DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 03/27/2025, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 03/27/2025.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to JP 2022-157160, filed on 09/29/2022; and is a 371 of PCT/JP2023/033494, filed on 09/14/2023. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, line 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the vehicle” should read, “a vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the boundary part” should read, “a boundary part”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the hood” should read, “a hood”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the windshield” should read, “a windshield”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13, line 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the weak part” should read, “the weakened part”. 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.
Claim 3 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 3 recites the limitation, “the center of the sub-chamber in the front-to-back direction is located backward of the center of the main chamber in the front-to-back direction”. This limitation is unclear and indefinite, because Figs. 7A-8A clearly show that this sub-chamber is located forward of the main chamber in the stowed position (Fig. 7A) and the early stages of deployment positions (Fig. 7B-8A). However, Figs. 8B-9B appear to show that the center of the sub-chamber is located backward of the center of the main chamber. Thus, the limitation of claim 3 is partially true in the instances where the airbag is fully deployed, and partially false when the airbag is not fully deployed. Therefore, for purposes of examination, claim 3 will be interpreted as: “the center of the sub-chamber in the front-to-back direction is located backward of the center of the main chamber in the front-to-back direction when the airbag is fully deployed”.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugimoto (WO 2016/103796), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Sugimoto discloses a pedestrian protection airbag device {10}, comprising: a gas generator {13} that generates expansion gas {“The inflator 13 has a rod shape, and a gas injection port is provided on one end side” [0024]}; and an airbag {11} that is expanded by the expansion gas {“when the main portion 11a of the airbag 11 is inflated, the upper panel 15 of the main portion 11a is pushed upward by the gas ejected from the inflator 13” [0047]} that protects a pedestrian and the like that collides with the vehicle {1: “The present invention relates to a pedestrian airbag device configured to receive pedestrians (pedestrians, two-wheeled vehicle passengers, etc.) by inflating an airbag along an outer surface in the vicinity of a cowl of a vehicle body. The present invention also relates to a vehicle equipped with this pedestrian airbag device” [0002]} by deploying from the boundary part {3 (Figs. 13-18): “The automobile 1 includes a hood panel 2, a cowl 3, a windshield 4, an A pillar 5, a wiper 6, a pedestrian airbag device 10, and the like. In this embodiment, the pedestrian airbag device 10 is installed in the cowl 3, but it is not limited thereto, and it may be attached to the rear portion of the hood panel 2” [0019]} of the hood {2} and the windshield {4} of the vehicle {1: “The airbag 11 includes a main portion 11a which is expanded so as to cover the rear portion of the hood panel 2 to the front portion of the windshield 4” [0021]}, wherein the airbag {11} includes: a main chamber {11a (R1+R2)} enabled to deploy from the boundary part {3} on an upper part of the hood {2 (Figs. 15-18)}; and a sub-chamber {11c (R3)} connected to the lower part of the main chamber {11a (R1+R2)} that deploys prior to the main chamber {11a} under the hood {2 (Figs. 13-18)}.
Regarding claim 2, Sugimoto discloses the sub-chamber {11c (R3)} deploys in a manner so as to push the main chamber {11a (R1+R2)} upwardly over an upper part of the hood {2 (Figs. 13-18)}.
Regarding claim 4, Sugimoto discloses the sub-chamber {11c (R3)} and the main chamber {11a (R1+R2)} are in fluid communication with each other through an inner vent {17a (Figs. 2, 13-18): “the tether panel 17 is provided with the gas passage opening 17a, but this opening 17a may be omitted” [0029]}.
Regarding claim 5, Sugimoto discloses the inner vent {17a} is formed backward of the center of the sub-chamber {11c (R3)} in the front-to-back direction {Figs. 2, 13-18}.
Regarding claim 6, Sugimoto discloses the gas generator {13 (Figs. 13-18)} is stowed in the sub-chamber {11c (R3)}.
Regarding claim 7, Sugimoto discloses the sub-chamber {11c (R3)} is formed to have a smaller volume than the main chamber {11a (R1+R2)}.
Regarding claim 11, Sugimoto discloses a flap {14 (Figs. 13-14)} is provided on an outer periphery of the airbag {11} in a compressed state {Fig. 13} and is capable of controlling the deployment direction of the airbag {11}; and the flap {14} has a weakened part that breaks or opens {“releases” [0041]} in a desired direction of deployment of the airbag {11 (Fig. 14)} as the airbag {11} expands and deploys {“as shown in FIG. 14, the airbag folded body pushes up and releases the lid 14 to release the wound portions R1, R2 is pushed upward of the retainer 12” [0041]}.
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.
Claims 3, 8-10, 12 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto in view of Takahashi (JP 2003/312405), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 3, Sugimoto discloses all the aspects of claim 2. However, Sugimoto does not explicitly disclose the center of the sub-chamber in the front-to-back direction is located backward of the center of the main chamber in the front-to-back direction when the airbag is fully deployed.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Takahashi teaches {Annotated Fig. 2} the center of the sub-chamber {bottom portion of airbag 26 near 32+42} in the front-to-back direction {lower dot} is located backward of the center of the main chamber {portion of airbag 26 deployed over hood 23 and windshield 29} in the front-to-back direction {upper dot} when the airbag {26} is fully deployed.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedestrian protection airbag device, as disclosed by Sugimoto, such that the center of the sub-chamber in the front-to-back direction is located backward of the center of the main chamber in the front-to-back direction when the airbag is fully deployed, as taught by Takahashi, in order to provide an “air bag apparatus for protecting a pedestrian” that is “excellent in internal pressure retention performance and deployment performance” [0028].
