DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Applicant’s Remarks Filed 12/8/25
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8-22 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8-22 have been examined.
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 21 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.
Claim 5 has been amended to remove the dependency on claim 4, but no claim dependency has been provided in its place.
Claim 21 depends from cancelled claim 4.
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(s) 1, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhaini (US 10427563) in view of Suminaka et al. (CN 104334419) (“Suminaka”) (machine translation attached). Dhaini teaches a seat including a seat bottom (fig. 1: 7) having a seat bottom frame (fig. 2: 40, 42) and a seatback having a seatback frame (fig. 2: 80, 82) pivotably supported by the seat bottom frame (@ 52); a spool (Col. 5, lines 16-20) rotatably mounted to the seat; and a strap (fig. 2: 92) retractably extendable from the spool and fixed to the seatback frame (fig. 2); and a locking mechanism movable into engagement with the spool to prevent rotation of the spool (Col. 5, lines 16-28).
Dhaini does not expressly teach wherein the spool is rotationally biased by a torsion spring and movement of the locking device out of engagement with the spool allows rotation of the spool by the torsion spring. However, Suminaka teaches a known seat belt retractor locking mechanism wherein the spool is rotationally biased with a torsion spring (fig. 9: 105) to allow for rewinding when the locking mechanism (fig. 4: 23) is not engaged (it is noted the pretension unit 7 is separate from the locking mechanism unit 9/10 of fig. 12, paragraphs 0061, 0067 and 0194). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a torsion spring and the locking mechanism of Suminaka in order to provide the desired tautness and locking of the belt.
As concerns claim 5, Dhaini, as modified, teaches wherein the locking mechanism includes an extendable pin (Suminaka, fig. 12: 23) positioned to engage the spool when extended and an actuator moves the pin relative to the spool (paragraph 0071: acceleration sensor 51 actuates 23 into the spool).
As concerns claim 6, Dhaini, as modified, teaches wherein the spool includes a pair of flanges (Suminaka, fig. 12: 35) and wherein at least one of the flanges includes multiple apertures positioned to receive the pin (each of the flanges of 35 provided apertures therebetween for engagement of pin/pawl 23).
As concerns claim 8, Dhaini, as modified, teaches an accelerometer and sensor mechanism determining a swaying or tilting over a predetermined threshold acceleration value, but does not expressly teach one or more processors and one or more memory devices storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to activate the actuator in response to certain vehicle impacts in order to lock the spool and resist forward movement of the seatback relative to the seat bottom. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a processor and memory device storing the instructions for actuation in order to provide an automated/more automated response to accident type forces for actuation of the locking mechanism.
As concerns claim 14, Dhaini, as modified, teaches a housing secured to the seat bottom frame (shown in fig. 2: 90) and wherein the spool is rotatably coupled to the housing with an axle (this is inherently present in order for the spool/belt to rotate within the fixed housing).
As concerns claim 15, Dhaini, as modified, teaches a locking mechanism having an extendable pin to engage the spool (Suminaka, fig. 12: 23).
As concerns claim 19, Dhaini, as modified, teaches wherein the strap is fabric (it is a conventionally known fabric seat belt).
As concerns claim 20, Dhaini, as modified, does not expressly teach a seatbelt assembly supported by the seat, however, seat belt assemblies are considered old and well known in the art and would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include on the seat in order to provide additional safety to the occupant.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhaini, as modified, and further in view of Gray et al. (US 11220236) (“Gray”). Dhaini, as modified, does not teach wherein the actuator is a solenoid device. However, solenoid actuators are known in combination with sensors to actuator belt locking elements (Gray, Col. 1, lines 64-66). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a solenoid actuator in place of/along with the sensor mechanism of Suminaka in order to provide the desired size or weight mechanism.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10-13 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art references of Dhaini, Suminaka and Gray fail to teach
wherein the spool is mounted to the seat bottom frame cross-vehicle between a left and a right bolster of the seatback;
wherein the actuator is a pyrotechnic device (the pyrotechnic device portion [87/89] of Suminaka which locks the belt spool of Suminaka does not allow disengagement with the spool for rotation by the torsion spring);
a transverse member attached to an upper portion of the seatback frame, and wherein the strap is secured to the transverse member;
or wherein the seatback pivots with respect to the seat bottom about a pivot axis and the spool is positioned seat rearward of the pivot axis.
Further, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art absent hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection uses the combination of Dhaini and Suminaka, as necessitated by amendment. Applicant’s arguments do not address the Suminaka reference used to teach the locking mechanism and torsion spring previously presented. It is noted that the Suminaka reference teaches both a pretensioner device which uses a gas/pyrotechnic element to rewind the spool (which cannot be engaged/disengaged) and a separate locking mechanism coupled to a sensor mechanism which moves element 23 into and out of contact with the spool to allow locking/unlocking of the belt device with the torsion spring 105 acting on the spool in the unlocked position. It would have been obvious to use the locking mechanism of Suminaka with that Dhaini in order to lock/unlock the strap as well as maintain its tautness.
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 TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636