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 .
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)(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 1-3, 7-9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hellot (US Patent US 11230253 B2).
With regards to Claim 1: Hellot teaches an airbag device for protecting an occupant in a cabin of a vehicle, the airbag device comprising: a front airbag (40) that expands and deploys in front of an occupant seated in a seat; and an inflator (24) that supplies expansion gas to the front airbag, wherein the front airbag includes a first chamber (Bag A in Annotated Fig 11 below) that deploys downward from a roof portion of the vehicle and a second chamber (Bag B in Annotated Fig 11 below) that deploys in front of the first chamber.
PNG
media_image1.png
644
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hellot Annotated Fig 11
With regards to Claim 2: Hellot teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, wherein the second chamber (Bag B in Annotated Fig 11 above) is connected to the front of the first chamber (Bag A in Annotated Fig 11 above).
With regards to Claim 3: Hellot teaches the airbag device according to claim 2, wherein a communication port (opening seen between Bag A and Bag B in Annotated Fig 11 above) through which gas flows is provided at a connecting portion between the first chamber (Bag A in Annotated Fig 11 above) and the second chamber (Bag B in Annotated Fig 11 above), and the expansion gas flows from the first chamber into the second chamber through the communication port.
With regards to Claim 7: Hellot teaches the airbag device according to claim 1,wherein the first chamber (Bag A in Annotated Fig 11 above) deploys behind an instrument panel (58 as seen in Fig 11).
With regards to Claim 8: The airbag device according to claim 7, wherein the second chamber (Bag B in Annotated Fig 11 above) expands and deploys between the first chamber (Bag A in Annotated Fig 11 above) and the instrument panel (58).
With regards to Claim 9: Hellot teaches the airbag device according to claim 1 wherein the capacity of the first chamber (Bag A in Annotated Fig 11 above) is larger than the capacity of the second chamber (Bag B in Annotated Fig 11 above).
With regards to Claim 11: Hellot teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, wherein a first exhaust port (31) for exhausting the expansion gas is formed in the first chamber (on 30 on Bag A in Annotated Fig 11 above).
With regards to Claim 12: Hellot teaches the airbag device according to claim 11, wherein an exhaust port (31) for exhausting the expansion gas is not formed in the second chamber (Bag B in Annotated Fig 11 above).
With regards to Claim 14: Hellot teaches the airbag device according to claim 1,wherein the first chamber (Bag A in Annotated Fig 11 above) is deployed downward from a vicinity of a boundary between a roof (52) and a windshield (56) of the vehicle (as seen in Fig 11).
With regards to Claim 15: Hellot teaches the airbag device according to claim 1,wherein the second chamber (Bag B in Annotated Fig 11 above) expands and deploys between the first chamber (Bag A in Annotated Fig 11 above) and the windshield (56 as seen in Fig 11).
Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jayasuriya et al (US Patent Publication US 20160288761 A1)
With regards to Claim 1: Jayasuriya et al teaches an airbag device for protecting an occupant in a cabin of a vehicle, the airbag device comprising: a front airbag (20) that expands and deploys in front of an occupant seated in a seat (18); and an inflator (42) that supplies expansion gas to the front airbag, wherein the front airbag includes a first chamber (220) that deploys downward from a roof portion of the vehicle (seen in Fig 9) and a second chamber (238) that deploys in front of the first chamber.
With regards to Claim 2: Jayasuriya et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, wherein the second chamber (238) is connected to the front of the first chamber (220).
With regards to Claim 3: Jayasuriya et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 2, wherein a communication port (opening seen between 220 and 238 seen in Fig 9) through which gas flows is provided at a connecting portion between the first chamber (220) and the second chamber (238), and the expansion gas flows from the first chamber into the second chamber through the communication port.
With regards to Claim 7: Jayasuriya et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1,wherein the first chamber (220) deploys behind an instrument panel (12 as seen in Fig 9).
With regards to Claim 8: Jayasuriya et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 7, wherein the second chamber (238) expands and deploys between the first chamber (220) and the instrument panel (12).
With regards to Claim 9: Jayasuriya et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1 wherein the capacity of the first chamber (220) is larger than the capacity of the second chamber (238 as seen in Fig 9).
With regards to Claim 14: Jayasuriya et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1,wherein the first chamber (220) is deployed downward from a vicinity of a boundary between a roof (52) and a windshield (32) of the vehicle (as seen in Fig 9).
With regards to Claim 15: Jayasuriya et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1,wherein the second chamber (238) expands and deploys between the first chamber (220) and the windshield (32 as seen in Fig 9).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellot (US Patent US 11230253 B2).
With regards to Claim 6: Hellot teaches the airbag device according to claim 2, but does not teach the second chamber (Bag B in Annotated Fig 11 above) is connected to the first chamber (Bag A in Annotated Fig 11 above) below a center in an up-down direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made such that the second chamber is connected to the first chamber below a center in an up-down direction so that it can receive the occupant at the desired positioning during a collision event. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayasuriya et al (US Patent Publication US 20160288761 A1).
With regards to Claim 6: Jayasuriya et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 2, but does not teach the second chamber (238) is connected to the first chamber (220) below a center in an up-down direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made such that the second chamber is connected to the first chamber below a center in an up-down direction so that it can receive the occupant at the desired positioning during a collision event. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellot (EP Patent EP 3483012 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US Patent Publication US 20220340098 A1).
With regards to Claim 4: Hellot teaches the airbag device according to claim 3, but does not teach wherein the communication port (opening seen between Bag A and Bag B in Annotated Fig 11 above) is provided with a check valve, and the expansion gas that has flowed into the second chamber (Bag B in Annotated Fig 11 above) is prevented from flowing back into the first chamber (Bag A in Annotated Fig 11 above).
Zhou et al teaches a vehicle airbag comprising a first chamber (16 and 18) deployed from a roof, a second chamber (20) deployed from the first chamber, and a check valve (22) at a connecting portion between the first chamber and the second chamber, and an expansion gas that has flowed into the second chamber is prevented from flowing back into the first chamber (para [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the airbag device disclosed in Hellot with the check valve taught in Zhou et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have kept the expansion gas in the second chamber to receive the occupant in the desired way during a collision event.
With regards to Claim 5: The combination of Hellot and Zhou et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 4, wherein the check valve (Zhou 22) closes when the internal pressure of the second chamber (Bag B in Annotated Fig 11 above) reaches or exceeds a prescribed pressure.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayasuriya et al (US Patent Publication US 20160288761 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US Patent Publication US 20220340098 A1).
With regards to Claim 4: Jayasuriya et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 3, but does not teach wherein the communication port (opening seen between 220 and 238 seen in Fig 9) is provided with a check valve, and the expansion gas that has flowed into the second chamber (238) is prevented from flowing back into the first chamber (220).
Zhou et al teaches a vehicle airbag comprising a first chamber (16 and 18) deployed from a roof, a second chamber (20) deployed from the first chamber, and a check valve (22) at a connecting portion between the first chamber and the second chamber, and an expansion gas that has flowed into the second chamber is prevented from flowing back into the first chamber (para [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the airbag device disclosed in Jayasuriya et al with the check valve taught in Zhou et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have kept the expansion gas in the second chamber to receive the occupant in the desired way during a collision event.
With regards to Claim 5: The combination of Jayasuriya and Zhou et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 4, wherein the check valve (Zhou 22) closes when the internal pressure of the second chamber (Jayasuriya 238) reaches or exceeds a prescribed pressure.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellot (US Patent US 11230253 B2) in view of Song et al (US Patent US 7731229 B2).
With regards to Claim 10: Hellot teaches airbag device according to claim 1, but does not teach the front airbag (40) includes a knee airbag that deploys from a lower part of an instrument panel (58) toward a lower extremity of an occupant, and a lower end of the first chamber (Bag A in Annotated Fig 11 above) is in contact with an upper end of the knee airbag.
Song et al teaches a first chamber airbag (58) that receives an upper portion of an occupant and a knee airbag (59) that deploys from a lower part of an instrument panel (78) toward a lower extremity of an occupant, and a lower end of the first chamber airbag is in contact with an upper end of the knee airbag (at G in Fig 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the airbag device disclosed in Hellot with the knee airbag that touches the first chamber taught in Song et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided full protection to receive the occupant during a collision event.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayasuriya et al (US Patent Publication US 20160288761 A1) in view of Song et al (US Patent US 7731229 B2).
With regards to Claim 10: Jayasuriya et al teaches airbag device according to claim 1, but does not teach the front airbag (20) includes a knee airbag that deploys from a lower part of an instrument panel (12) toward a lower extremity of an occupant, and a lower end of the first chamber (220) is in contact with an upper end of the knee airbag.
Song et al teaches a first chamber airbag (58) that receives an upper portion of an occupant and a knee airbag (59) that deploys from a lower part of an instrument panel (78) toward a lower extremity of an occupant, and a lower end of the first chamber airbag is in contact with an upper end of the knee airbag (at G in Fig 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the airbag device disclosed in Jayasuriya et al with the knee airbag that touches the first chamber taught in Song et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided full protection to receive the occupant during a collision event.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellot (US Patent US 11230253 B2) in view of Rupp et al (US Patent Publication US 20190135220 A1).
With regards to Claim 13: Hellot teaches the airbag device according to claim 11, but does not teach a slit-shaped or slot- shaped vent opening is formed in the first chamber, and the vent opening opens widely when the lower end of the first chamber is subjected to pressure by some obstacle.
Rupp et al teaches a front airbag device (304 and 312) comprising a slit-shaped or slot- shaped vent opening (308) is formed in the first chamber (304), and the vent opening opens widely when the lower end of the first chamber is subjected to pressure by some obstacle (occupant via para [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the airbag device disclosed in Hellot with the slit-shaped or slot- shaped vent opening taught in Rupp et al with a reasonable expectation of success so that the expansion gas can be released from the chamber in the desired way during a collision event.
The combination of Hellot and Rupp et al does not teach the slit-shaped or slot- shaped vent opening extends in the up-down direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made such that the slit-shaped or slot- shaped vent opening extending in the up-down direction so that the expansion gas can be released from the chamber in the desired way during a collision event. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fukawatase et al (US Patent Publication US 20190054888 A1) and Bertrand (US Patent US 2834606 A) teach a vehicle airbag system with a rooftop deployed airbag and a knee airbag.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Ganci whose telephone number is (571)272-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM to 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.
/MATTHEW JOSEPH GANCI/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights