DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 05/24/2024, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 05/24/2024.
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims priority to provisional application 63/504,678, filed on 05/26/2023. The priority is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 16, line 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the seat belt web” should read, “a seat belt web”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18, lines 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the seat belt web from the web retractor at or above the preset rate of acceleration” should read, “a seat belt web from the seat belt web retractor at or above a preset rate of acceleration”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21, line 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the web retractor” should read, “the seat belt web retractor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21, line 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a fist direction” should read, “a first direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8, 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick (US 5,660,346) in view of Suminaka (US 2015/0224959).
Regarding claim 1, Dick discloses a seat belt web retractor {10}, comprising: a spool shaft {170 (172, 174)} configured to receive a seat belt web {16}; and a web locking mechanism {270} operably coupled to the spool shaft {170}, wherein the web locking mechanism {270} includes a first clamping member {278} and a second clamping member {280}, and wherein the first clamping member {278} is configured to move toward the second clamping member {280 (Figs. 5-8)}, clamping the seat belt web {16} therebetween {“a belt webbing clamp mechanism which is actuatable, in the event of a vehicle emergency, to block withdrawal of belt webbing from the retractor” (Col. 1, lines 18-20)}, in response to a vehicle deceleration at or above a preset rate {“In the event of a vehicle emergency situation such as vehicle deceleration above a predetermined deceleration” (Col. 8, lines 22-23)}.
However, Dick does not explicitly disclose clamping the seat belt web in response to rotational acceleration of the spool shaft at or above a preset rate caused by extraction of the seat belt web from the seat belt web retractor (emphasis added).
Suminaka teaches locking the drawing-out of a seatbelt webbing in response to: a) an acceleration of the vehicle, or b) rotational acceleration of a spool shaft {10: “winding drum 10” [0068]} at or above a preset rate caused by extraction of the seat belt web {2: “webbing 2” [0068]} from the seat belt web retractor {1: “retractor 1” [0066]; “the retractor detects an acceleration of the vehicle or an acceleration of drawing-out of the webbing and a locking mechanism stops rotation of the winding drum in a drawing-out direction” [0004]; “In response to the sudden drawing-out of the webbing 2 or the sudden speed change of the vehicle, the locking mechanism 9 is operated. The locking mechanism 9 stops the rotation of the winding drum 10 in the drawing-out direction "P" to stop the drawing-out of the webbing 2” [0068]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seat belt web retractor, as disclosed by Dick, such that web clamping mechanism clamps the seat belt web in response to rotational acceleration of the spool shaft at or above a preset rate caused by extraction of the seat belt web from the seat belt web retractor, as taught by Suminaka, so that “when the vehicle encounters an emergency (e.g., at the time of crash)… the drawing-out of the webbing is stopped and thus the occupant is restrained” [0004].
Regarding claim 2, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Dick further discloses the web locking mechanism {270} further includes a clamp housing {272} having a lower wall {274} and an upper wall {276} defining a cavity {294} therebetween {Figs. 3 and 5-8}, the lower wall {274} is positioned at a non-zero angle relative to the upper wall {276 (Figs. 3 and 5-8): “A planar second sliding surface 276 is presented toward, but at an angle to, the first sliding surface 274” (Col. 6, lines 27-29)}, the first clamping member {278} includes a first sliding surface {284} positioned against the lower wall {274: “The first clamp member 278 has a planar sliding surface 284 in abutting engagement with the first sliding surface 274 on the clamp housing 272” (Col. 6, lines 35-37)}, the second clamping member {280} includes a second sliding surface {288} positioned against the upper wall {276: “The second clamp member 280 has a planar sliding surface 288 in abutting engagement with the second sliding surface 276 on the clamp housing 272” (Col. 6, lines 41-44)}, and the first sliding surface {284} is configured to slide against the lower wall {274} and the second sliding surface {288} is configured to slide against the upper wall {276: “The clamp members 278 and 280 are connected in a known manner for providing simultaneous sliding movement of the clamp members relative to the housing 272. Thus, the clamp members 278 and 280 move in a direction toward or away from each other while they simultaneously slide (upward or downward as viewed in FIG. 5) relative to the housing 272” (Col. 6, lines 55-62)} in response to the rotational acceleration of the spool shaft {170 (172, 174)} at or above the preset rate {as modified by Suminaka in the claim 1 rejection}.
Regarding claim 3, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 2. Dick further discloses the first clamping member {278} further includes a first clamping surface {286} opposite the first sliding surface {284}, the first clamping surface {286} configured to press against a first side {left side (Figs. 5-8)} of the seat belt web {16}, the second clamping member {280} further includes a second clamping surface {290} opposite the second sliding surface {288}, the second clamping surface {290} configured to press against a second side {right side (Figs. 5-8)} of the seat belt web {16} opposite the first side {left side (Figs. 5-8)}, and at least one of (i) the first sliding surface {284} is positioned at a non-zero angle relative to the first clamping surface {286: “The first clamp member 278 also has a planar clamping surface 286 with a plurality of teeth. The clamping surface 286 is inclined relative to the sliding surface 284” (Col. 6, lines 37-39)} or (ii) the second sliding surface {288} is positioned at a non-zero angle relative to the second clamping surface {290: “The second clamp member 280 has a planar clamping surface 290 facing in a direction toward the clamping surface 286 of the first clamp member 278. The clamping surface 290 is inclined to the sliding surface 288” (Col. 6, lines 45-48)}.
Regarding claim 4, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 2. Dick does not explicitly disclose the non-zero angle between the lower wall and the upper wall of the clamp housing is between 5 degrees and 20 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the non-zero angle between the lower wall and the upper wall the clamp housing between 5 degrees and 20 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Dick further discloses the web locking mechanism {270} further includes a driving member {300 (308): “The clamp assembly 270 (FIG. 3) also includes an initiator 300 for effecting movement of the clamp members” (Col. 6, lines 66-67)}, and wherein the driving member {300} is configured to drive the first clamping member {278} toward the second clamping member {280} in response to the rotational acceleration of the spool shaft {170 (172, 174)} at or above the preset rate {as modified by Suminaka in the claim 1 rejection}.
Regarding claim 6, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 5. Dick further discloses the driving member {300} includes a collar portion {portion of 308 surrounding 306 on the right side face of 300 (Fig. 3)} configured to receive a shaft {306} and a cam portion {portion of 308 configured to engage 278 (Figs. 5-8)} extending outwardly from the collar portion {portion of 308 surrounding 306 on the right side face of 300 (Fig. 3)}, and wherein the driving member {300} is configured to rotate about the shaft {306} causing the cam portion {portion of 308 configured to engage 278 (Figs. 5-8)} to push against the at least one of the first clamping member {278} in response to the rotational acceleration of the spool shaft {170 (172, 174)} at or above the preset rate {as modified by Suminaka in the claim 1 rejection}.
Regarding claim 7, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Dick further discloses the web locking mechanism {270} further includes a biasing member {“A return spring (not shown) biases the clamp members 278 and 280 outwardly away from each other and downward as viewed in FIG. 5” (Col. 6, lines 62-64)} positioned to bias the first {278} and second {280} clamping members away from each other to define a space therebetween for passage therethrough of the seat belt web {16}.
Regarding claim 8, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Dick further discloses the first clamping member {278} includes a first clamping surface {286} configured to press against a first side {left side (Figs. 5-8)} of the seat belt web {16} and the second clamping member {280} includes a second clamping surface {290} configured to press against a second side {right side (Figs. 5-8)} of the seat belt web {16} opposite the first side {left side (Figs. 5-8)} of the seat belt web {16}, and wherein at least one of the first or second clamping surfaces {286, 290} includes a plurality of teeth {“a plurality of teeth” (Col. 6, lines 38 and 47-48, respectively)} configured to grip the seat belt web {16}.
Regarding claim 12, Dick discloses a seat belt web retractor {10}, comprising: a spool shaft {170 (172, 174)}; a web {16} wound about the spool shaft {170}; and a web locking mechanism {270} spaced apart from the spool shaft {170}, the web locking mechanism {270} including a first clamping member {278} and a second clamping member {280}, wherein the first clamping member {278} is configured to translate toward the second clamping member {280 (Figs. 5-8)} to clamp the web {16} therebetween {“a belt webbing clamp mechanism which is actuatable, in the event of a vehicle emergency, to block withdrawal of belt webbing from the retractor” (Col. 1, lines 18-20)} in response to a vehicle deceleration at or above a preset rate {“In the event of a vehicle emergency situation such as vehicle deceleration above a predetermined deceleration” (Col. 8, lines 22-23)}.
However, Dick does not explicitly disclose clamping the seat belt web in response to the web being withdrawn from the spool shaft at or above a preset rate of acceleration (emphasis added).
Suminaka teaches locking the drawing-out of a seatbelt web in response to: a) an acceleration of the vehicle, or b) the web {2: “webbing 2” [0068]} being withdrawn from the spool shaft {10: “winding drum 10” [0068]} at or above a preset rate of acceleration {“the retractor detects an acceleration of the vehicle or an acceleration of drawing-out of the webbing and a locking mechanism stops rotation of the winding drum in a drawing-out direction” [0004]; “In response to the sudden drawing-out of the webbing 2 or the sudden speed change of the vehicle, the locking mechanism 9 is operated. The locking mechanism 9 stops the rotation of the winding drum 10 in the drawing-out direction "P" to stop the drawing-out of the webbing 2” [0068]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seat belt web retractor, as disclosed by Dick, such that web clamping mechanism clamps the web in response to the web being withdrawn from the spool shaft at or above a preset rate of acceleration, as taught by Suminaka, so that “when the vehicle encounters an emergency (e.g., at the time of crash)… the drawing-out of the webbing is stopped and thus the occupant is restrained” [0004].
Regarding claim 13, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 12. Dick further discloses the web locking mechanism {270} further includes clamp housing {272 (Fig. 3)} having a tapered cavity {294 (Figs. 5-8)} configured to slidably receive at least the first clamping member {278 (Figs. 5-8)}.
Regarding claim 14, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 13. Dick further discloses the web locking mechanism {270} further includes a driving member {300 (308): “The clamp assembly 270 (FIG. 3) also includes an initiator 300 for effecting movement of the clamp members” (Col. 6, lines 66-67)} configured to contact and push the first clamping member {278} into the tapered cavity {494} and thereby toward the second clamping member {280} in response to the web {16} being withdrawn from the spool shaft {170 (172, 174)} at or above the preset rate of acceleration {as modified by Suminaka in the claim 12 rejection}.
Regarding claim 15, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 12. Dick further discloses an inertial locking mechanism {220+230+250+310} including a locking gear {220}, wherein the web locking mechanism {270} further includes a cam {300 (308): “The clamp assembly 270 (FIG. 3) also includes an initiator 300 for effecting movement of the clamp members” (Col. 6, lines 66-67)}, wherein the locking gear {220} is configured to rotate in response to the web {16} being withdrawn from the spool shaft {170 (172, 174)} at or above the preset rate of acceleration {as modified by Suminaka in the claim 12 rejection}, and wherein rotation of the locking gear {220 (Col. 8, lines 26-34)} is configured to rotate the cam {300+308 (via 230+310; Col. 8, lines 35-57)} against the first clamping member {278 (Col. 8, lines 58–62)} and drive the first clamping member {278} toward the second clamping member {280 (Col. 8, line 58 – Col. 9, line 7)}.
Regarding claim 16, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 12. Dick further discloses the first and second clamping members {278, 280} are configured to prevent payout of a portion of the seat belt web {16} extending between (i) the spool shaft {170 (172, 174)} and (ii) the first and second clamping members {278, 280} clamping the web {16 (Figs. 5-8): “Movement of the belt webbing 16 upward as viewed in FIG. 6, that is, out of the retractor 10, pulls the clamp members 278 and 280 closer toward each other and tightens the belt webbing clamp assembly 270. This places the webbing clamp assembly 270 in a clamping condition and blocks withdrawal of the belt webbing 16 from the spool 170 and the retractor 10, restraining forward movement of the vehicle occupant” (Col. 9, lines 8-15)}.