Regarding claim 8, Sugimoto discloses all the aspects of claim 1. Sugimoto further teaches the main chamber {11a (R1+R2)} is configured such that a surface area of a front region {11a (R2)} that deploys onto the hood {2 (Figs. 16-18)} is perhaps larger than a surface area of an upper region {11a (R1): “As the gas flows into the winding portion R1, the winding portion R1 is inflated and developed while rotating clockwise from a high position above the cowl 3 by a height T towards the rear” [0043]} that extends onto the windshield {4 (Figs. 16-18)}.
However, Sugimoto does not explicitly disclose the main chamber is configured such that a surface area of a front region that deploys onto the hood is larger than a surface area of an upper region that extends onto the windshield.
Takahashi teaches {Fig. 2} the main chamber {26 (28+30)} is configured such that a surface area of a front region {front region of airbag 26 that covers hood 23: “the front portion of the airbag bag body 26 is a shape that is divided into a plurality of tube-shaped portions that are long in the vehicle front-rear direction” [0015]} that deploys onto the hood {23: “hood 23” [0015]} is larger than a surface area of an upper region {upper region of airbag 26 that covers windshield 29} that extends onto the windshield {29: “front windshield glass 29” [0015]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedestrian protection airbag device, as disclosed by Sugimoto, such that the main chamber is configured such that a surface area of a front region that deploys onto the hood is larger than a surface area of an upper region that extends onto the windshield, as taught by Takahashi, in order to provide an “air bag apparatus for protecting a pedestrian” that is “excellent in internal pressure retention performance and deployment performance” [0028].
Regarding claim 9, Sugimoto and Takahashi disclose all the aspects of claim 8. Sugimoto further discloses the front region {11a (R2)} and the upper region {11a (R1): “As the gas flows into the winding portion R1, the winding portion R1 is inflated and developed while rotating clockwise from a high position above the cowl 3 by a height T towards the rear” [0043]} of the main chamber {11a (R1+R2)} are folded or rolled separately {Figs. 13-16}.
Regarding claim 10, Sugimoto and Takahashi disclose all the aspects of claim 9. Sugimoto further discloses the main chamber {11a (R1+R2)} and the sub-chamber {11c (R3)} are folded or rolled separately {Figs. 12-16}.
Regarding claim 12, Sugimoto discloses all the aspects of claim 11. However, Sugimoto does not explicitly disclose the weakened part is formed in the vicinity of a front end of the airbag.
Takahashi teaches a weakened part {44: “fragile portion 44” [0017]} is formed in the vicinity of a front end {FR (Fig. 3)} of the airbag {24 (26)}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedestrian protection airbag device, as disclosed by Sugimoto, such that the weakened part is formed in the vicinity of a front end of the airbag, as taught by Takahashi, in order to provide an “air bag apparatus for protecting a pedestrian” that is “excellent in internal pressure retention performance and deployment performance” [0028].
Regarding claim 14, Sugimoto discloses all the aspects of claim 11. However, Sugimoto does not explicitly disclose the weakened part is a slit or a breakable sewing line.
Takahashi teaches a weakened part {44: “fragile portion 44” [0017]} is a slit or a breakable sewing line {“a fragile portion 44 in which a concave section having a triangular cross section is formed from the vehicle rear side. When the airbag bag body 26 is inflated and deployed, the fragile portion 44 formed in the cover 42 is broken by the inflation pressure of the airbag bag body 26. Therefore, the cover 42 is configured such that the upper wall portion 42F and the upper portion 42G of the front wall portion 42C are deployed rearward of the vehicle with the upper end portion 42E of the rear wall portion 42D as a hinge portion” [0018]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedestrian protection airbag device, as disclosed by Sugimoto, such that the weakened part is a slit or a breakable sewing line, as taught by Takahashi, in order to provide an “air bag apparatus for protecting a pedestrian” that is “excellent in internal pressure retention performance and deployment performance” [0028].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Regarding claim 13, none of the prior art of record, either alone or in obvious combination discloses the pedestrian protection airbag device according to claim 12, wherein the flap retains the main chamber without breaking or opening the weak part until the main chamber reaches to the upper part of the hood as the airbag deploys.
Regarding claim 15, Takahashi teaches the weakened part {44: “fragile portion 44” [0017]} is formed in the vicinity of a front end {FR (Figs. 2-3)} of the undeployed main chamber {26}. However, none of the prior art of record, either alone or in obvious combination discloses the pedestrian protection airbag device according to claim 11, wherein the weakened part is formed in the vicinity of a front end of the undeployed main chamber when the sub-chamber is expanded and deployed so as to push the main chamber upward (emphasis added).
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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 on (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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614