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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a vehicle mounted control system) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim recites "a control system mounted in the vehicle". Applicant argues that Li fails to teach a deployable device worn by a large animal responding to a detected instability condition by using a vehicle mounted control system to command deployment of a deployable device worn by a large animal. Examiner respectfully points the applicant to the claim language. Under broadest reasonable interpretation the controller of Li is mounted in the vehicle, the controller 118 for the deployable device 100 within the airbag wrap is mounted inside the vehicle 200 thereby mounted in the vehicle 200. Additionally, Li teaches col. 8 lines 45-50 wherein "the steps [as shown in fig. 9] may include using information external to the controller 118 to better optimize usage of the wearable airbag" and includes information from the vehicles CAN.
Examiner notes an instability condition is defined as “a back-and-forth trailer sway events and/or crash events”. Thereby including acceleration, velocity changes and crash detection or other external data detected by vehicles sensors that may indicate the need for support/deployment of protective devices. The limitations of detecting an instability condition and commanding the control device based off of this detections is met by Li's disclosure of sensing vehicle and occupant dynamics including acceleration, velocity change, and crash signals thereby triggering deployment of the safety device (vest, jacket or harness) based on those sensed conditions via the sensor array and the vehicle CAN data.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 10721978).
In regards to claim 1, Li teaches a method of providing supplemental support to a large animal being hauled in a vehicle during a transportation session, the method comprising (see process diagram, fig. 9 for use of a wearable airbag jacket 100a-d for a passenger/pet 150, 152 inside of a vehicle 200): monitoring stability of a vehicle with an animal transport compartment (S30, monitoring data from sensor array 126 detecting change in velocity of vehicle or other signal on the vehicle can indicating an incident or instability, see col.7 lines 30-47); detecting an instability condition with a sensor while monitoring the stability of the vehicle (S30 includes detecting with the sensor array 126 for a change in velocity of the vehicle, deployment of a vehicle airbag, or other signal on the vehicle CAN indicating an emergency incident, see col.7 lines 30-47); sending a signal (via the communication link) from the sensor (sensor array 126) to a control system (118) mounted in the vehicle (on the animal in the vehicle) that corresponds to the detected instability condition (fig. 9, S70, see col. 3 lines 29-31); commanding with the control system (118) a deployment of a deployable device (100a-d) worn by the large animal (the occupant or pet, see fig. 1-7) within the animal transport compartment (passenger compartment of the vehicle) for engaging the large animal to provide supplemental support in response to the detection of the instability condition (see fig. 9, S90, col. 8 lines 50-57). Examiner notes a human person is understood as a large animal and both embodiments (100a-c and 100d) of Li are wearable airbag garments for animals. Examiner notes although, Li is not directed specifically to large animals, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (for an animal vs. for a human) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). The prior art apparatus satisfies the claimed structural limitations of the instant application. Li protects any passenger as structurally claimed, animal or human. Therefore, the prior art apparatus teaches the limitation as recited. Please see MPEP 2114 II.
In regards to claim 10, Li discloses a system (S300 see fig. 4-9) for protecting an animal (occupant or pet 150, 152)being transported in a vehicle (200) during a transportation session, the system comprising: a control system (118) mounted in the vehicle (mounted to the airbag 100 in the vehicle); an inflation system (120) mounted in the vehicle (mounted to the airbag 100 in the vehicle); a wearable deployable support device (100a-c, and/or 100d) connected to the inflation system (see fig. 4-7) and worn by the animal (100a-c worn by human, and 100d worn by a pet), the wearable deployable device defining: a non-deployed state in which the wearable deployable device (100) is deflated (when the airbag has not been triggered); and a deployed state in which the wearable device (100) is inflated by a volume of gas received from the inflation system (120) in response to detection of an instability condition (see col. 3 lines 29-34, the controller 118 receives a trigger signal from a sensor array which detects a need to deploy the airbag the igniter 120 inflating the chambers with a volume of gas rapidly to activate the deployed state).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied above, and further in view of Breed (U.S. 9043093).
In regards to claim 2, Li teaches deploying the deployable device (100a-d) by inflating the deploying device with a gas (see col. 3 lines 31-35, an airbag igniter 120 inflates the chambers with a volume of gas rapidly) but fails to teach the inflation with a gas that is released from a compressed gas container. Airbag inflators (including compressed gas containers) are well known and interchangeable. See for example Breed '093 teaches the inflation of a deployable device with a compressed gas inflator (generally shown fig. 87, 730 gas generating system in housing, abstract) for a compressed simplified assembly. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Li in view of Breed with the simple substitution of known equivalents for inflation of a deployable protective device with a reasonable expectation of success and a simplified assembly as Breed '093 teaches (col. 95 lines 21-24).
Claim 11-12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied above, and further in view of Olsson (US 2013/0276213).
In regards to claim 11, Li teaches a wearable jacket, vest, and harness for occupants that deploy upon an instability event wherein the wearable deployable device (100) comprises: a body support with an inflatable panel (106) configured to collectively surround major body surfaces of the animal (see fig. 4-7) when in the deployed state. Li fails to teach or suggest a head support with an inflatable cone configured to collectively surround major head surfaces of the animal when in the deployed state. However, Olsson teaches a system for protecting a body part (see fig. 1 and 2, the system 10 protecting the neck and para. 0039, 0041) with a head support (see fig. 2, 20 with sections 21, 22) with an inflatable cone (see fig. 2 airbag 20 deployed, sections 25, 26, 27) configured to surround major head surfaces of the animal (in Olsson case a human = animal) when in the deployed state. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Lin in view of Olsson so as to further protect the animal since both references are directed to improving safety with inflatable protective systems, the combination represents a predictable use of known elements to enhance protection. Examiner notes, regarding the airbag inflating to a cone shape around the head, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
In regards to claim 12, Li taches the inflation system (120) inflates different panels of the wearable deployable device (100a-d) from a nondeployed state in response to the detection of an instability condition (signal triggering event) but fails to teach wherein the inflation system is configured as a non-ignition burning system and directs a volume of gas from the inflation system to each of the inflatable panel and the inflatable one to convert each of the body support and the head support from the non-deployed state in response to the detection of the instability condition. However, Olsson teaches wherein the inflation system (inflation device, para. 0041, 62, fig. 6, para. 0068) is configured as a non-ignition burning system (cold gas inflator) and directs a volume of gas from the inflation system (inflator) to each of the inflatable panel (21) and the inflatable cone (25-27) to convert each of the body support and the head support from the non-deployed state (Fig. 1) in response to the detection of the instability condition (inflation device receives the triggering signal and is activated). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Li in view of Olsson with a reasonable expectation of success, substituting known equivalents since both are known ways to inflate deployable protection systems and Olsson’s cold gas inflation further protects the wearer from heat in an ignition burning system.
Claims 3, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAtamney (US 20110132277) and further in view of Li (US 10721978).
In regards to claim 3, McAtamney discloses a system (10) for protecting an animal being transported comprising: a front wall (see fig. below, front wall 12); two side walls (left and right wall 15) connected to the front wall and generally parallel to each other; a first inflatable cushion (13a-d, see fig. 6) defining a wall mounted cushion arranged along at least one of the front wall and two side walls (walls 13, 15), and the inflatable cushions inflatable by a directed volume of gas, provided with isolation valves, regulators, and dump valves to deploy and best fir the size of the animal in transport. McAtamney teaches (see para. 0032-0034) the inflatable cushions can be provided with isolation valves, regulators and dump valves to adjust the inflation of the bags in order to best fit the size of the animal in transport.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McAtamney fails to teach a second inflatable cushion defining a wearable cushion worn by the animal; an inflation system fluidly connected to the wearable cushion; and a sensor in communication with inflatable cushions configured to direct a volume of gas to the wearable cushion upon detection of an instability event.
However, Li teaches an inflatable cushion (100) defining a wearable cushion worn by the animal (see 100d, fig. 7), an inflation system (see S300, 120) fluidly connection to the wearable cushion (100d); and a sensor (126) in communication with and configured to direct a volume of gas to the wearable cushion upon detection of an instability event (see fig. 9, S300, monitoring, communicating and triggering of the inflation of the wearable cushion with the inflator 126 when a signal is sent after detecting the instability event, see col. 3 lines 29-35, col. 8 lines 50-57). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified McAtamney in view of Li before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success. Incorporating the wearable airbag system of Li into the animal transport environment of McAtamney to provide additional protection to an occupant/animal during transport, since both references are directed to improving safety with inflatable protective systems, the combination represents a predictable use of known elements to enhance protection.
In regards to claim 8, McAtamney and Li in combination teaches wherein the wearable cushion (Li 100d) defines a wearable inflatable vest (see fig.7) that fits on the animal like a saddle.
In regards to claim 9, McAtamney and Li in combination teaches wherein the wearable cushion(100d) fits around the head and neck of the animal that is at least one of: the shape of a cone and a halter (see fig. 7 shaped like a halter around the animal 152).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for a list of relevant prior art that teach safety systems in vehicles or trailers, for passengers (including animals) similar to that claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-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 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.
/C.A.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights