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 V in the reply filed on August 7, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-5, 7 and 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 August 7, 2026.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bender et al. (US 3,446,017 A). Bender discloses an inflator (i.e., “gas generator” – see the title) comprising: a housing (e.g., 6 and also, optionally, 10) comprising: a base (e.g., the top wall of case 6, as shown in Fig. 1; or case cover 10); a wall (e.g., the vertically extending wall of case 6, as shown in Fig. 1) extending from the base; and an inner volume at least partially defined by the base and the wall (Fig. 1); a pyrotechnic gas generant material (e.g., 12) disposed within the inner volume; and an intumescent material disposed within the inner volume (column 1, lines 36-55; column 4, lines 3-20). The base comprises an inner surface and an outer surface and the wall comprises an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface of the base and the inner surface of the wall facing the inner volume (Fig. 1).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (US 3,446,017 A) in view of Cheal et al. (US 2003/0222443 A1). Bender teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above. Bender does not teach a filter. Cheal teaches a filter (e.g., 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an inflator as taught by Bender with a filter, as taught by Cheal, in order to “desirably perform one or more functions or operations such as the cooling, flow redirection or filtering, e.g., particulate removal, of or from a contacting stream, e.g., inflation gas generated or produced within the combustion chamber” (paragraph 0030). 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).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (US 3,446,017 A) in view of Reichelt (DE 102014215783 B4). Bender teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above. Bender does not explicitly teach that the inflator may be used in an airbag module. Reichelt teaches that an inflator (i.e., “gas generator assembly” – see paragraphs 0001-0002) may be used in an airbag module (paragraphs 0001-0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an inflator as taught by Bender in an airbag module, as taught by Reichelt, in order to “inflate a gas bag” (paragraph 0002) to thereby protect an occupant of a vehicle “in a crash” (paragraph 0002). Furthermore, the recitation that the inflator is part of an airbag module is essentially a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention, and the recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Bender is capable of being used in an airbag module to inflate an airbag, and it therefore meets the claim. 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Said prior art teach inflators and/or gas generant material.
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