Regarding claim 17, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 12. Dick further discloses the second clamping member {280} is configured to translate toward the first clamping member {278} to clamp the web {16 (Figs. 5-8)} therebetween {“The clamp members 278 and 280 are connected in a known manner for providing simultaneous sliding movement of the clamp members relative to the housing 272. Thus, the clamp members 278 and 280 move in a direction toward or away from each other while they simultaneously slide (upward or downward as viewed in FIG. 5) relative to the housing 272” (Col. 6, lines 56-62)} in response to the web {16} being withdrawn from the spool shaft {170 (172, 174)} at or above the preset rate of acceleration {as modified by Suminaka in the claim 12 rejection}.
Regarding claim 18, Dick discloses a method of operating a seat belt web retractor {10}, the method comprising: in response to a vehicle deceleration at or above a preset rate {“In the event of a vehicle emergency situation such as vehicle deceleration above a predetermined deceleration” (Col. 8, lines 22-23)}, rotating a locking gear {220} of an inertial locking mechanism {220+230+250+310 (Col. 8, lines 22-34)}; and in response to rotating the locking gear {220 (Col. 8, lines 34-60)}, moving a first clamping member {278} toward a second clamping member {280 (Col. 8, line 60 – Col. 9, line 1)}, thereby clamping the seat belt web {16 (Col. 9, lines 2-15)} therebetween {Col. 8, line 22 – Col. 9, line 15 (Figs. 5-8)}.
However, Dick does not explicitly disclose clamping the seat belt web in response to extraction of the seat belt web from the web retractor at or above the preset rate of acceleration (emphasis added).
Suminaka teaches locking the drawing-out of a seatbelt web in response to: a) an acceleration of the vehicle, or b) extraction of the seat belt web {2: “webbing 2” [0068]} from the seat belt web retractor {1} at or above a preset rate of acceleration {“the retractor detects an acceleration of the vehicle or an acceleration of drawing-out of the webbing and a locking mechanism stops rotation of the winding drum in a drawing-out direction” [0004]; “In response to the sudden drawing-out of the webbing 2 or the sudden speed change of the vehicle, the locking mechanism 9 is operated. The locking mechanism 9 stops the rotation of the winding drum 10 in the drawing-out direction "P" to stop the drawing-out of the webbing 2” [0068]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed by Dick, such that the seat belt web is clamped in response to extraction of the seat belt web from the web retractor at or above the preset rate of acceleration, as taught by Suminaka, so that “when the vehicle encounters an emergency (e.g., at the time of crash)… the drawing-out of the webbing is stopped and thus the occupant is restrained” [0004].
Regarding claim 19, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 18. Dick further discloses in response to rotating the locking gear {220}, rotating a driving member {300 (308)} against the first clamping member {278 (Figs. 5-8)} to move the first clamping member {278} toward the second clamping member {280 (Figs. 5-8)}.
Regarding claim 20, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 18. Dick further discloses moving the first clamping member {278} comprises: moving the first and second clamping members {278, 280} into a tapered cavity {294} defined by lower {274} and upper {276} walls {Figs. 5-8}; and sliding the first and second clamping members {278, 280} against the lower and upper walls {274, 276}, respectively {Figs. 5-8}.
Regarding claim 21, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 18. Dick further discloses rotating the locking gear {220} in response to the extraction of the seat belt web {16} from the web retractor {10 (as modified by Suminaka in the claim 18 rejection)} includes rotating the locking gear {220} in a first direction {192 (Figs. 5-6)}, and wherein the method further comprises: in response to release of tension in the seat belt web {16}, rotating the locking gear {220} in a second direction {190 (Fig. 5)}, opposite the first direction {192 (Fig. 6): “Upon the release of tensile forces on the belt webbing 16, the clamp members 278 and 280 move back to the released condition shown in FIG. 5. The belt webbing 16 is freely movable through the passage 294 in the belt webbing clamp assembly 270” (Col. 9, lines 35-39)}; and in response to rotating the locking gear {220} in the second direction {190 (Fig. 5)}, moving the first clamping member {278} away from the second clamping member {280}, thereby releasing the seat belt web {16} therebetween {Figs. 5-6}.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick and Suminaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanna (EP 0608530).
