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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Page two, lines five and six of amended claim 1 reads, “in which wall sections the belt shaft”. It is unclear whether the applicant is attempting to use the word “sections” as a noun or a verb. Should it read “in which the wall sections the belt shaft” or should it read “the belt shaft is rotatably mounted on the wall sections”? Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 6-8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (US 4,113,200 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a belt retractor for a seat belt device of a motor vehicle with a belt shaft rotatably that is mounted in a frame for winding up a seatbelt of the seatbelt device (Fig. 3; Col. 3, Ln. 9-27, belt retractor 10, drum 16 corresponding to a blet shaft, base 11 corresponding to a frame, safety belt 15), wherein the frame has two opposing wall sections oriented in parallel with one another and each having a bearing opening, the belt shaft is rotatably mounted on the wall sections (Fig. 3 depicting openings around bushings 18 and 19 which corresponds to bearing openings; Col. 3, Ln. 9-27, sidewalls 12 and 13 corresponding to two opposing walls), and a spring housing secured to one of the wall sections and having a return spring arranged therein, which is connected to the spring housing by a first end and fixed for conjoint rotation to the belt shaft at a second end (Figs. 2-3; Col. 3, Ln. 65-68; Col. 4, Ln. 1-6, return spring and blocking means 40 corresponding to a spring housing, coil spring 42 corresponding to a return spring), wherein the spring housing, is radially elastically retained on the wall section (Figs. 1-3). While being “radially elastically retained on the wall” is not necessarily stated, it should be noted that one skilled in the art understands that all materials exhibit elasticity especially when the two parts are secured together.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka discloses wherein the spring housing, on the side of the spring housing that faces the wall section, has a cover rigidly connected to the spring housing (Figs. 3; Col. 5, Ln. 1-13, pawl carrier 50 and ratchet means 60 being connected and further corresponding to a cover), and the cover has an annular, axially projecting collar which is arranged such that it engages in the bearing openings and encompasses the section of the belt shaft that passes through the bearing opening (Figs. 3; Col. 5, Ln. 14-20, ratchet hub 61 corresponding to a collar).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka discloses wherein the wall section in the region of the bearing opening is thickened in the axial direction of the belt shaft (Fig. 3 depicting side wall 12 thickened in the axial direction).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka discloses wherein the return spring is connected by the second end to a coupling piece for conjoint rotation, which coupling piece is connected to the belt shaft for conjoint rotation (Figs. 3; Col. 4, Ln. 1-6, shaft extension 64 corresponding to a coupling piece).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka discloses wherein a force limiting device is provided which has a profile head that can be blocked by means of a blocking pawl in relation to a blocking wall section of the frame (Figs. 1-2; Col. 3, Ln. 48-64; ratchets 31 and 31, corresponding to a force limiting device having a profile head, being blocked by pawl 33, disposed in relation to side wall 13 which corresponds to a blocking wall section), and the wall sections having the bearing openings are arranged on one side of the blocking wall section (Fig. 3 depicting openings around bushings 18 and 19 which corresponds to bearing openings; Col. 3, Ln. 9-27, sidewalls 12 and 13 corresponding to two opposing walls), and the bearing clearance of the bearing opening in the wall section at the greater distance from the blocking wall section is greater than the bearing clearance of the bearing opening in the wall section at the smaller distance from the blocking wall section (Fig. 3 depicting a greater bearing opening provided towards the side wall 12 as opposed to the side wall 13).
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(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 4,113,200 A) in view of Ichida (US 2021/0206342 A1).
Regarding claims 2-5, Tanaka discloses wherein the spring housing has a main housing (Figs. 2-3; Col. 4, Ln. 1-6, housing 41), but fails to disclose or mention the main housing having fastening sections. However, Ichida teaches having a plurality of fastening sections which are arranged radially, and symmetrically around a central axis, and the fastening sections are connected to the main housing via at least two resilient deformation sections, which each delimit a free space to the main housing, and further limits the radial deflection of the spring housing (Fig. 4; Pg. 2, ¶32, case 31 having fastening sections with corresponding deformation sections). While Ichida does not necessarily teach the structure of the fastening sections with their deformation sections, however, Ichida’s figure 4 clearly depict holes placed around the case 31 and further having tabs with recesses on both sides which each correspond to the deformation section. At least two of the depicted fastening sections in figure 4 are symmetrical about a center axis (depicted by the center dot). 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 fastening sections with two deformation sections to the main housing to provide a geometric advantage when the main housing exhibits any form of rotational force. Keeping such sections in a symmetric fashion further allows any load to be distributed evenly.
While Ichida teaches in only three fastening sections, it should be noted that 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 three fastening sections, 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. Providing more than the three taught fastening sections would drastically improve any and all load acted on the presented points.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 4,113,200 A) in view of Ernst (US 4,223,853 A).
Regarding claims 9-10, Tanaka discloses wherein an axial spring which urges the coupling piece into the spring housing (Fig. 3; Col. 5, Ln. 44-51, compression spring 84 corresponding to an axial spring), but fails to disclose wherein the axial spring urges the coupling piece into a bearing of the spring housing. However, Ernst teaches a spherical bearing provided between the coupling piece and the belt shaft (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 36-44, ball 19 corresponding to a bearing). 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 spherical bearing disposed between the coupling piece and the belt shaft to provide a smoother rotational movement of the shaft.
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka discloses wherein the axial spring is a conical spring (Fig. 3 depicting compression spring 84 increasing in diameter corresponding to a conical shape).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka fails to disclose wherein the larger diameter of the conical spring is supported on the belt shaft. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the larger diameter of the spring towards the belt shaft, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. In this instance, one skilled in the art may find it advantage to reverse Tanaka’s compression spring 84 since it is known that placing the larger diameter portion of the conical spring towards the side with the larger surface area provides proper and efficient structural and functional support.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art references refer to belt retractors comprising similar configurations to that of the claimed invention. In this instance, the prior art references disclose return springs, axial springs, and their corresponding enclosures which provide strength from rotational forces.
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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654