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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims received on December 16th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended. The 35 USC § 112(a) rejections filed on September 16th, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 12 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that Gentner (US 2008/0093495 A1) does not teach force-limiting elements formed by two separated torsion bars of the present application. The examiner does agree that Gentner fails to teach in two separated torsion bars. However, the primary focus of Gentner as a prior art reference is to teach the positioning of the combined torsion bar. The examiner points to the primary reference of Jabusch (US 2020/0047711 A1) which discloses a plurality of torsion bars 26, 36, 37 disposed in and beyond a receptacle of the belt reel 14, best depicted in figure 3. Gentner teaches a position of a torsion bar (best seen in figure 8) wherein the torsion bar 41 is extended beyond a sleeve 44, correlating to a receptacle, and further being connected to a second part of the torsion bar 42. Furthermore, Gentner teaches that the force limiting element 22 is adjustable in placement in relation to the sleeve 44 (see page 2, paragraph 36).
While the torsion bar of Gentner is unitary it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the torsion bar separable or modular, rather than unitary or integral, as it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure as various discrete elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179; In re Fridolph, 309 F.2d 509, 50 CCPA 745; In re Larson, 52 C.C.P.A. 930, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965). In this instance, Gentner’s torsion bar is designed for differing torsion load payout and one skilled in the art can achieve the same function by separating said force limiting element as seen in the primary reference of Jabusch.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jabusch (US 2020/0047711 A1) in view of Gentner (US 2008/0093495 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jabusch discloses a belt retractor 40 comprising;
a belt reel 14 (Page 1, Paragraph 11, lines 1-3) mounted on a frame or a rail 7 (Page 4, Paragraph 38, Lines 4-8);
a force-limiting device, in the form of torsion bars 26, 36 and 37, being plastically deformable and further being seperable (Page 2, Paragraph 22, Lines 3-7);
wherein a first torsion bar 26 has a first end that fixed, or connected, to the belt reel 14, and a second end connected to a means for blocking, via torsion bars 36, 37 and blocking device 41, which resembles a profile head and is best depicted in figure 3;
wherein the belt reel 14, the first torsion bar 26 and the blocking device 41 are coaxial (Page 1, Paragraph 11, Lines 1-5) and are in series (Figure 3, Elements 14, 26, and 41); and
wherein at least one second torsion bar 36 is coaxially arrange in serries relative to the belt reel 14 and between the first torsion bar 26 and the blocking device 41, best depicted in figure 3 and in page 3, paragraph 35, lines 14-20.
Jabusch fails to disclose wherein the first torsion bar 26 has a second end extending beyond the receptacle of the belt reel. However, Jabusch does provide a torsion bar 37 which has one end connected to a belt reel 14, which corresponds to a receptacle, and another end extending beyond the belt reel 14, best depicted in figure 3 and in page 3, paragraph 35, lines 14-20. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have disposed the first torsion bar within a receptacle while the other end extends beyond it, to provide a means for distributing a load between two rotating elements.
Jabusch further fails to discloses wherein a first end of the second torsion bar and the second end of the first torsion bar are connected outside of the receptacle. However, Gentner teaches a first end of the second torsion rod such that the second end of the first torsion rod is connected to the first end of the second torsion rod outside the receptacle of the belt reel in the axial direction (Fig. 6 depicting first 40 and second 42 portion of the force limiting element 22 being connected outside the bypass sleeve 44 which corresponds to the receptacle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the two corresponding ends of the first and second torsion bar outside of the receptacle so that when the torsion bars are taken to failure, the connecting features may deform outside of the receptacle so as to prevent further harm to the inner assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Jabusch discloses wherein the torsion bars 26, 36, and 37 are between belt reel 14 and blocking device 41 while remaining in series (Figure 3, Elements 14, 26, 36, 37, and 41).
Regarding claim 3, Jabusch discloses wherein the blocking device 41 and the belt reel 14 are spaced an axial distance from each other, and it is understood that both elements rotate on separate bearings, or bearing surfaces, due to them being separate individual components (Figure 3, elements 14 and 41).
Regarding claim 6, Jabusch discloses wherein the torsion bars 26, 36, and 37 have different force limiting levels based off of physical properties (Page 2, Paragraph 20, Lines 1-8).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jabusch (US 2020/0047711 A1), in view of Gentner (US 2008/0093495 A1), and in further view of Maekubo (US 2011/0303780 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Jabusch discloses wherein a tubular extension 38, corresponding to a torque tube, being rotationally fixed to belt reel 14, wherein the tubular extension 38 connects torsion bars 26, 36, and 37 to each other in a rotationally fixed manner (Page 3, Paragraph 35, Lines 14-20 and Figure 3, elements 26, 36, 37, and 38). Jabusch fails to disclose a switchable second blocking device. However, Maekubo teaches a switchable second lock mechanism 62, corresponding to a switchable second blocking device (Page 5, Paragraph 46, Lines 6-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maekubo’s teaching of a belt retractor with a switchable second lock with Jabusch disclosure of a tubular extension connected to the torsion bars and belt real, to provide an additional means for blocking rotation to improve safety of use during a dynamic event.
Regarding claim 8, Jabusch discloses wherein a tubular extension 38, corresponding to an axially projecting protrusion, is provided on the belt reel 14, as well as having one or more openings or projections (Page 3, Paragraph 33, Lines 9-11 and Paragraph 35, Lines 14-20). Jabusch fails to disclose a switchable second blocking device. However, Maekubo teaches a switchable second lock mechanism 62, corresponding to a switchable second blocking device (Page 5, Paragraph 46, Lines 6-12). Rationales to have modified/combined Jabusch and Maekubo are above and are reincorporated.
Regarding claim 9, Jabusch discloses wherein the tubular extension 38 is in tube shape or form, corresponding to an annular shape.
Jabusch discloses the claimed invention except that the torque tube projects inwardly into the annular protrusion or vice versa. However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the torque tube and annular protrusion integral or unitary, rather than from separate components, as it has been held that where the sub-components are used in the same way, constructing formerly separate structures as a one-piece construction is a matter of obvious engineering choice and involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04, subsection V, paragraph B & In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 10, Jabusch discloses the tubular extension 38 being provided on the blocking device 41, corresponding to the profile head (Figure 3, elements 28 and 41). Jabusch discloses the claimed invention except that the torque tube projects inwardly into the annular protrusion or vice versa, but rather made the two elements integral or unitary. Rationales to have modified Jabusch are above and are reincorporated.
Regarding claim 11, Jabusch discloses a belt reel 14, but fails to discloses the specific properties. However, Maekubo teaches a spool 12, corresponding to a belt reel, being formed in a cylindrical shape and being die-casted or formed in a solid shape (Page 2, Paragraph 25, Lines 3-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maekubo’s teaching of a spool being formed in a solid cylindrical shape with Jabusch’s belt reel to provide a sturdier belt reel with strong mechanical properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 is allowable because it includes the limitation of a belt retractor comprising a torque tube that is both selectively fixed in relation to an annular protrusion extending from the belt reel in a rotationally fixed manner and separable via a switchable second blocking device, in combination with the other elements recited in claim 12.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the device as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the device in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights