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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second deflection element and the at least two airbag modules 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
References to specific claims (as in paragraph 0007, line 2) should not be made in the specification because claim numbers and/or claim dependencies may change during the prosecution of the application.
In paragraph 0017, line 2, “linearly” should be changed to --linearly with respect-- or --linearly in relation--.
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 11-21 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 11 recites the limitation "the one tensioner device" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “one tensioner device” to --tensioner device-- in claim 11, lines 11 and 13 (two places).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the one tensioner drive" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “one tensioner drive” to --tensioner drive-- in claim 11, line 13 and in claim 15, line 4.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the segment of the first arrestor strap arrangement that is attachable to the airbag" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the segment” to --a segment-- in claim 11, line 13.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the segment of the second arrestor strap arrangement that is attachable to the airbag" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the segment” to --a segment-- in claim 11, line 15.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the end of the first arrestor strap arrangement" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the end” to --the one end-- in claim 13, line 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the end of the second arrestor strap arrangement" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the end” to --the one end-- in claim 13, line 2.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “the tensioner device has at least one tensioning element which can be accelerated…in a straight line”, and the claim also recites “in particular pyrotechnically” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "elements" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, particularly since it is unclear from the claim language which of the previously recited elements (e.g., “at least one deflection element”, “at least one tensioning element”, “a first tensioning element” and/or “a second tensioning element”) the recitation of “elements” in claim 15, line 3 refers to. This rejection could be overcome by changing “elements” to --first and second tensioning elements-- in claim 15, line 3.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the end of the first arrestor strap arrangement" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the end” to --the one end-- in claim 16, line 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the end of the second arrestor strap arrangement" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the end” to --the one end-- in claim 16, line 2.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the deflection element" in lines 3 and 4 (two places). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing "the deflection element" to --the at least one deflection element-- in lines 3 and 4 (two places).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the one tensioning element" in lines 2 and 4 (two places). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing "the one tensioning element" to --the at least one tensioning element-- in lines 2 and 4 (two places).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the end of the first arrestor strap arrangement" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the end” to --the one end-- in claim 17, line 3.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the end of the second arrestor strap arrangement" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the end” to --the one end-- in claim 17, line 4.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the airbag device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the two airbag modules" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the two” to --the at least two-- in claim 21, line 1.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the backrest" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not teach at least the limitation in claim 11 of “by triggering the one tensioner drive of the one tensioner device, the segment of the first arrestor strap arrangement that is attachable to the airbag can be moved by a first travel distance, and the segment of the second arrestor strap arrangement that is attachable to the airbag can be moved by a second travel distance, wherein the first travel distance and the second travel distance are different”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH J FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)270-7802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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.
/KEITH J FRISBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614