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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the front-seat airbag and the rear-seat airbag must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “toward” should be changed to --toward an-- in line 8. 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0006, line 8, “toward” should be changed to --toward an--.
In paragraph 0027, line 4, “crack” should be changed to --cracking-- or --cracks--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9, “toward” should be changed to --toward an--. 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.
Claims 4, 6-8 and 10 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the hinge portions" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the bag covers" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the falling-off preventing structures" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ceiling panels" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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).
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 and 10 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., 32) 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 also, optionally, portions of the bag cover and the ceiling panel in the area of rivets 38) disposed between the bag cover and the ceiling panel, the falling-off preventing structure preventing the ceiling panel from falling from the bag cover. The falling-off preventing structure has a 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). The 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 hinge portion is disposed at a position corresponding to an upper portion of a pillar of the vehicle (Figs. 1-6). 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 ceiling panel is formed of a hard resin (column 3, lines 65-67).
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 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., the portion of fixing portion 11 between hinges 13 and 16; the portion of fixing portion 51 between hinges 53 and 16) to which the airbag is attached, the bag cover being fixed to a vehicle body (e.g., 1); a ceiling panel (e.g., 20, 21; 60, 61 and also, optionally, the portion of connecting piece 52 that is directly connected to the ceiling panel 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. The falling-off preventing structure has a hinge portion (e.g., at 13; at 53) that assists in opening of the ceiling panel with respect to the bag cover. The 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 the hinge portions 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 the bag covers (e.g., the portions of fixing portions 51 between hinges 53 and 16) are disposed so as to be spaced from each other in a longitudinal direction, and a plurality of the falling-off preventing structures (e.g., 53) are disposed so as to correspond to the plurality of the bag covers (Fig. 11). A plurality of the ceiling panels (e.g., 60, 61 and also, optionally, the portion of connecting piece 52 that is directly connected to the ceiling panel 60, 61) are disposed so as to correspond to the plurality of the bag covers (e.g., the portions of fixing portions 51 between hinges 53 and 16), as can be seen in Fig. 11. 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 (column 3, lines 38-40; column 7, lines 27-31; see also paragraph 0022 of the specification of the instant application (i.e., 19/236,580)).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 5,791,683), or in the alternative, over Shibata et al. (US 5,791,683 A) in view of Rust et al. (US 7,744,120 B2). Shibata teaches the limitations of claim 7, as explained above. In Shibata, the bag cover has a front-side bag cover (e.g., the portion of fixing portion 11 between hinges 13 and 16; the portion of fixing portion 51 between hinges 53 and 16) disposed on a front side in the longitudinal direction, and the airbag has a front-seat airbag 25 corresponding to the front-side bag cover (Figs. 1, 2 and 11). Shibata does not teach a rear-side bag cover disposed on a rear side in the longitudinal direction and a rear-seat airbag corresponding to the rear-side bag cover. However, the recitation of an additional bag cover and airbag does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art, since mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04(VI). In the alternative, Rust teaches a rear-side bag cover (e.g., an upper, hidden portion of integral trim system 20) disposed on a rear side in a longitudinal direction and a rear-seat airbag (e.g., 604; see Fig. 2) corresponding to the rear-side bag cover. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vehicle as taught by Shibata with a rear-seat airbag and a rear-side bag cover, as taught by Rust, in order to protect a passenger in a rear seat of the vehicle. All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
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