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 August 27th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2, and 15 have been amended, claims 4, 6, and 19 have been canceled. The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection to the claims filed on May 28th, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 27th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding amended claim 1, that the torsion bars 11 and 12 and the band 23, of Axblom, do not act on the belt shaft 2 at the same time as suggested. The examiner does agree that the torsion bars and band of Axblom do not act at the same time. However, the examiner emphasizes that nowhere in the applicant’s invention does it also disclose the torsion bars and bands acting simultaneously. Rather, the applicant discloses only the bands work simultaneously as stated in the applicant’s specification in ¶¶7, 42, and 45. The amended claim 1 now further states, “the seatbelt retractor having a high energy absorption ("EA") load level in which the torsion bar and the first and second bands deform plastically to absorb energy in the seat belt webbing” and further state, “and a low EA load level in which the torsion bar alone deforms in which the torsion bar alone deforms plastically”. Both these additions do not suggest or mention a simultaneous deformation of both the torsion bars and the bands.
The applicant further argues, regarding amended claim 1, that the belt shaft 2, of Axblom, only rotates relative to the profiled head 3 when the gas generator 9 of the decoupling device 5 is ignited. The examiner respectfully disagrees that the belt shaft rotates only after ignition of the gas generator. Axblom clearly states in ¶66 “If a maximum force-limited belt webbing extension is now achieved, the belt shaft 2 can be uncoupled from the profiled head 3. For this purpose, the drive element 9 of the decoupling device 5 is ignited”. The examiner emphasizes that the previous paragraph of Axblom clearly states the final stage of force-limiting which is considered to be where the maximum force is outputted (see ¶65 of Axblom). It is ONLY when all measures of force limiting are exhausted that the ignition phase occurs. With this understanding, the switch form high EA load level to low EA load level does not depend on the use of pyrotechnics.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3, filed August 27, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 5 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shiotani (US 7,152,824 B2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Axblom (US 2021/0276510 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Axblom discloses a seatbelt retractor for a vehicle seatbelt webbing, comprising:
a frame (Fig. 1, Housing Frame 1);
a spool rotatably mounted to the frame (Fig. 1, Belt Shaft 2) and on which the seatbelt webbing is wound (Pg. 6, Claim 9); and
first and second bands disposed in the spool symmetrically about an axis of the spool (Figs. 19-20, Band 23), the first and second bands being configured to plastically deform to at least partially absorb a load on the seatbelt webbing (Pg. 5, ¶69).
Regarding claim 2, Axblom discloses further comprising:
a locking disk rotatable relative to the frame, the locking disk being prevented from rotating relative to the frame in an emergency state of a vehicle, first end portions of the first and second bands being connected to the locking disk (Pg. 4-5, ¶¶68-69, inner disk element 27a-b being a part of the second force-limiting device 22 along with the bands 23);
a torsion bar having a first end rotationally fixed to the spool and a second end rotationally fixed to the locking disk (Figs. 21-22, Torsion bar 25), plastic deformation of the torsion bar permitting the spool to rotate about an axis relative to the locking disk in the emergency state (Pg. 4, ¶67), second end portions of the first and second bands being connected to the spool such that rotation of the spool relative to the locking disk plastically deforms the first and second bands (Pg. 5, ¶69); and
wherein the seatbelt retractor has a high energy absorption ("EA") load level in which the torsion bar and the first and second bands deform plastically to absorb energy in the seat belt webbing (Pg. 5, ¶69), and a low EA load level in which the torsion bar alone deforms plastically to absorb the energy in the seatbelt webbing, a switch from the high EA load level to the low EA load level does not depend on the use of pyrotechnics (Pg. 3, ¶31).
Regarding claim 3, Axblom discloses wherein in a normal state of the vehicle, rotation of the spool effects rotation of the locking disk via the torsion bar (Pg. 4, ¶67).
Regarding claim 7, Axblom discloses further comprising a fixing disk rotationally fixed to the locking disk and the first end portions of the first and second bands such that the first end portions of the first and second bands are connected to the locking disk via the fixing disk (Figs. 18-20, Profile head 3 having disk like features).
Regarding claim 8, Axblom discloses wherein the fixing disk includes a hub and a flange radially extending from the hub, the first end portions of the first and second bands being fixed to the hub, rotation of the spool relative to the locking disk urging the first and second bands to deform plastically and wind about the hub (the profile head 3 having a sort of hub extending outward in Fig. 18 and having a flange in Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 9, Axblom discloses wherein the hub and flange are integrally formed in one piece such that the fixing disk is a one-piece construction (Figs. 18-21, Profile head 3 being unitary).
