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 .
Acknowledgement
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment to the Claims and Abstract (filed 6/25/2026).
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.
Claim 5 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Claim 5 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act 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).
In claim 5 lines 2-3, the limitation “is disposed in a vicinity of a shoulder of a properly seated occupant” positively recites a human body part. Examiner suggests changing said limitation to --is configured to be disposed in a vicinity of a shoulder of a properly seated occupant--.
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, 9, 10, and 12-14 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:
In claim 1 line 6, it is unclear whether the limitation “an occupant” is the same as or different from the limitation “an occupant” in claim 1 line 2. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the body " in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing said limitation to --a body--.
In claim 10 line 2, it is unclear whether the limitation “the upper securing apparatus” is the same as or different from the limitation “the upper securing apparatus” in claim 9 line 2 (and in claim 1 lines 11 & 14) from which claim 10 depends. Therefore, claim 10 is rendered indefinite.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (JP 2014/54955 A) in view of Kippelt et al. (WO 97/06985 A1), both previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita et al. (at least Figs. 1-12; also see annotated Fig. 6 attached herewith) discloses
(claim 1) a side airbag device M stowed in a vehicle seat DS, comprising
an airbag 22 that expands and deploys to protect an occupant DP seated in the vehicle seat DS; and
an inflator 14 that supplies expansion gas to the airbag 22, wherein
the airbag 22 includes a head protection chamber 25 that is configured to protect a head DH of an occupant DP; a side protection chamber 23 that is located below the head protection chamber 25 and is configured to protect sides of the body of the occupant DP; and a non-expanding part 29 (also see annotated Fig. 6 attached herewith) provided around the head protection chamber 25 and the side protection chamber 23,
a rear end part of the head protection chamber 25 is located more forward than a rear end part of the side protection chamber 23 (at least Fig. 6), an upper securing apparatus 29 is provided to secure an upper part of the non-expanding part 29 (also see annotated Fig. 6 attached herewith) to the vehicle seat DP (at least Fig. 6), and
a slit extending downwardly from an upper end of the non-expanding part is formed between the head protection chamber 25 and the upper securing apparatus 29 (see annotated Fig. 6 attached herewith);
wherein the side protection chamber 23 includes: a side rear region that extends mainly along a side of the seat DS; and a side front region that is located in front of the side rear region and is formed continuously below the head protection chamber 25 (at least Figs. 6-8);
wherein the inflator 14 is stowed inside a seat side area of the side protection chamber 23;
PNG
media_image1.png
853
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein when the airbag 22 is deployed, a sewn part 26 (at least an upper part thereof) is formed in a portion of the side protection chamber 23 that corresponds to a position above the inflator 14 and below the slit (at least an upper part thereof) and the sewn part 26 partially connecting left and right panels that constitute the side protection chamber 23 (at least Figs. 6, 7, 10; also see annotated Figs. 6 attached herewith and how airbag 22 of Fig. 6 is installed in Figs. 7, 10).
But Yamashita et al. (at least Figs. 1-12; also see annotated Fig. 6 attached herewith) does not disclose wherein an extension direction of a deployed state of the head protection chamber from the side protection chamber is angled relative to a longitudinal direction of the side protection chamber when viewed from a side in a vehicle width direction.
Kippelt et al. (at least Figs. 1-3) discloses that it is known in the art to provide an airbag device 1, wherein an extension direction of a deployed state of a head protection chamber 4 from a side protection chamber 3 is angled relative to a longitudinal direction of the side protection chamber 3 when viewed from a side in a vehicle width direction.
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 the airbag device of Yamashita et al. according to the teachings of Kippelt et al., such that an extension direction of a deployed state of the head protection chamber from the side protection chamber is angled relative to a longitudinal direction of the side protection chamber when viewed from a side in a vehicle width direction, in order to achieve the desirable result of facilitating occupant protection.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 13, Yamashita et al. (at least Figs. 1-12; also see annotated Fig. 6 attached herewith) discloses
(claim 2) wherein the slit is formed so as to extend below a securing point of the upper securing apparatus 29 (at least Fig. 6);
(claim 3) wherein the slit extends to a vicinity of an upper end of the side protection chamber 23 (at least Fig. 6);
(claim 5) wherein the upper securing apparatus 29 is disposed in a vicinity of a shoulder of a properly seated occupant DP;
(claim 9) further comprising, in addition to the upper securing apparatus 29, a lower securing apparatus 24 near a lower end of the non-expanding part for securing the airbag 22 to the seat DS (at least Figs. 1, 6, 7);
(claim 10) wherein with the airbag 22, a length from the upper securing apparatus 29 to the lower securing apparatus 24 is configured to be longer than a length from an upper securing point on a seat side to which the upper securing apparatus 29 is connected to a lower securing point on the seat side to which the lower securing apparatus 24 is connected (at least Figs. 6, 7);
(claim 12) wherein, when the airbag 22 is put into a stowed state, the head protection chamber 25 is folded up and down, and then rolled together with the side protection chamber 23 (at least Figs. 1-12);
(claim 13) wherein when the airbag 22 is put in a stowed state, the head protection chamber 25 and the side protection chamber 23 of the airbag 22 are rolled, and then the head protection chamber 25 is folded in a vertical direction (at least Figs. 1-12).
Regarding claim 14, Yamashita et al. (at least Figs. 1-12; also see annotated Fig. 6 attached herewith) discloses a vehicle seat DS provided with the side airbag device M according to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (JP 2014/54955 A) in view of Kippelt et al. (WO 97/06985 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (WO 2021/033433 A1), previously cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yamashita et al. (at least Figs. 1-12; also see annotated Fig. 6 attached herewith) and Kippelt et al. (at least Figs. 1-3) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a lower end part of the slit is bent so as to extend forward.
Shimizu et al. (at least Figs. 1-9) discloses that it is known in the art to provide wherein a lower end part 50H of a slit 50, 50V is bent so as to extend forward (at least Figs. 2(A), 3(A), 3(B).
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 the slit of the combination of Yamashita et al. and Kippelt et al. according to the teachings of Shimizu et al., such that a lower end part of the slit is bent so as to extend forward, in order to achieve the desirable results of facilitating airbag inflation and occupant protection.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR 10-2021-0119763 A) in view of Kippelt et al. (WO 97/06985 A1), previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Jung et al. (at least Figs. 1-12; also see annotated Fig. 3 attached herewith) discloses
(claim 1) a side airbag device 10 stowed in a vehicle seat 11, comprising
an airbag 20, 30, 40 that expands and deploys to protect an occupant seated in the vehicle seat 11; and
an inflator 21 that supplies expansion gas to the airbag 20, 30, 40, wherein
the airbag 20, 30, 40 includes a head protection chamber that is configured to protect a head of an occupant; a side protection chamber that is located below the head protection chamber and is configured to protect sides of the body of the occupant; and a non-expanding part (see annotated Fig. 3 attached herewith) provided around the head protection chamber and the side protection chamber,
a rear end part of the head protection chamber is located more forward than a rear end part of the side protection chamber (at least Figs. 1, 3), an upper securing apparatus is provided to secure an upper part of the non-expanding part (also see annotated Fig. 3 attached herewith) to the vehicle seat 11, and
a slit 22 extending downwardly from an upper end of the non-expanding part is formed between the head protection chamber and the upper securing apparatus (also see annotated Fig. 3 attached herewith);
wherein the side protection chamber includes: a side rear region that extends mainly along a side of the seat 11; and a side front region that is located in front of the side rear region and is formed continuously below the head protection chamber (at least Figs. 3);
wherein the inflator 21 is stowed inside a seat side area of the side protection chamber;
wherein when the airbag 20, 30, 40 is deployed, a sewn part 41 (at least an upper part thereof) is formed in a portion of the side protection chamber that corresponds to a position above the inflator 21 and below the slit and the sewn part 41 partially connecting left and right panels that constitute the side protection chamber (at least Fig. 3; also see annotated Figs. 3 attached herewith and how airbag 20, 30, 40 of
PNG
media_image2.png
494
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 is installed in Fig. 1).
