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 20th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 11 and 17 have been amended and claims 21 and 22 have been added. Objections to the claims filed on November 20th, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20th, 2026, regarding claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that the switch gear 46 of Yano (US 6,499,554 B1) only has one set of teeth and therefore is not considered a stepped wheel. It should be noted that a stepped gear allows for the transition between two or more ratios. In the instance of Yano, a switch gear 46 is provided with, what the applicant calls, “one set of teeth” but is still regarded as a stepped gear as it provides the function of allowing for the change of ratio between two stages, a stage with a connection to the opposing teeth and another with a connection to an inclined surface, thus, a gear ratio change is provided. Furthermore, the claim language merely requires that the gear wheels include helical teeth and lacks any description of each gearing having more than one set of teeth.
The applicant further argues that the connect gear 37 and the switch gear 46 of Yano do not form a gear stage since the switch gear does not transmit torque to reel 4. It should be noted that the connection of gear 37 and switch gear 46 does indeed transmit a torque to oppose reel 4 as described in column 16, line 61 to column 17, line 45. Taking a look at the orientation and positioning of the gears seen in figure 8 it is apparent that the combination of the plunger 47, the lever 49, and the gears 37 and 46 are what transmit a torque to the reel 4. It is further described in the reference that a “thrust force” is enacted to the two gears thus corresponding to a torque transmission which further causes the rotation of the reel 4 to be impeded.
Applicant further argues that Yano does not describe or suggest that an overlap ratio of at least one helical toothing is not an integer and that figures 8 and 9 do not represent such limitation. It is noted that a non-integer is understood to be any number not equal to a whole number which is clearly represented by any ratio of gears presented in the figures. Claim 1 lacks any depiction of what an “overlap ratio” is or what is required to calculate said ratio. Thus, Yano does incorporate a ratio to the invention even if it is not directly numerated.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed February 20th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Stouffer (US 4,099,683 A).
Applicant argues regarding claim 17 that the claimed variable was not recognized within the prior art reference of Yano since it fails to mention the helix angle, axial force, pitch circle diameter, or a predetermined fraction of an axial force. While Yano does fail to mention such parameters, the ratio is still essential for the functionality of the invention of Yano. The applicant is correct in stating that the parameters mentioned above are not disclosed or taught by Yano. However, the prior art reference is of Stouffer further goes into depth of the overlap ratio and its requirements for efficient torque enactment. The Office Action has been updated below.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yano (US 6,499,554 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Yano discloses a belt tensioner for a seatbelt system, comprising a spur gearing (Figs. 8-9; Col. 9, Ln. 19-43, gear mechanism 11), wherein the spur gearing comprises at least one motor gearwheel (Figs. 8-9; Col. 13, Ln. 17-24, motor gear 36) and at least a first stepped wheel (Figs. 8-9; Col. 13, Ln. 17-24, connect gear 37) and a second stepped wheel (Figs. 8-9; Col. 16, Ln. 1-15, switch gear 46), the motor gearwheel forming with the first stepped wheel a first gear stage (Col. 13, Ln. 17-24) and the first stepped wheel forming with the second stepped wheel a second gear stage (Col. 16, Ln. 32-38), wherein the motor gearwheel as well as each of the stepped wheels include helical teeth (Col. 17, Ln. 10-15; Col. 18, Ln. 16-22) and the helix angle of the helical teeth of the second gear stage is determined depending on the helix angle of the first gear stage (Col. 17, Ln. 10-22), and wherein the overlap ratio of at least one helical toothing is not integer (while not specifically stated, Figs. 8-9 best depicts the overlap ratio not being an integer).
Regarding claim 13, Yano discloses wherein each of the stepped wheels is aligned by means of a shaft which extends axially through the respective stepped wheel and which is supported on a bearing point dedicated to the respective shaft on a housing of the belt tensioner (Figs. 8-10 depict the first and second stepped gear having a central shaft acting as a bearing point which is further disposed within a frame 2).
