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 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 5 and 11 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.
The term “almost identical” in Claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost identical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim language does not make clear the scope of the term “almost identical”.
The term “and preferably has an inwardly foldable sealing region” in Claim 11 renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” makes it unclear if the claim language that follows is, is or is not, required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “designed as” should be removed in line 3 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “designed” in line 5 should be replaced with “configured to be”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “can be” in line 4 of the claim should be replaced with “configured to be”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “can be” in line 4 of the claim should be replaced with “configured to be”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “is additionally designed with” in line 3 of the claim should be replaced with “includes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “this tear seam” in line 8 of the claim should be replaced with “the tear seam”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredin et al (US Patent US 7261320 B2) in view of Dunkle et al (US Patent Publication US 20020175511 A1).
With regards to Claim 1: Fredin et al teaches an airbag device for the two-stage deployment of a first and a second gas volume (112), comprising a first system comprising the first gas volume (120 liters in C2 L47-50) and a first gas generator (200) which is triggered in a pre-accident situation (C3 L33-39); and a second system comprising the second gas volume (additional 60 liters in in C2 L47-50) and a second gas generator (202) which is triggered in an accident situation (after first gas generator via C3 L40-44); wherein the first system is configured to fill the first gas volume with gas by means of the first gas generator wherein the second system is configured to fill the second gas volume with gas by means of the second gas generator (C4 L24-29).
Fredin et al does not teach a second gas chamber.
Dunkle et al teaches an airbag device for the two-stage deployment of a first and a second gas chamber, comprising a first system comprising the first gas chamber (144) and a gas generator (121); and a second system comprising the second gas chamber (146); wherein the first system is configured to fill the first gas chamber with gas by means of the gas generator wherein the second system is configured to fill the second gas chamber with gas by means of the gas generator (para [0028]).
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 airbag device disclosed in Fredin et al with the second gas chamber airfoil taught in Dunkle et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have an upper portion to deploy the airbag away from the housing and a lower portion for a final design profile to receive the occupant during a collision event as taught by Dunkle et al (para [0005]).
With regards to Claim 2: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, but does not teach the first gas chamber (Dunkle 144) has a smaller internal volume than the second gas chamber Dunkle 146).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the external geometries of the first gas chamber and the second gas chamber identical or almost identical to receive the vehicle occupant in the desired method during a collision event to prevent injury. Furthermore such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to Claim 3: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, wherein the second gas chamber (Dunkle 146) is formed by sewing a layer (Dunkle panel tether 140) to the first gas chamber (Dunkle 144).
With regards to Claim 4: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 3, wherein the second gas chamber (Dunkle 146) is connected to the first gas chamber (Dunkle 144) by a seam (Dunkle 132), wherein the first gas chamber is formed by a double layer (Dunkle 134 seen in Dunkle Fig 5), wherein the double layer of the first system is used as an additional sealing strip for the first and the second gas chamber.
With regards to Claim 5: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, but does not teach the external geometries of the first gas chamber (Dunkle 144) and the second gas chamber (Dunkle 146) are identical or almost identical.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the first gas chamber and the second gas chamber of whatever form or shape was desired to receive the occupant during a collision event. Furthermore, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
With regards to Claim 7: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, wherein the airbag device comprises a housing (Fredin 104), wherein the first (Dunkle 144) and the second (Dunkle 146) gas chamber are arranged within the housing in the deactivated state, wherein the first system is configured to open the housing upon activation (via Dunkle 116).
With regards to Claim 8: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1 wherein the first gas chamber (Dunkle 144) comprises a plurality of air bridges (Dunkle 150 via Dunkle para [0031]) for the complete pre-deployment of the second gas chamber (Dunkle 146).
With regards to Claim 10: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, wherein the first (200) and second (202) gas generators are arranged in the first gas chamber (Dunkle 144).
With regards to Claim 11: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, wherein the first gas chamber (Dunkle 144) is designed as a single-piece woven structure (seen in Dunkle Fig 5), and preferably has an inwardly foldable sealing region (panel tether Dunkle 140) in a region of the first gas generator (Fredin 200) assigned to it.
With regards to Claim 13: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1 wherein the first gas chamber (Dunkle 144) comprises non-inflatable regions (Dunkle panel tether 140) through which a tear seam (Dunkle 132) for the second gas chamber (Dunkle 146) can be placed without affecting the filling of the first gas chamber (Dunkle 144).