Regarding claim 9, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Dick further discloses the first clamping member {278} and the second clamping member {280} are configured to constrain lateral movement of the first {278} and second {280} clamping members relative to each other as the first clamping member {278} moves toward the second clamping member {280: “The clamp members 278 and 280 are connected in a known manner for providing simultaneous sliding movement of the clamp members relative to the housing 272. Thus, the clamp members 278 and 280 move in a direction toward or away from each other while they simultaneously slide (upward or downward as viewed in FIG. 5) relative to the housing 272” (Col. 6, lines 56-62)}.
However, Dick does not explicitly disclose the first clamping member includes a protrusion, wherein the second clamping member includes a recess configured to slidably receive the protrusion to constrain lateral movement of the first and second clamping members relative to each other as the at least one of the first clamping member or the second clamping member moves toward the other of the first clamping member or the second clamping member (emphasis added).
Hanna teaches {Fig. 2} the first clamping member {14} includes a protrusion {36}, wherein the second clamping member {27} includes a recess {37} configured to slidably receive the protrusion {36: “The clamping element 14 has two laterally arranged extensions 36a, 36b extending perpendicular to the support surface 18, which each engage in laterally arranged grooves 37a, 37b of the first wedge 20 in a form-fitting manner” [0027]} to constrain lateral movement of the first {14} and second {27} clamping members relative to each other {due to the “form-fitting manner” [0027]} as the first clamping member {14} moves toward the second clamping member {27: “The self-locking mechanism between the first and second wedge prevents the first wedge from slipping back automatically until the second wedge can slide back into its starting position” [0007]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seat belt web retractor, as disclosed by Dick and Suminaka, such that the first clamping member includes a protrusion, the second clamping member includes a recess configured to slidably receive the protrusion to constrain lateral movement of the first and second clamping members relative to each other as the first clamping member moves toward the second clamping member, as taught by Hanna, so that “in the event of an accident, the belt locking occurs quickly, but the belt clamping force achieved can be significantly greater than the force transmitted by the gearbox, without the wedge arrangement being irreversibly displaced” [0005].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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:
Regarding claim 10, Dick and Suminaka disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Dick further discloses an inertial locking mechanism {178+220+230+250+310} operably coupled to the spool shaft {170 (172+174)} and including a locking gear {178}, wherein the web locking mechanism {270} further includes: a driving member {300 (308): “The clamp assembly 270 (FIG. 3) also includes an initiator 300 for effecting movement of the clamp members” (Col. 6, lines 66-67)}; a driven gear {220} coupled to the driving member {300 (via 230+310)}; and a shaft {182} positioned to engage the locking gear {178} and the driven gear {220 (Fig. 3)}, wherein the locking gear {178} is configured to rotate in response to the rotational acceleration of the spool shaft {170 (172, 174)} at or above the preset rate {as modified by Suminaka in the claim 1 rejection}, thereby rotating the driven gear {220} via the shaft {182} and causing {via 230+310} the driving member {300 (308)} to push against the first clamping member {278 (Figs. 5-8)}.
However, Dick does not explicitly disclose a gear rack; and it would not have been obvious to have replaced the shaft of Dick with a gear rack, as this would require a substantial redesign of the entire seat belt web retractor.
Therefore, regarding claim 10, none of the prior art of record, either alone or in obvious combination disclose the seat belt web retractor of claim 1, further comprising: an inertial locking mechanism operably coupled to the spool shaft and including a locking gear, wherein the web locking mechanism further includes: a driving member; a driven gear coupled to the driving member; and a gear rack positioned to engage the locking gear and the driven gear, wherein the locking gear is configured to rotate in response to the rotational acceleration of the spool shaft at or above the preset rate, thereby rotating the driven gear via the gear rack and causing the driving member to push against the at least one of the first clamping member or the second clamping member (emphasis added).
Accordingly, claim 11 is in condition for allowance by virtue of dependence from claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571)270-5985. 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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614