TRW AUTOMOTIVE GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 15, 2022

2021004321 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/565,447 10/10/2017 Daniele Aranzulla TRW(REPA)027027- US-PCT 2865 26294 7590 03/15/2022 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. 1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700 CLEVELAND, OH 44114 EXAMINER VERLEY, NICOLE T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3614 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@tarolli.com rkline@tarolli.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DANIELE ARANZULLA, MARTIN BERKHARDTSMAIER, KURT FISCHER, ANGELO ADLER, and ALEXANDRA SCHROEDER ____________ Appeal 2021-004321 Application 15/565,447 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 16, 17, and 19, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies ZF Automotive Germany GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-004321 Application 15/565,447 2 CLAIMED INVENTON Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a front head and torso airbag of a vehicle occupant restraint system. Spec. 1:6-10. Claim 16, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal and is representative of the claimed subject matter: 16. A front head/torso airbag (10; 200; 300; 400; 500; 600) of a vehicle occupant restraint system comprising a cover surface (12) and a baffle surface (14) forming a contact face for the vehicle occupant (22) which merges into the cover surface (12), wherein in an inflated state of the airbag (10; 200; 300; 400; 500; 600) when being in a mounted position, the baffle surface (14) includes a central surface portion (18) and laterally adjacent thereto at least one bulge (20; 220; 320; 420; 520; 620) projecting from the central surface portion (18) for laterally protecting the head (24), wherein an inner tether (36) interconnects two wall portions (21) of the at least one bulge (20; 220; 320) of the airbag and extends in an interior of the airbag (10; 200; 300). Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). REJECTION Claims 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over JP ’332 (JP 5491332, pub. Mar. 7, 2014)2 and Yamada (US 9,505,372 B2, iss. Nov. 29, 2016).3 2 In the Answer, the Examiner provides a machine-generated translation for JP ’332. We refer to the translation as “’332 Translation”. 3 We treat the anticipation rejection heading at page 3 of the Final Office Action, identifying claims 16, 17, and 19 as anticipated by ’JP 332, as inadvertent error. See Final Act. 3-4 (rejecting the claims based as obvious over ’JP 332 and Yamada); see also Appeal Br. 4 (identifying the inadvertent error in the rejection heading); Ans. 3 (correcting the rejection heading). Appeal 2021-004321 Application 15/565,447 3 ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner primarily relies on JP ’332 as teaching the claim limitations. See Final Act. 3. In relevant part, the Examiner finds that JP ’332 teaches an inner tether that “interconnects two wall portions of at the least one bulge of the airbag and extends in an interior of the airbag.” Final Act. 3 (citing JP ’332, Fig. 2). In the Answer, the Examiner annotates Figure 2C of ’JP 332 to identify a line “A” between elements 15 “element ‘A’ as an internal tether. Ans. 3. However, the Examiner does not identify, and we do not find, any portion of the ’332 Translation that describes an internal tether depicted in Figure 2C. JP ’332 pertains to an airbag that has an outer belt with an inverted Y- shape sewn onto an outer side of an airbag that enables the airbag to form a storage recess for receiving an occupant’s head when the airbag is expanded and deployed. ’332 Translation ¶¶ 11, 14, 21, 25-29, 52-54. JP ’332 contrasts its airbag having an outer belt to form a recess with a known airbag that uses a rigid, inner tether to form a recess by pulling down a central groove panel. Id. ¶ 25; see also id. at ¶¶ 4-10, 19-21. For example, the prior art airbag uses a straight tether belt to hold down the central groove panel, but during deployment the groove panel often fluctuates side to side, causing misalignment between the central groove panel and the occupant’s head. Id. ¶ 10. The Y-shaped outer belt of JP ’332 forms a storage recess for the occupant’s head when the airbag swells, and prevents side-to-side motion that leads to misalignment between the occupant’s head and the groove. See id. ¶¶ 19-21. Figure 1D of JP ’332 is a perspective view of airbag 1 when expanded, showing right chamber 11, left chamber 12, and storage recess 13 Appeal 2021-004321 Application 15/565,447 4 formed by outer belt 5. Id. ¶¶ 34-35, 54. Figure 2A of JP ’332 shows the same perspective view shown in Figure 1D, and Figure 2C is a cross- sectional view taken along line AA in Figure 2A. Id. ¶ 35. Upper surface portion 2, occupant surface portion 3, and lower surface portion 4 of airbag 1 are sewn together, and element 15 indicates the stitching. ’332 Translation ¶ 47. The Examiner finds that Figure 2C shows an internal tether between stitching 15 (Ans. 4, Final Act. 3), but the Examiner’s finding lacks sufficient evidentiary support. The Examiner acknowledges that JP ’332 does not teach an inner tether that interconnects two wall portions of at least one bulge, and relies on Yamada for this aspect of the claim language. Final Act. 3 (citing Yamada Fig. 6). Yamada teaches an airbag device for a front passenger seat that is capable of quickly inflating an airbag having a center bag section 28 that is deployable in an area between the driver’s seat and the front passenger’s seat. Yamada 1:47-51, 6:47-55. Internal tethers 42-46 are within center bag 28 to control the contour of the bag. Id. at 5:22-28. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to modify JP ’332’s internal tether to interconnect two wall portions of at least one of bulge 11 and budge 12, as taught by Yamada. However, the Examiner fails to provide articulated reasoning with rationale underpinnings for modifying JP ’332 to arrive at the claimed invention, at least because the Examiner’s finding that JP ’332 teaches an internal tether lacks adequate factual support. Further, even if JP ’332 taught an internal tether, the Examiner fails to adequately explain, with technical reasoning and factual support, why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify this purported structure to attach within two wall portions of bulge 11 or bulge 12, instead of from a wall of bulge 11 to a wall of Appeal 2021-004321 Application 15/565,447 5 bulge 12. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 16, and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 16, 17, 19 103 JP ’332, Yamada 16, 17, 19 REVERSED