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 Amendments to the Claims, Specification, and Drawings (filed 4/29/2026).
The Specification and Drawings (filed 4/29/2026) have been approved by the Examiner.
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 2, 3, 5, and 6 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 2 lines 1-3, the limitation “wherein the weakened portion is formed at a position where a breaking area, which is formed when the weakened portion is ruptured during the deployment of the airbag, does not interfere with the airbag” is unclear. Therefore, claim 2 is rendered indefinite. Should said limitation be --wherein the weakened portion comprises a breaking area, and the breaking area is formed at a position which does not interfere with the airbag--?
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the front" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing said limitation to --a front--.
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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ushiyama et al. (US 9,592,784 B2), previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Ushiyama et al. (at least Figs. 1-7; also see annotated Fig.3 attached herewith for clarification) discloses
(claim 1) a seat back 6 comprising:
a frame 6F that forms a framework; and
a cushion member 6a, 6b attached to the frame and configured to elastically support a seater,
wherein the cushion member 6a, 6b further comprises
a main member 6a located at a center portion in a seat width direction, the main member comprises a main pad 6P, a main cover 6S for enclosing the main pad, and a main support member 30 attached to a frame side of the main pad for supporting the main pad, and
two side members 6b, 6b located on both sides of the main member 6a, each of the side members comprises a side pad 6P, a side cover 6S for enclosing the side pad, and a side support member 30 attached to a frame side of the side pad and configured to support the side pad, wherein at least one of the two side members 6b, 6b comprises an airbag device 10,
wherein
the at least one of the two side support members 30 has a through hole 30X for the airbag device 10 to pass through in a state where the airbag device is attached to the frame 6F; and
a weakened portion (at least Figs. 3, 4) located at a lower edge of the through hole 30X, wherein the weakened portion is ruptured upon deployment of an airbag 10, allowing the through hole to expand in the seat width direction;
(claim 2) (as best understood) wherein the weakened portion is formed at a position where a breaking area, which is formed when the weakened portion is ruptured during the deployment of the airbag 10, does not interfere with the airbag.
PNG
media_image1.png
779
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushiyama et al. (US 9,592,784 B2), previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Ushiyama et al. (at least Figs. 1-7) discloses the claimed invention, wherein an upper edge of the through hole 30X is configured to prevent side support member parts from scattering and damaging the seater's body.
But Ushiyama et al. (at least Figs. 1-7) does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper edge of the through hole 30X in the side support member 30 is formed in an R-shape when viewed from the front.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the upper edge of the through hole 30X in the side support member 30 formed in an R-shape when viewed from the front, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushiyama et al. (US 9,592,784 B2) in view of Genders et al. (US 5,967,603), both previously cited by Examiner.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ushiyama et al. (at least Figs. 1-7) discloses the claimed invention, (claim 7) wherein the airbag device 10 comprises an inflator (at least column 4 lines 49-51).
But Ushiyama et al. (at least Figs. 1-7) does not explicitly disclose
(claim 7) a case and a stay cloth;
(claim 8) wherein the stay cloth is a stretch-resistant guide cloth that directs the deployment of the airbag 10, including a front stay cloth positioned on a front side, and a rear stay cloth positioned on a rear side.
Genders et al. (at least Figs. 1-8) discloses that it is known in the art to provide
(claim 7) an airbag device 32 comprising a case 38 and a stay cloth 56;
(claim 8) wherein the stay cloth 56 is a stretch-resistant guide cloth that directs the deployment of an airbag 34 (at least column 4 lines 40-54), including a front stay cloth 58 positioned on a front side, and a rear stay cloth 60 positioned on a rear side.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the airbag device of Ushiyama et al. with the case, front stay cloth, and rear stay cloth according to the teachings of Genders et al., in order to achieve the desirable results of facilitating storage of the airbag device and directing of the airbag deployment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 4 in this case, is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the weakened portion is fixed to the frame by a clip or a screw whose central axis extends in a front-rear direction” now included in the claim, in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 5 in this case, is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the breaking area is an outer bending portion of the weakened portion” now included in the claim, in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12 of the Remarks regarding claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, 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.,
“the though hole 21a is for the airbag device 6 (which includes at least the airbag 61, the inflator 62, the case 63) to pass through in a state where the airbag device 61 is attached to the frame 41 (while the seat is being assembled and thus, prior to airbag deployment)”);
the main pad and the side pad being discrete elements;
the main cover and the side cover being discrete elements)
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).
Second, Examiner notes that at least claim 1 recites different stages of assembly of the airbag: an intermediate stage (during assembly of the seat back 3 and airbag device 6 as noted by Applicant in paragraph [0028]) and a final stage (after assembly of the seat back and airbag device 6 in the seat back 3). However, apparatus claims are directed to a final product. Therefore, it is unclear what product Applicant is actually claiming.
PNG
media_image2.png
285
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant also argues on page 12 of the Remarks:
In response to Applicant’s arguments above, Examiner respectfully disagrees and provides the following annotated Fig. 3 of Ushiyama et al. (US 9,592,784 B2) in support of Examiner’s rejection of the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 (also provided with the rejection of claim 1 above):
PNG
media_image1.png
779
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Finally, it is the Examiner’s position that Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with at least claim 1 as recited. Further, at least claim 1 is sufficiently broad that the reference to Ushiyama et al. (US 9,592,784 B2) is still proper.
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
Prosecution Insights