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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 reads “via which pelvic airbag a lying surface of the lying apparatus is formed to project outwards in some regions in a release state of the pelvic airbag”. Appropriate correction is required. To further compact prosecution, the claim was reviewed from line 6 as “via which the pelvic airbag is positioned on a lying surface of the lying apparatus and is formed to project outwards in some regions in a release state of the pelvic airbag”.
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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the zone of variable stiffness and/or hardness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To further compact prosecution, claim 8 was reviewed to be dependent to claim 7.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mingxi et al (DE Patent Publication DE 102020204852 A1).
With regards to Claim 1: Mingxi et al teaches a vehicle having a restraint device for securing a person located on a lying apparatus (1) of the vehicle, wherein the restraint device has at least one upper-body airbag (21a) embodied in an upper-body portion (seen in Fig 1) of the lying apparatus, and a flexible, planar cover element (251) which covers part of the body surface of the person in a usage position of the cover element, wherein the restraint device has a pelvic airbag (221 via Fig 5 and page 4 para 5) arranged in a thigh and/or pelvic portion (seen in Fig 5) of the lying apparatus, via which the pelvic airbag is positioned on a lying surface of the lying apparatus and is formed to project outwards in some regions in a release state of the pelvic airbag (seen in Fig 5).
With regards to Claim 2: Mingxi et al teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein at least one upper-body airbag (21a) is embodied in each of the two longitudinal side regions (seen in Figs 1 and 2) of the lying apparatus (1).
With regards to Claim 3: Mingxi et al teaches the restraint device according to claim 1 wherein upper-body airbags (21a) embodied in the two longitudinal side regions (seen in Figs 1 and 2) of the lying apparatus (1), in the release state thereof, extend, starting from the side regions, at least in portions transversely across the lying surface of the upper-body portion (seen in Fig 2), wherein the upper-body airbags bear against one another at least in portions.
With regards to Claim 5: Mingxi et al teaches the vehicle according to claim 1 wherein at least one of the upper-body airbags (21a), in the release state, is supported at least in portions on at least one vehicle structure (side of vehicle 4 abutting lying apparatus 1 seen in Fig 24) which forms an abutment for the upper-body airbag and is located in the interior of the vehicle and/or facing the interior of the vehicle (via Fig 24).
With regards to Claim 6: Mingxi et al teaches the vehicle according to claim 1 wherein the cover element (251) is connected, in at least one longitudinal side region (seen in Fig 20) of the lying apparatus (1), to the lying apparatus at at least two attachment points (receptacles via page 16 para 4) via at least one connecting element (252) at each attachment point, wherein a connecting element of the attachment points located in the thigh and/or pelvic portion (seen in Fig 20) is designed at least in part as a force limiter (via page 16 para 5).
With regards to Claim 9: Mingxi et al teaches the vehicle according to claim 1 wherein the lying apparatus (1) is movably arranged on a base frame (seen in Fig 13) of the vehicle, wherein the lying apparatus and the base frame are additionally coupled to one another via at least one energy absorption element (171).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mingxi et al (DE Patent Publication DE 102020204852 A1) in view of Deng et al (US Patent Publication US 20210221315 A1).
With regards to Claim 4: Mingxi et al teaches the vehicle according to claim 1 wherein the upper-body airbags (21a) have at least one main chamber (2111 and 2121) and at least one secondary chamber (2112 and 2122), wherein the main chamber and the secondary chamber are connected and a particular secondary chamber is arranged on a main chamber in such a way that, in the release state of the upper-body airbag, it is formed facing the lying surface (seen in Fig 2).
Mingxi et al does not teach the main chamber and the secondary chamber are connected in a fluid-permeable manner via at least one overflow opening.
Deng et al teaches a vehicle comprising upper-body airbags (36) with at least one main chamber (58) and at least one secondary chamber (60 and/or 62), wherein the main chamber and the secondary chamber are connected in a fluid-permeable manner via at least one overflow opening (via baffle 64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle disclosed in Mingxi et al with the main chamber and the secondary chamber connected in a fluid-permeable manner via at least one overflow opening taught in Deng et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have controlled the flow rate from the main chamber to the secondary chamber as taught by Deng et al (para 0043]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mingxi et al (DE Patent Publication DE 102020204852 A1) in view of Stauff et al (DE Patent Publication DE 102020101509 A1).
With regards to Claim 7: Mingxi et al teaches the vehicle according to claim 1 but does not teach a zone having variable stiffness and/or hardness is formed in the upper-body portion within the lying apparatus (1).
Stauff teaches a vehicle (1) with an airbag system (page 5 para 3) to restrain the upper-body portion (12) of a passenger on a lying apparatus (10) wherein the zone (air chambers) of variable stiffness and/or hardness is formed by a stiffening device (via pressure control of Stauff page 5 para 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle disclosed in Mingxi et al with the variable stiffness and/or hardness taught in Stauff et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have stabilized the occupant in a targeted manner as taught by Stauff Sharp (page 5 para 4).
With regards to Claim 8: The combination of Mingxi and Stauff et al teaches the vehicle according to claim 8 wherein the zone (air chambers of airbags 21a) of variable stiffness and/or hardness is formed by a stiffening device (via pressure control of Stauff page 5 para 4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mingxi et al (DE Patent Publication DE 102020204852 A1) in view of Masuda et al (US Patent Publication US 20190389414 A1).
With regards to Claim 10: Mingxi et al teaches the vehicle according to claim 1 wherein a footrest (15) which is displaceable relative to the lying apparatus (1) is arranged at the end of the lying apparatus (seen in Fig 1).
Mingxi does not teach the lying apparatus and the footrest are additionally coupled to one another via at least one energy absorption element.
Masuda et al teaches a vehicle comprising a lying apparatus for a passenger with airbags (31 and/or 36) deployed longitudinally along the lying apparatus wherein a footrest (137) which is displaceable relative to the lying apparatus (10H) is arranged at the end of the lying apparatus (seen in Fig 29), wherein the lying apparatus and the footrest are additionally coupled to one another via at least one energy absorption element (134 and 136 via para [0127]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle disclosed in Mingxi et al with the lying apparatus and the footrest additionally coupled to one another via at least one energy absorption element taught in Masuda et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have kept the occupant from moving forward and from submarining as taught by Masuda et al ([0127]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lozano et al (US Patent US 11603070 B1), Binder et al (DE Patent Publication DE 102019118840 A1), and Song et al (KR Patent Publication KR 20210156401 A) teach an airbag apparatus for protecting a person lying down.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Ganci whose telephone number is (571)272-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM to 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.
/MATTHEW JOSEPH GANCI/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights