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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0160067 (Millet Solanellas et al.).
Regarding claim 1, ‘067 discloses: a protection device [total device shown in fig. 1 is a device that provides protection], comprising: a helmet configured to be mountable on a head of a wearer [helmet 1, is functional to be mounted on a user’s head]; an airbag housed in a folded state in the helmet prior to operation of the protection device [element 13 is ‘folded’ and shown prior to inflation/operation in fig. 1]; and an expansion source supplier to supply an expansion source to the airbag during operation of the protection device [housing 12, fig.1 does ‘supply’ pressurized gas/expansion source to the airbag 13], wherein the airbag is configured to cover from a posterior neck to both side neck portions of the wearer by expanding and inflating with the expansion source supplied from the expansion source supplier [fig. 3 shows airbag 13 inflated form 2 covering the back and sides of a neck of a user], and the protection device further comprises an urging structure formed integrally with the airbag to urge the airbag toward at least one of the posterior neck or the side neck portions of the wearer by utilizing an expansion pressure of the airbag [the inherent connection joints/couplings between the inflated cushion 2 to the helmet and the peripheral shape of the airbag both inherently function as means that do “urge the airbag into” the position shown in fig. 3 covering the back and sides of the neck].
Regarding claim 2, ‘067 discloses: the urging structure is stored on an interior side of the helmet prior to operation of the protection device, and pulled out to outside from the interior side of the helmet together with the airbag along with operation of the protection device [the inherent connection joints/couplings between the inflated cushion 2 to the helmet and the peripheral shape of the airbag both inherently function as means that do “urge the airbag into” the position shown in fig. 3 covering the back and sides of the neck; further these elements are also “stored” interior of the helmet shown deflated in fig.1 and ‘pulled outward’ as shown in inflated state in fig. 3].
Regarding claim 12, ‘067 discloses: further comprising an activation structure mounted on the helmet to activate the expansion source supplier [seen in figs 1 and 2], wherein the activation structure includes an operation condition detection sensor [5; abstract] configured to detect a fact that a predetermined operation condition has been satisfied [“FIG. 1 shows a side view of the protection device to protect the cranial and cervical area of a user (10), wherein the helmet (1) intended to surround the skull of the user (10) is clearly shown, said helmet comprising a storage chamber (14) in an inner enclosure thereof containing a pressurized gas and a deflated bag (13) connected to said pressurized gas and located in a housing (12) at the rear portion of the inner enclosure of the helmet (1).
Said helmet (1) also has a control system (3) therein, as shown in FIG. 2. Said control system (3) is connected to a pyrotechnic activation system and further connected to a plurality of detection sensors (5) prior to an accident or harmful movement, as can be seen in FIG. 2. For example, it is considered that an accident or harmful movement could be the loss of control of a bicycle by a cyclist, or a fall from the bicycle.
Once the sensor or sensors (5) detect that the imminent accident or harmful movement is about to occur, the control device (3) activates the pyrotechnic activation mechanism by means of an electronic stimulus, causing an exothermic chemical reaction expanding the compressed gas in the storage chamber (14), consequently, inflating the bag (13) as can be observed in FIG. 3 once the inflated bag (2) is deployed, said bag (2) being inflated in milliseconds and further comprising portions configured, once inflated, to protrude from the helmet (1) to cover and protect the cervical area, the sides of the neck and the base of the skull.”].
PNG
media_image1.png
521
421
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.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0160067 (Millet Solanellas et al.) in view of US 2022/0095711 (Yanagisawa et al.).
Regarding claim 7, as noted above ‘067 does inherently include “urging structure” as required in claims 1 and 2 above.
‘067 does not disclose the urging structure as required by claim 7.
However, ‘711 is referenced as it does teach a protective wearable inflatable airbag device [fig.3] that does include an urging structure [tether 18 and tether joints 22 and 23 are functional to ‘urge’ the airbag into the desired shape/coverage] including a shape holding body [tether joints 22 and 23] to hold a shape of the airbag having inflated during operation of the protection device and suppress deformation of the airbag in a direction away from the desired protection area [tether joints 22 and 23 do function to ‘hold a shape of the airbag’ and to ‘suppress deformation of the airbag in a direction away from the desired protection area’ as shown in inflated state in fig. 7].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior art prior to filing the invention to modify the airbag structure of ‘067 to further include the teachings from ‘711 to further enhance the proper size and shape and therefore coverage and protection function of the airbags of an inflatable airbag protection device.
Regarding claim 8, as noted above ‘067 does fully disclose claim 8 limitations that the shape holding body [stitch 23] is fixed to an outer peripheral portion of the airbag [shown fixed to an outer edge periphery of the airbag in fig.3].
PNG
media_image2.png
746
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, ‘067 does fully disclose the airbag contains a resin [in par. 63, ‘067 states, “The airbag 10 is made of a sheet material having flexibility. The airbag 10 of this specific embodiment is made of a fabric woven with polyester yarns, polyimide yarns or the like.”]. ‘067 does not explicitly disclose the stitching/sewing/shape holding material as a resin per claim 9.
However, ‘‘067 states, “The airbag 10 is made of a sheet material having flexibility. The airbag 10 of this specific embodiment is made of a fabric woven with polyester yarns, polyimide yarns or the like.”; therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to use a polyester and/or polyimide yarn as the stitching/sewing/shape holding material to provide the airbag with the appropriate amount of flexibility due to the known intrinsic properties of polyester and/or polyimide resin materials.
Regarding claim 10, ‘067 does fully disclose wherein prior to operation of the protection device, the shape holding body is stored on an interior side of the helmet along an opening edge portion of the helmet [shown explicitly and inherent to fig. 1], and pulled out to outside from the interior side of the helmet together with the airbag along with operation of the protection device [shown explicitly and inherent to fig. 3].
PNG
media_image3.png
291
345
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
368
332
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 11, and 13-17 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.
Claims 3, 11 and the respective intervening claims would be allowable because both claims 3 and 11 require specific construction, arrangement and operation of the claimed integrally formed urging structure within the airbag to urge the airbag toward at least one of the posterior neck or the side neck portions of the wearer by utilizing an expansion pressure of the airbag. More specifically, claims 3 and 11 further require the urging structure which is integral to the airbag and to further include an urging strap with one end connected to the helmet and functionally configured to urge the airbag from posterior neck side toward a front side of the neck of the wearer during use.
This results in a helmet with inflatable airbag that is more effectively placed and located during impacts that place the airbag to enhance restricting the bending of the neck and protecting the neck from the damage due to excessive bending.
There are numerous helmet with inflatable airbag devices that incorporate various types of elements that create the shape and size of the airbag during use.
The prior art does not disclose nor teach as prima facie obvious the specifics with regards to the claimed construction, arrangement and operation of the airbags, the urging structures, and the urging straps.
The closest prior art appears to be that of US 2017/0309152 (Dinkins) which does teach a helmet with smart inflatable sections for impact protection but does not teach the specifics with regards to the claimed construction, arrangement and operation of the airbags, the urging structures, and the urging straps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0309152 (Dinkins) which does teach a helmet with smart inflatable sections for impact protection but does not teach the specifics with regards to the claimed construction, arrangement and operation of the airbags, the urging structures, and the urging straps.
US 9648914 (Duncan et al.) which does teach a helmet with inflatable neck sections for impact protection but does not teach the specifics with regards to the claimed construction, arrangement and operation of the airbags, the urging structures, and the urging straps.
Numerous other helmet and inflatable impact protection devices are attached to establish the general state of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR whose telephone number is (571)272-4991. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-1730.
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 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.
/ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights