag device 322 is not activated (at least Fig. 14), and to be disengaged from the inner member 326 and move rearward away from the instrument panel 312 by receiving the pressure from the air bag 328 that is deployed and inflated when the air bag device 322 is activated (at least Fig. 15),
the inner member 326 is capable of being drawn out from an accommodation space (at least Fig. 15), and
the inner member 326 includes a raised portion configured to be in contact with an upper portion of the outer member 371 (at least via 373 in at least Figs. 12-15).
But Enders (at least Figs. 1-15) does not explicitly disclose the airbag 328 configured to protect an upper body of the occupant and the outer member 371 being configured to protect the knee 382 of the occupant 18, 382, 384.
Webber et al. (at least Figs. 1-4) discloses that it is known in the art to provide an airbag 32, 68 configured to protect an upper body of an occupant (at least column 1 lines 38-50, column 3 lines 22-28, column 3 line 63-column 4 line 15) and an outer member 34, 36, 63, 64 configured to protect a knee of the occupant 40, 72.
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 airbag and the outer member of Enders according to the teachings of Webber et al., so that the airbag 328 of Enders is configured to protect an upper body of the occupant and the outer member 371 of Enders is configured to protect the knee 382 of the occupant 18, 382, 384, in order to achieve the desirable result of improving occupant protection.
Regarding claims 2-4, 11-14, and 16-19, the combination of Enders (at least Figs. 1-15) and Webber et al. (at least Figs. 1-4) as modified above discloses the occupant protection device 322 for the passenger seat 20,
(claim 2) wherein the outer member 371 includes a pressure receiving portion 371 configured to receive the pressure from the air bag 328 that is deployed and inflated, and a front surface of the pressure receiving portion 371 is inclined with respect to an upper-lower direction to be positioned rearward toward an upper side (at least Figs. 14-15);
(claim 3) wherein the outer member 371 includes a regulating portion 370 protruding toward a front side from the outer member 371 and configured to restrict the air bag 328 from being deployed and inflated below the outer member 371;
(claim 4) wherein the air bag 328 includes a facing portion configured to be deployed and inflated rearward of the outer member 371 that is in the state of being away from the instrument panel 312 so that the facing portion faces a front side of the upper body of the occupant 18, 382, 384, and the outer member 371 includes a support end portion (upper part of outer member 371) configured to support the facing portion from a front side by biting into a lower portion of the air bag 328 (at least Figs. 14-15);
(claims 11-14) further comprising: a support member 346, 350, 354, 356 fixed to a frame of the vehicle 310 to support the inner member 326 from a front side;
(claims 16-19) further comprising: a glove box 316 (at least Figs. 12-15) configured to open and close the opening (at least Figs. 14-15), wherein the glove box 316 includes the outer member 371 and the inner member 326, the outer member 371 constitutes a design surface of an interior of the vehicle 310, the inner member 326 has an accommodation portion 326 capable of accommodating an accommodated object (at least 328 in at least Figs. 12-15).
Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enders (US 7,261,318 B2) in view of Webber et al. (US 6,631,920 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adomeit et al. (US 4,948,168), previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claim 5, 10, 15, and 20, the combination of Enders (at least Figs. 1-15) and Webber et al. (at least Figs. 1-4) as modified above discloses the occupant protection device 322 for the passenger seat 20,
(claim 10) the occupant protection device 322 for the passenger seat 20 further comprises an inner member 326 disposed in front of the outer member 371,
the air bag device 322 is disposed in a space between the outer member 371 and the inner member 326,
the outer member 371 is configured to be engaged with the inner member 326 so as not to be movable with respect to the inner member 326 when the air bag device 322 is not activated (at least Fig. 14), and to be disengaged from the inner member 326 and move rearward away from the instrument panel 312 by receiving the pressure from the air bag 328 that is deployed and inflated when the air bag device 322 is activated (at least Fig. 15);
(claim 15) further comprising: a support member 346, 350, 354, 356 fixed to a frame of the vehicle 310 to support the inner member 326 from a front side;
(claim 20) further comprising: a glove box 316 (at least Figs. 12-15) configured to open and close the opening (at least Figs. 14-15), wherein
the glove box 316 includes the outer member 371 and the inner member 326, the outer member 371 constitutes a design surface of an interior of the vehicle 310, the inner member 326 has an accommodation portion 326 capable of accommodating an accommodated object (at least 328 in at least Figs. 12-15).
But the combination of Enders (at least Figs. 1-15) and Webber et al. (at least Figs. 1-4) as modified above does not explicitly disclose the occupant protection device 322 (claim 5) further comprising: a ratchet mechanism configured to allow the outer member 371 to move rearward away from the instrument panel 312 and restrict the outer member 371 from approaching the instrument panel 312 when the air bag device 322 is activated.
Adomeit et al. (at least Figs. 1-11) discloses that it is known in the art to provide an occupant protection device comprising: a ratchet mechanism 70, 72, 74, 75, 76 configured to allow an outer member 9, 26 to move rearward away from an instrument panel 1 and restrict the outer member 9, 26 from approaching the instrument panel 1 when an air bag device 8 is activated (at least Fig. 7).
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 occupant protection device of the combination of Enders and Webber et al. as modified above with the ratchet mechanism according to the teachings of Adomeit et al., in order to achieve the desirable result of allowing the outer member to move rearward away from the instrument panel and restrict the outer member from approaching the instrument panel when the air bag device is activated.
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 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