Regarding claim 14, Yano discloses wherein with an increasing gear stage a decreasing axial force acts on the bearing points dedicated to the respective stepped wheels or a substantially equal axial force acts on the bearing points dedicated to the respective stepped wheels (Figs. 7a-d; Col. 18, Ln.10-32 describing an increasing gear stage wherein the switching gear switches from a non-operational to an operational state and vice versa).
Regarding claim 21, Yano discloses wherein the first stepped wheel transmits torque from the at least one motor gearwheel to the second stepped wheel and the second stepped wheel is configured to transmit torque to wind webbing onto a belt reel of the seatbelt system (Col. 17, Ln. 10-35; Col. 18, Ln. 9-32, thrust force equating to the transmission of the torque).
Regarding claim 22, Yano discloses wherein the at least one motor gearwheel meshes with first teeth on the first stepped wheel and second teeth on the first stepped wheel mesh with the second stepped wheel (Col. 16, Ln. 32-44).
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 12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano (US 6,499,554 B1) in view of Stouffer (US 4,099,683 A).
Regarding claims 12 and 17-18, Yano discloses helical toothed gears (Col. 17, Ln. 10-15; Col. 18, Ln. 16-22), but fails to disclose wherein the helix angle of at least one gear stage is less than 10 degrees and further fails to disclose an equation to disclose the helical angle of the first and second stage. However, Stouffer teaches wherein the helix angle of the helical teeth of the first gear stage is determined according to the helix angle of the first gear stage, the axial force acting on the motor gearwheel, the pitch circle diameter of the motor gearwheel in the first gear stage, the drive torque acting on the motor gearwheel, and a predetermined fraction of the axial force acting on the motor gearwheel (Col. 9, Ln. 55-68; Col. 10, Ln. 1-16). Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the helical angle of at least one gear stage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. It should be noted that having helical gears with an angled less than 10 degrees would prove advantageous as it is known that doing so results in an increased load capacity, higher torque, and quieter operation.
Regarding claim 15, Yano discloses wherein the shaft of at least one stepped wheel is supported at a first axial end (as depicted in Fig. 6), but fails to disclose connection by means of injection molding. However, Stouffer teaches wherein the housing is injection molded (Col. 3, Ln. 23-30). While Yano discloses the shaft supported at a first end of the housing and Stouffer depicting a molded plastic housing therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the shaft and the plastic molded housing integral or unitary, rather than from separate components, as it has been held that where the sub-components are used in the same way, constructing formerly separate structures as a one piece construction is a matter of obvious engineering choice and involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04, subsection V, paragraph B & In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Doing so would eliminate any need for excess elements or parts which may improve cost effectiveness.
Regarding claim 16, Yano discloses wherein the shaft of at least one stepped wheel is supported at a second axial end of the shaft on a cover of the belt tensioner (best depicted in Fig. 6, cover 55).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano (US 6,499,554 B1) and taught by Bartlett (doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198048).
Regarding claim 19, Yano fails to disclose the spur gearing comprising more than two stepped wheels and more than two gear stages. However, Bartlett teaches the advantageous of having more than two gear stages, which in turn requires more than two stepped gears (Pg. 1-2). Although using more gear stages to achieve the same overall gear ratio might not be cost effective, the results, however, would lead to higher performance. 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 more than two stepped wheels and more than two gear stages to the spur gearing to provide an efficient tensioning means.
It would have also been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate more than two stepped wheels, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. In this instance, the incorporation of more than two gear stages would inevitably require more spur gears to be incorporated to achieve the desired tensioning results.
Regarding claim 20, Yano discloses helical toothed gears (Col. 17, Ln. 10-15; Col. 18, Ln. 16-22), but fails to disclose wherein the helix angle of at least one gear stage is less than 10 degrees and further fails to disclose an equation to disclose the helical angle of the first and second stage. However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the helical angle of at least one gear stage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. It should be noted that having helical gears with an angled less than 10 degrees would prove advantageous as it is known that doing so results in an increased load capacity, higher torque, and quieter operation.
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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights