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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 3, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IV – Figures 7 - 10 in the reply filed on February 33, 3036 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the holder in the floor must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 16 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 16 recites the restraint chamber is arranged directly in front of a shin area, a knee area or a pelvis area of the vehicle occupant, which positively recites the occupant as part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the elongated cutting" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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) 16-17, 19, 21-23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fukawatase (US 2020/0062210)
Fukawatase discloses in figures 1, 3 and 5 a vehicle occupant protection system (10) comprising an airbag (32) for the protection of the legs of the vehicle occupant which is arranged, prior to activation of the vehicle occupant protection system, folded on a floor (18) of a vehicle in front of an associated vehicle seat and which deploys in a situation of restraint from the floor in front of the vehicle seat, wherein the airbag comprises several tubular inflatable chambers (26) being in fluid connection which, when inflated, are connected three-dimensionally to one another, wherein several of the chambers form support struts (vertical chambers) of the airbag, while at least one of the chambers in an upper area of the airbag forms a restraint chamber (28A), wherein, when the airbag is completely inflated, the restraint chamber is arranged directly in front of a shin area, a knee area or a pelvis area of the vehicle occupant (claim 16). the support struts are connected to form a three-dimensional frame and the restraint chamber particularly forms an upper cross strut of the frame (claim 17). the support struts are designed and arranged so that, when the airbag is inflated, there is room for the legs of the vehicle occupant in the area beneath the restraint chamber (claim 19). at least one inflator (22) is provided which supplies filling gas to the airbag and which is fastened to the floor of the vehicle (claim 21). the inflator and/or the folded airbag are accommodated, prior to the activation, in a holder (21) in the floor of the vehicle (claim 22). the airbag is braced via at least one tether (30) (claim 23). an additional restraint chamber (28B) is provided which, when the airbag is completely inflated, is arranged in parallel to the restraint chamber and directly adjacent to the restraint chamber between the restraint chamber and the floor of the vehicle (claim 25). at least one overflow opening (best shown in figure 3 gas flowing through different chambers) through which filling gas flows from the restraint chamber into the additional restraint chamber is positioned between the restraint chamber and the additional restraint chamber (claim 26).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukawatase as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Fischer et al (US 11,35,558).
Fukawatase discloses the claimed invention excluding the transversely to its longitudinal extension, the restraint chamber has a larger diameter than the support struts. However Fischer discloses in figure 5 an airbag having a configuration in which the laterally extending chamber section of the airbag having a larger diameter than the strut portions of the airbag. At the time of filing PHOSITA would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Fukawatase in view of Fischer with predictable results. The motivation would have been that the dimensions of the tube, commensurate with its particular shape, can be adjusted to accommodate the occupant and the cushioning effect of the tube 90 results from distorting the inflated tube and displacing the volume of inflation fluid stored therein.
Claim(s) 24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukawatase as applied to claims 16 and 25 above, and further in view of Jost et al (US 11,840,190)
As best understood by the Examiner Fukawatase does not explicitly discloses the airbag made of a single cutting (OPW) airbag, wherein the airbag has an elongated cutting that can be folded several times in its longitudinal direction while forming folding lines extending transversely to the longitudinal direction, wherein flatly superimposed portions of the cutting are interconnected so that the tubular chambers are formed. However Jost discloses an airbag having an airbag having several chambers as part of an elongated cutting. At the time of filing PHOSITA would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Fukawatase in view of Jost with predictable results. Since it is known in the art the woven material of an airbag, commonly referred to as a one piece woven (OPW), may be formed from yarns of at least nylon, polypropylene, and/or polyester. In some instances, the woven material may include multiple layers, such as two, three, four, and so forth that are weaved or laminated together.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Non (US 4,099,743).
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