DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure (as filed on April 20, 2026) is objected to because “toward and” should be changed to --toward an-- in line 9. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The new limitation in claim 1 that “the flexible bending part is sandwiched between the cover side plate and the ceiling side plate” was not described in the specification. The specification does not even use the term “sandwiched”.
The limitation(s) of new claim 11 were not described in the specification. The specification does not even use the term “thickness”. On page 14 of the remarks, applicant states, “Support is found in, e.g., FIG. 6 and FIG. 8.” MPEP § 2125(II) states, “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.").”
Claims 1 and 3-12 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “sandwiched” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “between,” while the accepted meaning is “To insert (one thing) tightly between two other things often of differing character or quality” (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sandwich). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Also, the new limitation in claim 1 that “the flexible bending part is sandwiched between the cover side plate and the ceiling side plate” does not accurately describe the invention. As shown in Fig. 6, the flexible bending part is not arranged between the cover side plate and the ceiling side plate in a way that resembles or suggests a sandwich, since the cover side plate, the flexible bending part, and the ceiling side plate are arranged end to end (unlike a sandwich, in which layers are typically stacked such that the thicknesses of the layers (not the lengths of the layers) are arranged in series). The hinge portion 61 does not even have any separate layers, separate layers being a characteristic that would normally be associated with a sandwich. That is, the hinge portion 61 does not resemble a sandwich, and the hinge portion 61 does not involve one thing being inserted tightly between two other things, and therefore the term “sandwiched” does not accurately describe the invention.
The term “hard” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hard” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. That is, “hard” is a subjective term that renders the claim(s) indefinite. MPEP §2173.05(b)(IV).
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 10 recites the broad recitation “at least 5,000 kg/cm2”, and the claim also recites “or at least 7,000 kg/cm2”, 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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuretake et al. (US 5,265,903). Kuretake discloses an airbag structure comprising: an airbag 42; a bag cover (e.g., 30) to which the airbag is attached, the bag cover being fixed to a vehicle body (e.g., 22; column 3, lines 62-64); a ceiling panel (e.g., 36) integrated with the bag cover, the ceiling panel forming a storage space for storing the airbag between the bag cover and the ceiling panel, the ceiling panel opening the storage space by opening with respect to the bag cover, and exposing the airbag toward an inside of a vehicle when the airbag deploys and expands; and a falling-off preventing structure (e.g., rivets 38 and metal plate 34) disposed between the bag cover and the ceiling panel, the falling-off preventing structure preventing the ceiling panel from falling from the bag cover, wherein the falling-off preventing structure has at least one hinge portion that assists in opening of the ceiling panel with respect to the bag cover (Figs. 1 and 2; column 4, lines 58-63), wherein the at least one hinge portion includes a cover side plate (e.g., the portion of the metal plate 34 that is to the right of the cover 30, as shown in Fig. 1), a ceiling side plate (e.g., the convex, upwardly extending portion of the metal plate 34, as shown in Fig. 1), and a flexible bending part (e.g., at the bottom of the metal plate 34, as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the cover side plate is integrated with the bag cover, the ceiling side plate is integrated with the ceiling panel, and the flexible bending part is sandwiched between the cover side plate and the ceiling side plate (Fig. 1). The at least one hinge portion is disposed at a position corresponding to an upper portion of a pillar of the vehicle (Figs. 1-6). The bag cover and the ceiling panel extend in a rail-like form along an edge portion of a vehicle ceiling (Figs. 1-6), and the airbag structure comprises lock-engagement portions (e.g., rivets 40 and/or portions of the bag cover and/or the ceiling panel in the area of the rivets 40; column 4, lines 2-9) disposed at a plurality of portions so as to be spaced from each other in a longitudinal direction of the bag cover and the ceiling panel, the lock-engagement portions lock-engaging the bag cover and the ceiling panel with each other in a closed state of the ceiling panel (column 4, lines 2-9). The airbag structure comprises an attachment portion (e.g., at 30 in Fig. 1) configured to attach the airbag and the bag cover to the vehicle body (column 3, lines 62-64). The cover side plate, the ceiling side plate, and the flexible bending part all have a same thickness (Fig. 1). The cover side plate extends in a longitudinal direction of the bag cover, and the ceiling side plate extends in a longitudinal direction of the ceiling panel (Fig. 1).
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibata et al. (US 5,791,683). Shibata discloses an airbag structure comprising: an airbag 25; a bag cover (e.g., 14 and 15; 54 and 55) to which the airbag is attached, the bag cover being fixed to a vehicle body (e.g., 1); a ceiling panel (e.g., 20c; 60, 61) integrated with the bag cover, the ceiling panel forming a storage space for storing the airbag between the bag cover and the ceiling panel, the ceiling panel opening the storage space by opening with respect to the bag cover, and exposing the airbag toward an inside of a vehicle when the airbag deploys and expands; and a falling-off preventing structure (e.g., at 13; at 53) disposed between the bag cover and the ceiling panel, the falling-off preventing structure preventing the ceiling panel from falling from the bag cover, wherein the falling-off preventing structure has at least one hinge portion (e.g., at 13; at 53) that assists in opening of the ceiling panel with respect to the bag cover, wherein the at least one hinge portion includes a cover side plate (e.g., 12; a lower portion of connecting piece 52, as shown in Fig. 12), a ceiling side plate (e.g., a portion of base portion 20a that is adjacent hinge 13, as shown in Fig. 3; an upper portion of connecting piece 52, as shown in Fig. 12), and a flexible bending part (e.g., at 13; at 15), wherein the cover side plate is integrated with the bag cover, the ceiling side plate is integrated with the ceiling panel, and the flexible bending part is sandwiched between the cover side plate and the ceiling side plate (Figs. 3, 12 and 13). The at least one hinge portion is disposed at a position corresponding to an upper portion of a pillar of the vehicle (Fig. 2). The bag cover and the ceiling panel extend in a rail-like form along an edge portion of a vehicle ceiling, and a plurality of hinge portions including the at least one hinge portion are disposed at a plurality of portions so as to be spaced from each other in a longitudinal direction of the bag cover and the ceiling panel (Fig. 2). A plurality of bag covers (e.g., 54 and 55) including the bag cover are disposed so as to be spaced from each other in a longitudinal direction, and a plurality of falling-off preventing structures (e.g., 53) including the falling-off preventing structure are disposed so as to correspond to the plurality of bag covers (Fig. 11). A plurality of ceiling panels (e.g., 60, 61) including the ceiling panel are disposed so as to correspond to the plurality of bag covers (e.g., 54 and 55), as can be seen in Fig. 11. The bag cover has a front-side bag cover (e.g., 14 and 15; 54 and 55) disposed on a front side in the longitudinal direction and a rear-side bag cover disposed on a rear side in the longitudinal direction. The airbag structure comprises an attachment portion (e.g., 42) configured to attach the airbag and the bag cover to the vehicle body (column 4, lines 59-61; column 6, lines 48-53). The ceiling panel is formed of a hard resin (e.g., “polypropylene”; column 3, lines 38-40; column 7, lines 27-31) having a flexural modulus of at least 5,000 kg/cm2 or at least 7,000 kg/cm2 in a steady state (see also paragraph 0022 of the specification of the instant application (i.e., 19/236,580)). The cover side plate, the ceiling side plate, and the flexible bending part all have a same thickness (Figs. 3 and 13). The cover side plate extends in a longitudinal direction of the bag cover, and the ceiling side plate extends in a longitudinal direction of the ceiling panel (Figs. 2, 3 and 11-13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to Kuretake on page 12 of the remarks, Kuretake does in fact teach “the hinge portion as recited in currently amended claim 1”, as explained in the above rejection(s).
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to Shibata on page 13 of the remarks, Shibata does in fact teach “the flexible bending part in combination with the cover side plate and the ceiling side plate as recited in currently amended claim 1 (e.g., "the cover side plate is integrated with the bag cover, the ceiling side plate is integrated with the ceiling panel, and the flexible bending part is sandwiched between the cover side plate and the ceiling side plate")”, as explained in the above rejection(s).
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 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
Prosecution Insights