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 .
The preliminary amendment filed 19 February 2025, in which claims 1-15 were amended, has been entered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggests incorporating the floor-mounted feature of the air bag into the title.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-15 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-15 of Application No. 19/104,723. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-15 of co-pending Application No. 19/104,723 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the legs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by removing “the” and rephrasing to read --legs--.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the environment" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the opposite outer layer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by rephrasing to read --an opposite outer layer--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the interior" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by rephrasing to read --an interior--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the curvature" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by rephrasing to read --a curvature--.
In regards to claim 5, it is unclear if Applicant intends to reference a central layer or multiple center layers with the phrase “the central layer(s)” (line 3). Since only “a central layer” has been previously claimed, if Applicant intends to reference multiple central layers, then there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification and rephrasing are required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the attachment points" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant has previously claimed “one attachment point” (claim 4), but has not claimed multiple attachment points.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the inner side" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by rephrasing to read --an inner side--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the curvature" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by rephrasing to read --a curvature--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outer side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by rephrasing to read --an outer side--.
In regards to claim 7, the term “particularly” in the phrase “particularly about 90o“ (line 5) renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the claim are not discernable. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. A preferred embodiment may also be set forth in another independent or dependent claim. If stated in a single claim, examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope. Clarification and rephrasing are required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the longitudinal extension" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by rephrasing to read --a longitudinal extension--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the vertical support struts" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant has previously claimed “support struts”, but not vertical support struts.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the complete filling" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, 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). The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 positively recites a vehicle occupant and body parts of the vehicle occupant. Examiner suggests referencing the vehicle occupant and associated body parts more functionally, such as with the phrase “configured to”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukawatase (US 2020/0062210 A1) in view of Manley (US 2007/0040368 A1). Fukawatase discloses a vehicle occupant protection system (passenger protecting device #10, 32, 34, 36) comprising:
(claim 1) an airbag (inflating portion #24) for the protection of the legs (including knees #P2) of a vehicle occupant (passengers #P; has the ability to so perform, depending upon size and position of passenger at time of airbag activation; figures 1-5);
wherein, prior to activation of the vehicle occupant protection system (#10, 32, 34, 36), the airbag (#24) is arranged folded on a floor (#18) of a vehicle (#12) in front of an associated vehicle seat (#16; figure 1; paragraph 0014) and deploys in a situation of restraint from the floor in front of the vehicle seat (figures 2-5);
wherein the airbag (#24) comprises several tubular inflatable chambers (first and second inflating portions #26, 28) being in fluid connection which, when inflated, are connected three-dimensionally to one another (figures 2-5; paragraphs 0016-0038);
wherein several of the chambers (#26, 28) form support struts (any of first and second inflating portions #26, 28) of the airbag (#24), while at least one of the chambers (any of first and second inflating portions #26, 28) in an upper area of the airbag forms a restraint chamber (figures 2-5; paragraphs 0016-0038);
wherein, when the airbag (#24) is completely inflated, the restraint chamber (any of first and second inflating portions #26, 28) is arranged directly in front of a shin area, a knee area or a pelvis area of the vehicle occupant (has the ability to so perform, depending upon size and position of passenger #P at time of airbag activation; figures 2-5);
(claim 4) wherein two support struts (any of first and second inflating portions #26, 28) between which a corner area is located abut on each other, when inflated, at an angle other than 0o (figures 2-5);
(claim 11) wherein the airbag (#24) is braced via at least one tether (first and second partitioning wall members #30, 38) extending outside the inflatable chambers (#26, 28), and the tether is made of a single-layer fabric (paragraphs 0014, 0015, 0020, 0030, 0038; figure 2-5).
Fukawatase does not disclose wherein at least the portions of the airbag (#24) which include the inflatable chambers (#26, 28) are one-piece woven, or a central layer between two outer layers. Manley teaches a vehicle occupant protection system (figure 1) comprising:
(claim 1) an airbag (#10; figure 1);
wherein at least the portions of the airbag (#10) which include inflatable chambers are one-piece woven (one-piece woven structure discussed throughout the specification);
(claim 2) wherein at least portions of the airbag have at least three superimposed layers (including first side #22, second side #24, and central tethers #20, 30, 40) in the inflatable chambers, wherein a central layer (central tethers #20, 30, 40) is located between two outer layers (including first side #22, second side #24) which seal off the airbag against the environment (figures 2-6; paragraphs 0038-0063);
(claim 3) wherein the central layer (#20, 30, 40) has a woven structure (paragraphs 0059-0063);
(claim 4) wherein the central layer (#20, 30, 40) extends in a corner area of the airbag (#10) at least at one attachment point from one of the outer layers to the opposite outer layer (#22, 24) through the interior of the airbag (figures 2-6);
(claim 8) wherein the central layer (#20, 30, 40) constitutes a protective layer for the outer layers (#22, 24) in a connecting area of an inflator (central tethers #20, 30, 40 can act as a protective layer for the entire airbag #10, including a connecting area of an inflator);
(claim 10) wherein all layers (#20, 22, 24, 30, 40) are woven in one piece with one another (figures 2-6; one-piece woven structure discussed throughout the specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle occupant protection system of Fukawatase to include one-piece woven fabric with a central layer located between two outer layers, as taught by Manley, so as to shape the air bag to a desired inflated dimension, and provide an optimum combination of strength and air permeability, with a production process that can be completed in fewer steps (Manley: paragraphs 0035, 0036, 0061, 0062).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9, and 12-15 appear to be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, the provisional statutory double patenting rejection, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act, set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the allowable subject matter of claim 5 is wherein an inner side of the curvature of the corner area is gathered by the central layer, in combination with other features of preceding claims 1, 2, and 4;
the allowable subject matter of claim 7 is wherein the central layer in the corner area has a flat design and extends rotated between the attachment points on the inner side of the curvature and the outer side of the curvature about an angle other than 00, in combination with other features of preceding claims 1, 2, and 4;
the allowable subject matter of claim 9 is wherein, in the inflatable chambers outside a corner area, the central layer extends along the longitudinal extension of the chambers through the respective chamber, in combination with other features of preceding claims 1 and 2;
the allowable subject matter of claim 12 is wherein, when the airbag is completely inflated, an additional restraint chamber 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, in combination with other features of preceding claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art includes English equivalents to foreign documents cited by Applicant, as well as floor-supported airbags. Of particular note is Lin et al. (US 10525922 B1), which also reads on the claims in a similar manner as set forth in the prior art rejection above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA FREEDMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm.
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.
/LAURA FREEDMAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3614B