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’s election without traverse of Species A, Figs. 4-6 in the reply filed on 6/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-7 and 9-11 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/16/2026.
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 limitations
“further comprising a friction reduction coating at least locally provided between the two layers” (recited in claim 8);
“wherein the portion of the contact surface comprises two layers arranged on top of one another, wherein an outer layer of the two layers is movable with respect to an inner layer of the two layers, and wherein a movement in the lateral direction is restricted” (recited in claim 2)
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.
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 1-4, 8, and 12-14 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 1 recites the limitation "the vehicle occupant" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing said limitation to --a vehicle occupant--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the slipping properties" in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 2 lines 1-4, the limitation “wherein the portion of the contact surface comprises two layers arranged on top of one another, wherein an outer layer of the two layers is movable with respect to an inner layer of the two layers, and wherein a movement in the lateral direction is restricted” is unclear because three layers are present in at least Figs. 6. Therefore, claim 2 is rendered indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the vehicle occupant" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing said limitation to --a vehicle occupant--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the slipping properties" in lines 10 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the vehicle occupant" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing said limitation to --a vehicle occupant--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the slipping properties" in lines 11 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4, 8, and 12-14 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schock (WO 2017/182602 A1), cited by Applicant.
Regarding claims 1-4, 8, and 12 (as best understood), Schock (at least Figs. 1-20) discloses
(claim 1) an airbag 10 for a vehicle, the airbag 10 comprising:
an envelope 12 at least partially delimiting a gas volume in a deployed state of the airbag 10,
wherein the envelope 12 comprises a contact surface 14 configured to contact the vehicle occupant to be protected by the airbag 10,
wherein at least a portion of the contact surface 14 has directional slipping properties (at least via 20, 22, friction reduction coating on pages 6-7), and
wherein the slipping properties in a lateral direction are associated with a higher slipping resistance (at least due to 26a, 26b) than the slipping properties in a non-lateral direction (at least Figs. 1-20);
(claim 2) wherein the portion of the contact surface 14 comprises two layers 20, 22 arranged on top of one another, wherein an outer layer 20, 22 of the two layers 20, 22 is movable with respect to an inner layer 20, 22 of the two layers 20, 22, and wherein a movement in the lateral direction is restricted (at least due to 26a, 26b; at least Figs. 1-20);
(claim 3) wherein the outer layer 20, 22 is formed by a pleat of the inner layer 20, 22;
(claim 4) wherein the pleat is T-shaped in cross section (at least Figs. 9, 11,
14-6, 19, 20);
(claim 8) further comprising a friction reduction coating (at least pages 6-7) at least locally provided between the two layers;
(claim 12) wherein the envelope 12 is made of fabric material.
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood), Schock (at least Figs. 1-20) discloses an airbag module comprising:
an inflator; and
an airbag 10 comprising:
an envelope 12 at least partially delimiting a gas volume in a deployed state of the airbag 10,
wherein the envelope 12 comprises a contact surface 14 configured to contact the vehicle occupant to be protected by the airbag 10,
wherein at least a portion of the contact surface 14 has directional slipping properties (at least via 20, 22, friction reduction coating on pages 6-7), and
wherein the slipping properties in a lateral direction are associated with a higher slipping resistance (at least due to 26a, 26b) than the slipping properties in a non-lateral direction (at least Figs. 1-20).
Regarding claim 14 (as best understood), Schock (at least Figs. 1-20) discloses a vehicle comprising:
an airbag module comprising:
an inflator; and
an airbag 10 comprising:
an envelope 12 at least partially delimiting a gas volume in a deployed state of the airbag 10,
wherein the envelope 12 comprises a contact surface 14 configured to contact the vehicle occupant to be protected by the airbag 10,
wherein at least a portion of the contact surface 14 has directional slipping properties (at least via 20, 22, friction reduction coating on pages 6-7), and
wherein the slipping properties in a lateral direction are associated with a higher slipping resistance (at least due to 26a, 26b) than the slipping properties in a non-lateral direction (at least Figs. 1-20).
Claims 1-3 and 12-14 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 9,421,940 B2), cited by Applicant.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 12 (as best understood), Lee et al. (at least Figs. 1-6) discloses
(claim 1) an airbag 20 for a vehicle, the airbag 20 comprising:
an envelope 20 at least partially delimiting a gas volume in a deployed state of the airbag 20,
wherein the envelope 20 comprises a contact surface 30 configured to contact the vehicle occupant to be protected by the airbag 20,
wherein at least a portion of the contact surface 30 has directional slipping properties 36a, 36b, and
wherein the slipping properties in a lateral direction are associated with a higher slipping resistance than the slipping properties in a non-lateral direction (as much as in current application);
(claim 2) wherein the portion of the contact surface 30 comprises two layers arranged on top of one another (at 36a, 36b), wherein an outer layer 30 of the two layers is movable with respect to an inner layer 30 of the two layers, and wherein a movement in the lateral direction is restricted;
(claim 3) wherein the outer layer 30 is formed by a pleat of the inner layer 30;
(claim 12) wherein the envelope 20 is made of fabric material.
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood), Lee et al. (at least Figs. 1-6) discloses an airbag module comprising:
an inflator 10; and
an airbag 20 comprising:
an envelope 20 at least partially delimiting a gas volume in a deployed state of the airbag 20,
wherein the envelope 20 comprises a contact surface 30 configured to contact the vehicle occupant to be protected by the airbag 20,
wherein at least a portion of the contact surface 30 has directional slipping properties 36a, 36b, and
wherein the slipping properties in a lateral direction are associated with a higher slipping resistance than the slipping properties in a non-lateral direction (as much as in current application).
Regarding claim 14 (as best understood), Lee et al. (at least Figs. 1-6) discloses a vehicle comprising:
an airbag module comprising:
an inflator 10; and
an airbag 20 comprising:
an envelope 20 at least partially delimiting a gas volume in a deployed state of the airbag 20,
wherein the envelope 20 comprises a contact surface 30 configured to contact the vehicle occupant to be protected by the airbag 20,
wherein at least a portion of the contact surface 30 has directional slipping properties 36a, 36b, and
wherein the slipping properties in a lateral direction are associated with a higher slipping resistance than the slipping properties in a non-lateral direction (as much as in current application).
Claims 1-3 and 12-14 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Igawa et al. (US 7,207,594 B2).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 12 (as best understood), Igawa et al. (at least Figs. 1-4(b)) discloses
(claim 1) an airbag 4 for a vehicle, the airbag 4 comprising:
an envelope 4 at least partially delimiting a gas volume in a deployed state of the airbag 4,
wherein the envelope 4 comprises a contact surface 24 configured to contact the vehicle occupant to be protected by the airbag 4,
wherein at least a portion of the contact surface 24 has directional slipping properties 34, 34, and
wherein the slipping properties in a lateral direction are associated with a higher slipping resistance than the slipping properties in a non-lateral direction (at least Figs. 2(a), 3-4(b), as much as in current application);
(claim 2) wherein the portion of the contact surface 24 comprises two layers (at 34, 34) arranged on top of one another, wherein an outer layer of the two layers is movable with respect to an inner layer of the two layers, and wherein a movement in the lateral direction is restricted (at least Figs. 2(a), 3-4(b));
(claim 3) wherein the outer layer is formed by a pleat of the inner layer (at 34, 34, at least Figs. 2(a), 3-4(b));
(claim 12) wherein the envelope 4 is made of fabric material.
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood), Igawa et al. (at least Figs. 1-4(b)) discloses an airbag module comprising:
an inflator 6; and
an airbag 4 comprising:
an envelope 4 at least partially delimiting a gas volume in a deployed state of the airbag 4,
wherein the envelope 4 comprises a contact surface 24 configured to contact the vehicle occupant to be protected by the airbag 4,
wherein at least a portion of the contact surface 24 has directional slipping properties 34, 34, and
wherein the slipping properties in a lateral direction are associated with a higher slipping resistance than the slipping properties in a non-lateral direction (at least Figs. 2(a), 3-4(b), as much as in current application).
Regarding claim 14 (as best understood), Igawa et al. (at least Figs. 1-4(b)) discloses a vehicle comprising:
an airbag module comprising:
an inflator 6; and
an airbag 4 comprising:
an envelope 4 at least partially delimiting a gas volume in a deployed state of the airbag 4,
wherein the envelope 4 comprises a contact surface 24 configured to contact the vehicle occupant to be protected by the airbag 4,
wherein at least a portion of the contact surface 24 has directional slipping properties 34, 34, and
wherein the slipping properties in a lateral direction are associated with a higher slipping resistance than the slipping properties in a non-lateral direction (at least Figs. 2(a), 3-4(b), as much as in current application).
Claims 1 and 12-14 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaradi et al. (US 9,713,998 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 12 (as best understood), Jaradi et al. (at least Figs. 1-5) discloses
(claim 1) an airbag 16 for a vehicle, the airbag 16 comprising:
an envelope 16 at least partially delimiting a gas volume in a deployed state of the airbag 16,
wherein the envelope 16 comprises a contact surface 17, 20 configured to contact the vehicle occupant to be protected by the airbag 16,
wherein at least a portion of the contact surface 17, 20 has directional slipping properties 22, 26, 30, and
wherein the slipping properties in a lateral direction are associated with a higher slipping resistance (at least due to 22, 26, 30) than the slipping properties in a non-lateral direction (at least Figs. 1-5);
(claim 12) wherein the envelope 16 is made of fabric material.
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood), Jaradi et al. (at least Figs. 1-5) discloses an airbag module 15 comprising:
an inflator 13; and
an airbag 16 comprising:
an envelope 16 at least partially delimiting a gas volume in a deployed state of the airbag 16,
wherein the envelope 16 comprises a contact surface 17, 20 configured to contact the vehicle occupant to be protected by the airbag 16,
wherein at least a portion of the contact surface 17, 20 has directional slipping properties 22, 26, 30, and
wherein the slipping properties in a lateral direction are associated with a higher slipping resistance (at least due to 22, 26, 30) than the slipping properties in a non-lateral direction (at least Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 14 (as best understood), Jaradi et al. (at least Figs. 1-5) discloses a vehicle 12 comprising:
an airbag module 15 comprising:
an inflator 13; and
an airbag 16 comprising:
an envelope 16 at least partially delimiting a gas volume in a deployed state of the airbag 16,
wherein the envelope 16 comprises a contact surface 17, 20 configured to contact the vehicle occupant to be protected by the airbag 16,
wherein at least a portion of the contact surface 17, 20 has directional slipping properties 22, 26, 30, and
wherein the slipping properties in a lateral direction are associated with a higher slipping resistance (at least due to 22, 26, 30) than the slipping properties in a non-lateral direction (at least Figs. 1-5).
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.
Claim 4 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 9,421,940 B2) in view of Jo (US 10,640,074 B2).
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), Lee et al. (at least Figs. 1-6) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the pleat is T-shaped in cross section.
Jo (at least Figs. 1-11) discloses that it is known in the art to provide a pleat that is T-shaped in cross section (at least Figs. 1-9) as well in a zigzag manner in cross section (Figs. 10-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pleat of Lee et al. according to the teachings of Jo, such that the pleat is T-shaped in cross section, in order to achieve the desirable result of a pleat having an alternative shape in cross section.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the pleat T-shaped in cross section, 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.
Claim 4 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igawa et al. (US 7,207,594 B2) in view of Jo (US 10,640,074 B2).
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), Igawa et al. (at least Figs. 1-4(b)) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the pleat is T-shaped in cross section.
Jo (at least Figs. 1-11) discloses that it is known in the art to provide a pleat that is T-shaped in cross section (at least Figs. 1-9) as well in a zigzag manner in cross section (Figs. 10-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pleat of Igawa et al. according to the teachings of Jo, such that the pleat is T-shaped in cross section, in order to achieve the desirable result of a pleat having an alternative shape in cross section.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the pleat T-shaped in cross section, 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.
Claim 8 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 9,421,940 B2) in view of Schock (WO 2017/182602 A1), both cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. (at least Figs. 1-6) discloses the claimed invention except for further comprising a friction reduction coating at least locally provided between the two layers.
Schock (at least Figs. 1-20) discloses that it is known in the art to provide further comprising a friction reduction coating (at least pages 6-7) at least locally provided between two layers.
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 two layers of
Lee et al. with the friction reduction coating at least locally provided between the two layers according to the teachings of Schock, in order to achieve the desirable result of further facilitating the slipping properties.
Claim 8 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igawa et al. (US 7,207,594 B2) in view of Schock (WO 2017/182602 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Igawa et al. (at least Figs. 1-4(b)) discloses the claimed invention except for further comprising a friction reduction coating at least locally provided between the two layers.
Schock (at least Figs. 1-20) discloses that it is known in the art to provide further comprising a friction reduction coating (at least pages 6-7) at least locally provided between two layers.
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 two layers of
Igawa et al. with the friction reduction coating at least locally provided between the two layers according to the teachings of Schock, in order to achieve the desirable result of further facilitating the slipping properties.
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 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