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 .
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 is indefinite in that it is unclear how the lever is a “type 1 lever”. Clarification and correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walton et al (‘239). The reference to Walton et al teaches structure as claimed including an adjuster configured to secure and release a belt, wherein the belt adjuster includes a frame (12), a belt bar (52) moveable relative to the frame to secure and release the belt, and a lever (68) coupled to the belt bar (see column 3, lines 4 - column 4, line 2 and figures 3, 4), wherein the lever is configured to actuate the belt bar via a pivoting motion (see column 4, lines 37-45 and figure 5: a slack may be introduced into a restraint system by means of exerting pressure upon the pivoting release lever (68) causing it to rotate in a counterclockwise direction), the belt is looped around the belt bar; wherein the frame defines a window; wherein the belt extends through the window in the frame; wherein the belt is secured when the belt is compressed between the belt bar and the frame; and wherein the belt is released when the belt bar and the frame are spaced apart to form a gap where the belt is able to slide, (see column 3, lines 16-21, column 4, lines 14-16 and figures 3, 5: an adjustable belt (88) extends around the load bar (52) and through a belt slot (70), and a base member (18) of the frame (12) has a punched out opening (26)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17, 18-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton et al (‘239). The reference to Walton et al teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including a lever, the only difference being the lever does not actuate a bar to release a belt and does not include a cover. However, the provision of such to provide a mechanical advantage/assist and the use of cover structures to provide protection would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result.
Claim(s) 3-16, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton et al(‘239) in view of Ashline et al (‘341). The reference to Walton et al teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including a lever the only difference being that the lever does not include a trigger where the lever is actuated to engage the bar. However, the reference to Ashline et al (see column 3, lines 35-44 and figure 3: the pivot release lever (68) extends from a proximal end (56) of the load bar (52) via two side flanges (66), and pins (54) extend from the proximal end (56)); and D2 (see column 2, lines 47-57 and figures 1, 2: a clamp initiating mechanism (60) includes a body (62) having a manually operable lever (64) and a cam surface (63) which when rotated clockwise engages a forward bar (42) urging a yoke (40) rearward, cinching or capturing a webbing (90) between a rear bar (48) and a clamping surface (30)) teaches the use of providing such to provide an actuator to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Walton et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a trigger, as taught by Ashline et al since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed. Further, the provision of widows to provide for accessibility would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited teach structure similar to applicant’s including belt adjuster structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571 270 3742. 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.
/JOSE V CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637