Regarding claim 11, Axblom discloses wherein the first end portions of the first and second bands each extend from an interior of the hub toward an outer periphery of the hub, each of the first and second bands including a middle portion extending between the first and second end portions, each middle portion having a first segment extending from a corresponding first end portion circumferentially around an outer periphery of the hub, a U-turn segment extending from the first segment and a second segment extending from the U-turn segment to a corresponding second end portion (seen band 23 in Figs. 19-20).
Regarding claim 16, Axblom discloses wherein an inner periphery of the spool includes two radially extending projections, the second end portions of the first and second bands abutting the projections, rotation of the spool relative to the locking disk urging the second end portions of the first and second bands to rotate relative to the first end portions via the projections (Fig. 17 best depicts the belt shaft 2 having radial projections which are connected the profile head 3).
Regarding claim 17, Axblom discloses further comprising a fixing disk rotationally fixed to the locking disk and the first end portions of the first and second bands such that the first end portions of the first and second bands are connected to the locking disk via the fixing disk (Figs. 18-20, Profile head 3), the fixing disk including a hub and a flange radially extending from the hub, the first end portions of the first and second bands being fixed to the hub, a cavity in which the first and second bands at least partially extend being defined between the hub, the flange and the spool (the profile head 3 having a sort of hub with a cavity extending outward in Fig. 18 and having a flange in Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 18, Axblom discloses further comprising a pretensioner having a turbine wheel rotationally fixed to the locking disk (Fig. 21 showing profile head 3 having a turbine wheel), actuation of the pretensioner rotating the spool in a webbing retraction direction via the turbine wheel, the locking disk and the torsion bar (Pg. 4, ¶67).
Regarding claim 20, Axblom discloses wherein the spool includes a first cylinder portion on which the seatbelt webbing is wound and a second cylinder portion that has a larger diameter than the first cylinder portion (Fig. 8, Belt shaft 2), the first and second bands being in the second cylinder portion (Fig. 8, Transfer tube 20).
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.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axblom (US 2021/0276510 A1), in view of Shiotani (US 7,152,824 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Axblom discloses wherein after the spool rotates a predetermined degree relative to the locking disk (Pg. 3, ¶31), but fails to disclose the bands disengaging from the spool. However, Shiotani teaches the second end portions of the first and second bands simultaneously disengage from the spool, such disengagement switching the seatbelt retractor from the high EA load level to the low EA load level (Col. 17, Ln. 47-54). 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 incorporated the bands disengaging from the spool to provide a means for ensuring the bands remain intact to so that no debris effect the seat belt retractor.
Claims 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axblom (US 2021/0276510 A1), in view of Singer (WO 2014/154671 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Axblom fails to disclose the hub and flange being separate. However, Singer teaches wherein the hub and flange are separate from one another such that the fixing disk is a two-piece construction, projections of the hub received in recesses of the flange to rotationally fix the flange to the hub (Figs. 2, Clamping ring 6 & Second part 10). 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 incorporated a separate hub and flange to the fixing disk to provide a means for ease of repair or maintenance so that when an element fails there would be no need of replacing the assembly as a whole.
Regarding claim 12, Axblom fails to disclose an insert fixed to the spool. However, Singer teaches further comprising an insert received in and rotationally fixed to the spool (Figs. 3-4, First part 9), the second end portions of the first and second bands each abutting an inner shoulder of the insert, rotation of the insert relative to the locking disk urging the second end portions of the first and second bands to rotate relative to the first end portions via the inner shoulders (Figs, 3-4 & Pg. 7, ¶31). 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 incorporated an insert where the bands are abutted to provide a means for allowing the bands to rotate freely with the spool.
Regarding claim 13, Axblom discloses wherein the fixing disk includes a hub and a flange radially extending from the hub (depicted in Fig. 2), the first end portions of the first and second bands being fixed to the hub, a cavity in which the first and second bands at least partially extend being defined between the hub, the flange and the insert (the profile head 3 having a sort of hub extending outward in Fig. 18 and having a flange in Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 14, Axblom fails to disclose the hub extending into the spool. However, Singer teaches wherein at least a portion of the hub extends into the spool such that the first end portions of the first and second bands are connected to the hub in the spool, the flange being external to the spool and having an axial surface adjacent to and/or abutting at least one of an outer axial surface of the insert and an outer axial surface of the spool (Fig.3-4 depicting the First part 9 extending into the spool). 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 incorporated a hub that extends into the spool so that the connection between the bands and the spool may be secure.
Regarding claim 15, Axblom fails to disclose the hub and flange being separate. However, Singer teaches further comprising an insert received in and rotationally fixed to the spool, the second end portions of the first and second bands each abutting an inner shoulder of the insert, rotation of the insert relative to the locking disk urging the second end portions of the first and second bands to rotate relative to the first end portions via the inner shoulders (Pg. 6, ¶27, Recesses 24 & 25). 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 incorporated an insert where the bands are abutted to provide a means for allowing the bands to rotate freely with the spool.
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, Anna M. Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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
/ANNA M MOMPER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights