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 February 2nd, 2026 have been entered. Claim 21 has been added and claim 6 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed February 2nd, 2026, with respect to claim 1 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 103 rejection of October 31st, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, regarding the Double Patenting rejection, filed February 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is merely stated, on page 7 of the argument, that the Applicant does not concede that claims 1-7, 9, 11-14, and 16-17 are unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-15 of US 12,344,188. No further elaboration is provided.
Furthermore, regarding the double patenting rejection, the addition of “movable relative to the ring between an unlocked position and a locked position” (as amended on August, 14th, 2025) is not sufficient to overcome the rejection. It should be noted that amended phrase does not bring any substance to the claims. Rather, it is merely a restated version of the following limitation of the locking device being “operatively coupled between the spool and the ring to rotationally engage the spool with the ring in the locked position”. The phraseology of being “movable between” and being “operatively coupled between” is of similar meaning. It is understood that when an element is “operatively coupled” it is to be attached in a way that allows the element to also move, hence defining an operative state. Refer to the table below comparing the claims of the presented U.S. Application No. 18/463,345 and U.S. Patent No. 12,344,188.
U.S. Application No. 18/463,345
U.S. Patent No. 12,344,188
1. A seatbelt retractor comprising:
a frame;
a spool rotatably supported by the frame and having a rotational axis;
a ring coaxial with the spool on the rotational axis and selectively lockable with the spool; and
a locking device movable relative to the ring between an unlocked position and a locked position, the locking device being operatively coupled between the spool and the ring to rotationally engage the spool with the ring in the locked position and rotationally disengage the spool from the ring in the unlocked position; and
a tab between the ring and the frame, the tab being an elastomer;
one of the ring or the frame defining a recess and the tab being fixed to and extending from the other of the ring or the frame into the recess;
when the locking device is in the locked position, the tab is elastically deformable relative to the ring and the frame when rotational force on the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis exceeds a non-zero threshold to allow rotation of the ring relative to the frame; and
when the locking device is in the locked position, the tab locks the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis when rotational force on the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis is below the non-zero threshold.
1. A seatbelt retractor comprising:
a frame;
a spool rotatably supported by the frame and having a rotational axis;
a ring coaxial with the spool on the rotational axis and selectively lockable with the spool; and
a locking device operatively coupled between the spool and the ring to rotationally engage the spool with the ring in a locked position and rotationally disengage the spool from the ring in an unlocked position; and
an arm extending between the ring and the frame;
one of the ring or the frame defining a recess and the arm being fixed to and extending from the other of the ring or the frame into the recess;
when the locking device is in the locked position, the arm is elastically bendable relative to the ring and the frame when rotational force on the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis exceeds a non-zero threshold to allow rotation of the ring relative to the frame; and
when the locking device is in the locked position, the arm locks the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis when rotational force on the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis is below the non-zero threshold.
2. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 1, wherein the tab extends radially from the ring to the frame.
2. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 1, wherein the arm extends radially from the ring to the frame.
3. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 1, wherein:
the ring includes an inner surface extending annularly around the rotational axis and an outer surface extending annularly about the inner surface;
the locking device engages the inner surface in the locked position; and the tab extends radially from the outer surface to the frame.
3. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 1, wherein:
the ring includes an inner surface extending annularly around the rotational axis and an outer surface extending annularly about the inner surface;
the locking device engages the inner surface; and the arm extends radially from the outer surface to the frame.
4. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 3, wherein the inner surface includes teeth and the locking device includes teeth, the teeth of the locking device being engaged with the teeth of the inner surface in the locked position and disengaged with the teeth of the inner surface in the unlocked position.
4. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 3, wherein the inner surface includes teeth and the locking device includes teeth, the teeth of the locking device being engaged with the teeth of the inner surface in the locked position and disengaged with the teeth of the inner surface in the unlocked position.
5. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 4, wherein the frame includes a second ring extending annularly about the ring, one of the ring or the second ring defining the recess and the tab being fixed to and extending from the other of the ring or the second ring into the recess.
5. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 4, wherein the frame includes a second ring extending annularly about the ring, one of the ring or the second ring defining the recess and the arm being fixed to and extending from the other of the ring or the second ring into the recess.
7. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 1, wherein the locking device directly engages the ring in the locked position.
7. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 1, wherein the locking device directly engages the ring in the locked position.
9. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 1, wherein the frame includes a second ring coaxial with the spool on the rotational axis, one of the ring or the second ring defining the recess and the tab being fixed to and extending from the other of the ring or the second ring into the recess.
9. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 1, wherein the frame includes a second ring coaxial with the spool on the rotational axis, one of the ring or the second ring defining the recess and the arm being fixed to and extending from the other of the ring or the second ring into the recess.
11. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 1, further comprising
a plurality of tabs, including the tab, between the ring and the frame, the tabs being spaced circumferentially about the ring;
one of the ring or the frame defining a plurality of recesses and the tabs being fixed to and extending from the other of the ring or the frame into the recesses;
when the locking device is in the locked position, the tabs are elastically deformable relative to the ring and the frame when rotational force on the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis exceeds the non-zero threshold to allow rotation of the ring relative to the frame; and
when the locking device is in the locked position, the tabs lock the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis when rotational force on the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis is below the non-zero threshold.
10. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 1, further comprising
a plurality of arms, including the arm, between the ring and the frame, the arms being spaced circumferentially about the ring;
one of the ring or the frame defining a plurality of recesses and the arms being fixed to and extending from the other of the ring or the frame into the recesses;
when the locking device is in the locked position, the arms are elastically bendable relative to the ring and the frame when rotational force on the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis exceeds a non-zero threshold to allow rotation of the ring relative to the frame; and
when the locking device is in the locked position, the arms lock the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis when rotational force on the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis is below the non-zero threshold.
12. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 11, wherein the tabs are spaced equidistantly annularly about the ring.
11. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 10, wherein the arms are spaced equidistantly annularly about the ring.
13. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 11, wherein the recesses and tabs are positioned so that the tabs are simultaneously received in respective recesses.
12. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 10, wherein the recesses and arms are positioned so that the arms are simultaneously received in respective recesses.
14. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 11, wherein each of the tabs have a common size and shape and each of the recesses have a common size and shape.
14. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 10, wherein each of the arms have a common size and shape and each of the recesses have a common size and shape.
16. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 14, wherein the frame includes a second ring extending annularly about the outer surface of the ring, one of the ring or the second ring defining the recesses and the tabs being fixed to and extending from the other of the ring or the second ring into the recess.
15. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 14, wherein the frame includes a second ring extending annularly about the outer surface of the ring, one of the ring or the second ring defining the recesses and the arms being fixed to and extending from the other of the ring or the second ring into the recesses.
17. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 14, wherein the locking device is a centrifugal clutch.
6. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 3, wherein the locking device is a centrifugal clutch.
19. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 1, wherein friction between the tab and the one of the ring or the tab resists rotation of the ring relative to the frame.
18. The seatbelt retractor as set forth in claim 1, wherein when the locking device is in the locked position and a rotational force on the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis exceeds the non-zero threshold, the arm disengages the recess and exerts a frictional force on the ring to resist rotation of the spool with respect to the frame.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19, rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,344,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the instant application and US Patent 12,344,188 are merely rephrasing from the patent claims and do not constitute a patentably distinct scope difference. For example, reciting “tab” in the instant application vs. “arm” in the patent indicates a protruding portion extending from a side. Further, the phraseology of being “movable between” and being “operatively coupled between” is of similar meaning. It is understood that when an element is “operatively coupled” it is to be attached in a way that allows the element to also move, hence defining an operative state.
Furthermore, the claims by stating that the tab is "an elastomer", however, it is known within the art that an elastomer may include any material such as plastics and the like which is similarly disclosed in US 12,344,188 as the arms are elastically deformable. With this understanding, this addition is not sufficient to consider withdrawal of the double patenting rejection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tab made of an elastomer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Such an element provides many advantages for deformability such as retaining its original form and having a high deformation threshold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-21 are allowed.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for double patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8, 10, 15, and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 1, is allowable because it includes the limitation of a seatbelt retractor comprising a locking device movable relative to the ring between an unlocked position and a locked position, the locking device being operatively coupled between the spool and the ring to rotationally engage the spool with the ring in the locked position and rotationally disengage the spool from the ring in the unlocked position, and further comprising a tab between the ring and the frame and more specifically when the locking device is in the locked position, the tab locks the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis when rotational force on the ring relative to the frame about the rotational axis is below the non-zero threshold, in combination with the other elements cited in claim 1. It should be noted that prior art references such as Kajiyama (US 2001/0006204 A1), (US 2008/0252060 A1), and Feng (WO 2018/183600 A1) disclose or teach in the claimed invention as well as the seatbelt real having a frame, spool, ring, locking device, and a deformable tab with its corresponding recess. However, such references fail to describe the allowable limitation above. It should be further added that the limitation of the locking device, ring, and tab working in conjunction to engage and disengage the spool from the ring in an a locked and unlocked position would not be obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate as such a limitation is unique to the field as the limitation is not presented in the prior art references. Dependent claims 2-5, and 7-19 have also been allowed for depending directly and/or indirectly to independent claim 1.
Similarly, independent claim 20, along with dependent claim 21, is allowable for the same reason as claim 1 and its dependent claims. However, claim 20 is not rejected for double patenting as it comprises the limitation of the tab is elastically deformable relative to the ring to disengage the recess and allow rotation of the ring relative to the frame, friction between the tab and the one of the ring or the tab resists rotation of the ring relative to the frame during rotation of the ring relative to the frame, and the tab is elastically returnable into the recess after rotation of the ring relative to the frame. While US Patent 12,344,188 provides an elastic arm, which corresponds to an elastically deformable tab, it fails to disclose the action of being returnable into a recess after rotation of the ring.
None of the cited references of the prior art disclose, 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
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
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654