With regards to Claim 14: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1 wherein the first gas chamber (Dunkle 144) has non-inflatable regions (panel tether Dunkle 140) through which a ventilation opening (Dunkle 150) for the second gas chamber (Dunkle 146) can be placed without affecting the function of the first system.
With regards to Claim 16: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, wherein the second gas chamber (Dunkle 146) comprises a ventilation opening (Dunkle 150) which is additionally connected to the first system by a tear seam (Dunkle 132 via Dunkle para [0030]).
With regards to Claim 17: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, wherein the first (Dunkle 144) and second (Dunkle 146) gas chambers are formed by the same airbag (Dunkle 120), wherein - the first and second gas chambers are not fluidically connected to one another during the pre-accident phase (separated by panel tether Dunkle 140) and the first gas chamber is filled by the first gas generator (Fredin 200).
With regards to Claim 18: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1 wherein the first (Dunkle 144) and second (Dunkle 146) gas chambers are formed by the same airbag (Dunkle 120) into which both gas generators (Fredin 200 and 202) are integrated, wherein the second gas generator releases its gas in the event of an accident into a fabric tube (base of Dunkle 120 by housing), in which a ventilation opening (Dunkle 150) is integrated and which is fluidically separated from the actual second gas chamber by a tear seam (Dunkle 132), wherein this tear seam is opened by the resulting pressure wave when the second gas generator is ignited, and then inflates the single airbag with gas.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredin et al (US Patent US 7261320 B2) in view of Dunkle et al (US Patent Publication US 20020175511 A1) and in further view of Henseler (DE Patent DE 4121659 A1).
With regards to Claim 6: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, wherein the first gas generator (Fredin 200) and second gas generator (Fredin 202) are gas generators.
The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al does not teach the first gas generator is a cold gas generator, and/or the second gas generator is a pyrotechnic gas generator.
Henseler teaches an airbag device comprising a pyrotechnic gas generator (5) for an airbag (2), wherein the gas generator comprises a sealed inlet (4) which is additionally designed with a thermal reinforcement layer (page 3 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 airbag device taught in the combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al with the pyrotechnic gas generator taught in Henseler with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the inflation process to occur within a short period of time as taught by Henseler (page 3 para 4).
With regards to Claim 15: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, but does not teach the second gas chamber (Dunkle 146) has a sealed inlet for the second gas generator (Fredin 202), which is additionally designed with a thermal reinforcement layer.
Henseler teaches an airbag device comprising a pyrotechnic gas generator (5) for an airbag (2), wherein the gas generator comprises a sealed inlet (4) which is additionally designed with a thermal reinforcement layer (page 3 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 airbag device taught in the combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al with the pyrotechnic gas generator taught in Henseler with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have protected the airbag from damage from the hot surfaces of the gas generator as taught by Henseler (page 3 para 4).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredin et al (US Patent US 7261320 B2) in view of Dunkle et al (US Patent Publication US 20020175511 A1) and in further view of Fischer et al (DE Patent Publication DE 102009011830 A1).
With regards to Claim 9: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1 but does not teach the second gas chamber (Dunkle 144) comprises a valve opening in for discharging gas from the second gas chamber.
Fischer et al teaches an airbag device comprising a gas generator (32) and a gas chamber (54) wherein the gas chamber comprises a valve opening (at 102 and 110) in for discharging gas from the gas chamber.
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 airbag device taught in the combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al with the valve opening taught in Fischer et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have controlled the volume of the airbag to safely receive an occupant during a collision event.
With regards to Claim 12: The combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al teaches the airbag device according to claim 1, but does not teach the interior of the second gas chamber (Dunkle 146) is fluidically separated from the environment by a seam, wherein the second gas chamber is designed in two layers in order to provide additional sealing of the seam by the second layer.
Fischer et al teaches an airbag device comprising a gas generator (32) and a gas chamber (54) wherein the gas chamber comprises a valve opening (at 102 and 110) in for discharging gas from the gas chamber wherein the interior of the gas chamber is fluidically separated from the environment by a seam (120), wherein the second gas chamber is designed in two layers (14 and 110) in order to provide additional sealing of the seam by the second layer.
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 airbag device taught in the combination of Fredin and Dunkle et al with the seam and layers taught in Fischer et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have controlled the volume of the airbag to safely receive an occupant during a collision event.
Conclusion
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
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights