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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because engaging protrusion 27 and inclined surface 30 shown in Fig. 10 are inconsistent with Figs. 7-9. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
in paragraph [0074] line 4, “airbag module 1” should be changed to --steering wheel 1--.
Appropriate correction is required, and applicant is advised to thoroughly review the application and correct any other errors of which applicant becomes aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informality:
in claim 1 line 2, “housing” should be changed to --a housing--;
in claim 1 line 4, “upward” should be changed to --upwardly--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
The claims are replete with indefinite language failing to positively set forth structure and its interconnection. Please note, here are a few examples:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tip end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the center" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the neutral position" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 1 lines 6-7, it is unclear whether the limitation “an engaging hole of the engaging member” is the same as the limitation “an engaging hole at the tip end thereof” in claim 1 lines 3-4. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered indefinite.
In claim 1 line 8, it is unclear to which “engaging hole” the limitation “the engaging hole” is being referred. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered indefinite.
In claim 1 line 9, it is unclear to which “engaging hole” the limitation “the engaging hole” is being referred. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the mounting direction" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the original shape" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the core metal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the core metal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required, and the claims should be reviewed in their entirety for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirota et al. (US 2020/0017057 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 5 (as best understood), Hirota et al. (at least Figs. 1-21) discloses
(claim 1) a mounting structure for mounting an airbag module 2 to a steering wheel 1 comprising:
an engaging member 18, 20, a base end side 18a being joined to housing 4 of the airbag module 2, having an engaging hole 25 at the tip end thereof;
an engaging protrusion 22 formed on a core 7 of the steering wheel 1 so as to protrude upward from a vertical lower position of the steering wheel 1 toward the center of the steering wheel 1, with the neutral position of the steering wheel 1 as a reference, and which is inserted into an engaging hole 25 of the engaging member 18, 20 to mount the airbag module 2 to the steering wheel 1; and
an insulating member 21 provided between the engaging protrusion 22 and the engaging hole 25 for preventing contact between the engaging protrusion 22 and the engaging hole 25 engaged with the engaging protrusion 22;
(claim 4) wherein the housing 4 of the airbag module 2 and the core metal 7 of the steering wheel 1 form a conductive circuit (at least paragraphs [0072], [0137]-[0139], [0144]);
(claim 5) wherein the airbag module 2 is a damper mass, and a damper unit 11 for damping vibrations of the steering wheel 1 is provided between the steering wheel 1 and the airbag module 2 in parallel with the engaging member 18, 20.
Claims 1-3 and 5 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida et al. (WO 2021/145150 A1), cited by Applicant.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 5 (as best understood), Ishida et al. (at least Figs. 8-10) discloses
(claim 1) a mounting structure for mounting an airbag module 3 to a steering wheel 1 comprising:
an engaging member 28, a base end side being joined to housing 6 of the airbag module 3, having an engaging hole 28a at the tip end thereof;
an engaging protrusion 30 formed on a core 8 of the steering wheel 1 so as to protrude upward from a vertical lower position of the steering wheel 1 toward the center of the steering wheel 1, with the neutral position of the steering wheel 1 as a reference, and which is inserted into an engaging hole 28a of the engaging member 28 to mount the airbag module 3 to the steering wheel 1; and
an insulating member (resin coating) provided between the engaging protrusion 30 and the engaging hole 28a for preventing contact between the engaging protrusion 30 and the engaging hole 28a engaged with the engaging protrusion 30;
(claim 2) wherein the engaging member 28 is formed of a plate material having the engaging hole 28a formed therethrough and capable of bending elastically deforming,
the engaging protrusion 30 is formed with an inclined surface 30a along which a tip end of the engaging member 28a slides along the mounting direction of the airbag module 3 mounting to the steering wheel 1,
the engaging member 28 slides along the inclined surface 30a and undergoes bending elastic deformation, and
when the engaging hole 28a reaches an end edge of the inclined surface 30a, the engaging member 28 elastically restores the original shape thereof and the engaging protrusion 30 is inserted into the engaging hole 28a (at least Fig. 10);
(claim 5) wherein the airbag module 3 is a damper mass, and a damper unit 11 for damping vibrations of the steering wheel 1 is provided between the steering wheel 1 and the airbag module 3 in parallel with the engaging member 28.
Regarding claim 3 (as best understood), Examiner notes the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
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 4 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (WO 2021/145150 A1) in view of Kakihara et al.
(JP 2001-199300 A), both cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), Ishida et al. (at least Figs. 8-10) discloses the claimed invention, wherein the housing 6 of the airbag module 3 and the core metal 8 of the steering wheel 1 are made of metal, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing 6 of the airbag module 3 and the core metal 8 of the steering wheel 1 form a conductive circuit.
Kakihara et al. (at least Figs. 10-11) discloses that it is known in the art to provide wherein a housing 113 of an airbag 111 module and a core metal 105 of a steering wheel 101 form a conductive circuit.
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 Ishida et al. according to the teachings of Kakihara et al., in order to achieve the desirable result of forming a conductive circuit with the housing of the airbag module and the core metal of the steering wheel and thereby reducing the number of parts/components and reducing cost.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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