But Jung et al. (at least Figs. 1-12; also see annotated Fig. 3 attached herewith) does not disclose wherein an extension direction of a deployed state of the head protection chamber from the side protection chamber is angled relative to a longitudinal direction of the side protection chamber when viewed from a side in a vehicle width direction.
Kippelt et al. (at least Figs. 1-3) discloses that it is known in the art to provide an airbag device 1, wherein an extension direction of a deployed state of a head protection chamber 4 from a side protection chamber 3 is angled relative to a longitudinal direction of the side protection chamber 3 when viewed from a side in a vehicle width direction.
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 the airbag device of Jung et al. according to the teachings of Kippelt et al., such that an extension direction of a deployed state of the head protection chamber from the side protection chamber is angled relative to a longitudinal direction of the side protection chamber when viewed from a side in a vehicle width direction, in order to achieve the desirable result of facilitating occupant protection.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 13, Jung et al. (at least Figs. 1-12; also see annotated Fig. 3 attached herewith) discloses
(claim 2) wherein the slit 22 is formed so as to extend below a securing point of the upper securing apparatus (at least Fig. 3);
(claim 3) wherein the slit extends to a vicinity of an upper end of the side protection chamber (at least Fig. 3);
(claim 5) wherein the upper securing apparatus is disposed in a vicinity of a shoulder of a properly seated occupant;
(claim 9) further comprising, in addition to the upper securing apparatus, a lower securing apparatus near a lower end of the non-expanding part for securing the airbag 20, 30, 40 to the seat 11 (at least Fig. 3; also see annotated Fig. 3 attached herewith);
(claim 10) wherein with the airbag 20, 30, 40, a length from the upper securing apparatus to the lower securing apparatus is configured to be longer than a length from an upper securing point on a seat side to which the upper securing apparatus is connected to a lower securing point on the seat side to which the lower securing apparatus is connected (at least Fig. 3);
(claim 12) wherein, when the airbag 20, 30, 40 is put into a stowed state, the head protection chamber is folded up and down, and then rolled together with the side protection chamber (at least Figs. 1-12);
(claim 13) wherein when the airbag 20, 30, 40 is put in a stowed state, the head protection chamber and the side protection chamber of the airbag 20, 30, 40 are rolled, and then the head protection chamber is folded in a vertical direction (at least Figs. 1-12).
Regarding claim 14, Jung et al. (at least Figs. 1-12; also see annotated Fig. 3 attached herewith) discloses a vehicle seat 11 provided with the side airbag device 10 according to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR 10-2021-0119763 A) in view of Kippelt et al. (WO 97/06985 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (WO 2021/033433 A1), previously cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jung et al. (at least Figs. 1-12; also see annotated Fig. 3 attached herewith) and Kippelt et al. (at least Figs. 1-3) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a lower end part of the slit is bent so as to extend forward.
Shimizu et al. (at least Figs. 1-9) discloses that it is known in the art to provide wherein a lower end part 50H of a slit 50, 50V is bent so as to extend forward (at least Figs. 2(A), 3(A), 3(B).
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 the slit of the combination of Jung et al. and Kippelt et al. according to the teachings of Shimizu et al., such that a lower end part of the slit is bent so as to extend forward, in order to achieve the desirable results of facilitating airbag inflation and occupant protection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the REMARKS, Applicant argues:
Examiner respectfully disagrees
PNG
media_image3.png
322
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is the Examiner’s position that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (JP 2014/54955 A) in view of Kippelt et al. (WO 97/06985 A1) above are proper. See details above.
Also see the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR 10-2021-0119763 A) in view of Kippelt et al. (WO 97/06985 A1) above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
