Application No.: 15/838,174
`Reply dated August 19, 2019
`Response to Office Action of May 17, 2019
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1, 7, and 9 have been amended, claim 6 has been canceled without prejudice or
`
`disclaimer. Accordingly, claims 1-5, and 7-17 are currently pending in the Application, of which
`
`claim 1 is independent.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the above amendments do not add new matter to the
`
`Application and are fully supported by the specification. Support for the amendment may be
`
`found at least in the original claim 6.
`
`In view of the above amendments and the following Remarks, Applicant respectfully
`
`requests reconsideration and timely withdrawal of the pending rejections for the reasons
`
`discussed below.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`
`Claims 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Applicant
`
`respectfully traverses this rejection for at least the following reasons.
`
`Claim 9 has been amended to maintain proper antecedent basis and not for the purpose
`
`of avoiding prior art or narrowing the claimed subject matter. Thus, no change in claim scope is
`
`intended, and Applicant does not intend to relinquish any subject matter by these amendments.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that claim 9-12, as amended, fully comply with the requirements
`
`of 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`
`rejection of claims 9-12.
`
`Rejections Under 35 U. S. C. § 102
`
`

`

`Application No.: 15/838,174
`Reply dated August 19, 2019
`Response to Office Action of May 17, 2019
`
`Claims 1-8 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as allegedly being
`
`anticipated by US. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0023626, applied for by Hiruta, et
`
`al. (“Hiruta”). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least the following reasons.
`
`In order for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) to be proper, a single reference must
`
`disclose every claimed feature. To be patentable, a claim need only recite a single novel
`
`feature that is not disclosed in the cited reference. Thus, the failure of a cited reference to
`
`disclose one or more claimed features renders the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection improper.
`
`Vlfithout conceding to the correctness of the Examiner’s rejection but to advance
`
`prosecution, claim 1 has been amended to recite substantially similar elements from original
`
`claim 6, which has been canceled, without prejudice or disclaimer, inter alia, “wherein the
`
`curtain air bag cushion as a height H upon complete deployment to the expanded position and
`
`the shortest distance between an upper end of the first restraint part and an upperjoined portion
`
`of the curtain airbag cushion is within a range of about H/4 to about H/2.” Applicants respectfully
`
`submits that these elements are not taught or fairly suggested by the asserted art.
`
`Specifically, Hiruta fails to disclose the specific range of the distances as claimed.
`
`Moreover, Hiruta’s FIG. 11 is being cited to disclose the original elements of claim 6, but it is a
`
`view only showing the deflated state of the airbags, whereas the claimed distance are “upon
`
`complete deployment to the expanded position.”
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
`
`rejection of claim 1. Claim 6 has been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer, thus rendering
`
`the rejection against it moot. Claims 2—5, 7, 8, and 13-15 depend from claim 1 and are allowable
`
`at least for this reason. Since none of the alleged prior art of record discloses or suggests all
`
`the features of the claimed subject matter, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim
`
`1, and all the claims that depend therefrom, are allowable.
`
`

`

`Application No.: 15/838,174
`Reply dated August 19, 2019
`Response to Office Action of May 17, 2019
`
`Rejections under 35 U. S. C. § 103
`
`Claims 9-12, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being
`
`unpatentable over Hiruta in view of US. Patent No. 7,712,773, issued to Walston (“Walston”).
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least the following reasons.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is allowable over Hiruta, and Walston fails to
`
`cure the deficiencies of Hiruta noted above with regard to claim 1. Hence, claims 9-12, 16 and
`
`17 are allowable at least because they depend from an allowable claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
`
`of claims 9-12, 16 and 17. Since none of the alleged prior art of record, whether taken alone or
`
`in any combination, discloses or suggests all the features of the claimed subject matter,
`
`Applicant submits that claims 9-12, 16 and 17 are allowable.
`
`Other Matters
`
`In addition to the amendments mentioned above, claim 7 has been amended solely to
`
`maintain proper dependency. These amendments are not made for the purpose of avoiding
`
`prior art or narrowing the claimed subject matter, and no change in claim scope is intended.
`
`Therefore, Applicant does not intend to relinquish any subject matter by these amendments.
`
`

`

`Application No.: 15/838,174
`Reply dated August 19, 2019
`Response to Office Action of May 17, 2019
`
`W
`
`A full and complete response has been made to the pending Office Action, and all of the
`
`stated objections and grounds for rejection have been overcome or rendered moot.
`
`Accordingly, all pending claims are allowable, and the Application is in condition for allowance.
`
`The Examiner is invited to contact Applicant’s undersigned representative at the number
`
`below if it would expedite prosecution. Prompt and favorable consideration of this Reply is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`lLirong Linl
`
`Lirong Lin
`Reg. No. 74,639
`
`Date: August 19, 2019
`
`CUSTOMER NUMBER: 58027
`
`HO. Park & Associates, PLC
`1894 Preston White Drive
`
`Reston, VA 20191
`Tel: 703-288-5105
`Fax: 703-288-5139
`
`CBK/LL/esp
`
`