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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant has elected claims 1, 2, 5, 8-11 and 13. Claims 3,4,6,7 and 14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4-17-26.
Claims 3,4,6,7 and 14 should be canceled in the next response.
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 5 and 8 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.
In claim 5, line 2, the term “bellows-like” is unclear and indefinite in that the term “like” itself is indefinite and it is not clear if the structure is a “bellows” or some other type of structure.
However, the claims, as best understood, have been examined on their merits.
In regard to claim 8, lines 6 and 7, there is no antecedent basis for “The other end”.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 , 8, 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)2 as being anticipated by Halldin et al (US 2018/0360154 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Halldin discloses a protection device of helmet 10, in fig, 1 and Paras. (0018)-(0019), comprising : a wearable structure of the helmet 10 to be worn by a user 20; an airbag 1 in fig. 1 and para. (0019) configured to be attached to the wearable structure of the helmet 10 in a contracted state during standby( as in figure 5a)and para. (0020), and configured to inflate to surround a protection target (the user wearer 20) portion in a spiral and cylindrical form (See para. (0020) at completion of expansion, the airbag 1 including one end fixed to the wearable structure ( in para. (0020), and the other end located on an opposite side to the one end, the air bag being configured to inflate with the other end separated from the wearable structure, the helmet 10, when the airbag 1 is expanded; and a fluid supplier(generator deice 4) in para. (0022)-(0023), connected to the airbag 1 and configured to supply fluid, gas as in para. (0022)-(0023), into the airbag 1. (See Halldin, figs. 1 and 5a, and paras. (0018)-(0024).
In regard to claim 5, Halldin discloses the protective device, helmet 10, as claimed above in regard to claim 1, and further wherein during standby, the airbag 1 is folded in a spiral form as seen in figure 5a and attached to the wearable structure, and the airbag 1 surrounds the head and neck of a user in a spiral form when the airbag 1 is expanded. (See Halldin, figs 1 and 5a, and paras. (0015)-(0020) and (0022)-(0023).
In regard to claim 8, Halldin et al discloses a protection method, including: wearing a wearable structure, of a helmet 10 on a user/wearer 20 as in para. (0018); attaching an airbag 1 to the wearable structure of the helmet 10 in a contracted state during standby such that one need thereof is fixed to the wearable structure of the helmet 10; supplying fluid, of a gas from a gas generator 4, from a fluid supplier- gas generator 4 into the airbag 1, and inflating the airbag, with gas from the gas generator 4, including the other end located on an opposite side to the one end with the other end separated from the wearable structure, helmet 10, such that the airbag 1 surrounds a protection target, user/wearer 20 in a spiral and cylindrical form at completion of expansion. (See Halldin, paras. (0018)-(0024) and figs.1 and 5a.
In regard to claim 9, Halldin discloses the protection device as claimed in claim 1, and further comprising: a controller(not numbered, in para. (0022)-(0023), to control activation of the fluid supplier, gas generator 4, when a state of the user satisfies a predetermined condition.
(See Halldin, paras. (0022)-(0024)).
In regard to claim 13, Halldin discloses the protection device as claimed in claim 1 and further wherein the airbag 1 is compressed vertically and folded in a flat form, with spirally wound portions stacked vertically on top of one another in the contracted sate as seen in fig. 5a and para. (0020).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the cited references, alone or in combination, disclose the elastic structure to cover the airbag in a direction as claimed in claim 2. Claims 10 and 11, each depend form claim 2 and are allowable for the same reason as claim 2 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORIA M HALE whose telephone number is (571)272-4984. The examiner can normally be reached MON.-THURS..
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 1-571-272-3425. 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.
/GLORIA M HALE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights