DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 26 April 2024 and 23 July 2024 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because they do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 8, the space between “seat” and the comma should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 9, and 10 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.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Similarly for claims 9 and 10.
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, 4-7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilhelm et al. (US 8 419 127).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Wilhelm discloses a seat and belt system, the belt system comprising:
a belt element (6);
a reel and unreel mechanism (col 4, lines 5-10) for reeling/unreeling the belt; and
a deflection unit with a deflection element (9) to deflect the belt in a direction of a person (e.g. Figs 1 and 4),
wherein the deflection unit has a spacer element (11, 21, or 36) arranged on the seat (e.g. Fig 1), the deflection element arranged on the spacer to space the element from the seat (e.g. Fig 1), and the spacer is elastically deformable (made of elastically deformable materials; col 4, lines 20-25; col 5, line 67 – col 6, line 12; col 6, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Wilhelm discloses the spacer has a layered design with at least two layers (e.g. col 4, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Wilhelm discloses the spacer deformed elastically up to a critical angle and plastically (i.e. permanently deformed) after a critical angle (this is an inherent material property of the materials used, e.g. steel).
Regarding claim 5:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Wilhelm discloses an elongated spacer connected to the seat and deflection element at respective ends (e.g. Figs 1, 4, etc.).
Regarding claim 6:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Wilhelm discloses the spacer arranged to be rotatable relative to the seat (e.g. Fig 6).
Regarding claim 7:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
As best understood, Wilhelm discloses the spacer made of a metal (e.g. spring steel, claim 8).
Regarding claims 9 and 10:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
As best understood, Wilhelm discloses the spacer connected to the backrest of the seat (e.g. Figs 1 and 4) and the reel/unreel mechanism arranged behind the backrest (Fig 2; col 4, lines 5-10).
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Wilhelm discloses a guide element (8) between the reel/unreel mechanism and deflection element and between the seat and spacer element (Fig 2).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Viano et al. (US 5 823 627).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Viano discloses a seat and belt system, the belt system comprising:
a belt element (26);
a reel and unreel mechanism (24) for reeling/unreeling the belt; and
a deflection unit with a deflection element (40) to deflect the belt in a direction of a person (e.g. Fig 2),
wherein the deflection unit has a spacer element (36) arranged on the seat (e.g. Fig 2), the deflection element arranged on the spacer to space the element from the seat (e.g. Fig 2), and the spacer is elastically deformable (col 5, lines 14-19).
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Viano discloses the spacer deformed elastically up to a critical angle and plastically (i.e. permanently deformed) after a critical angle (this is an inherent material property of the materials used, e.g. steel).
Regarding claim 5:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Viano discloses an elongated spacer connected to the seat and deflection element at respective ends (e.g. Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
As best understood, Viano discloses the spacer made of a metal (col 5, lines 29-31).
Regarding claims 9 and 10:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
As best understood, Viano discloses the spacer connected to the backrest of the seat and the reel/unreel mechanism arranged behind the backrest (Fig 2).
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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm et al. (‘127) or Viano et al. (‘627) in view of Wier (US 5 961 147).
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Wilhelm discloses the spacer formed of a strip of spring steel, and Viano discloses a leaf spring, but neither explicitly discloses a multi-layer leaf spring.
Wier teaches a belt support comprising single or multi-layer leaf spring to provide the bending resistance desired (col 2, lines 40-49).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Wilhelm or Viano to use multi-layer leaf springs as taught by Wier for the predictable advantage of increasing the resistance (by providing more spring layers) to prevent damage or failure in during high-force loading (e.g. crashes).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm et al. (‘127) in view of Le Coquil (FR 2 920 361).
Wilhelm discloses a spacer connected to a deflection element, but does not disclose a rotatable connection.
Le Coquil teaches deflection units having integrated (Fig 1) or rotatably connected (Fig 4) spacers and deflection units.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Wilhelm to use a rotatable connection as taught by Le Coquil for the predictable advantage of reducing stress on the spacer and connection in the transverse direction, and as the use of rotatable or integral components is recognized by the art as functionally equivalent means for providing the deflection unit.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm et al. (‘127).
The discussion above regarding claim 11 is relied upon.
Wilhelm discloses guides, which appear at the base of the spacer (as seen in Fig 2), but does not disclose the guide on the spacer.
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Wilhelm to use a guide on the spacer for the predictable advantage of preventing the belt from twisting before being deflected, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
The guide would be arranged on the side facing away from the seat since the belt is on the far side of the spacer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619