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 March 31st, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-5 have been amended and claim 2 has been canceled. Objections to the claims filed on December 31st, 2026 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, in regards to amended claim 1, the prior art references neither disclose or teach the fastening sections and more specifically do not disclose resilient deformation sections of said fastening sections. It is understood that the applicant’s fastening section is positioned on the outside of a housing and further comprises the resilient deformation sections. It has been confirmed in the previous office action that the primary prior art reference of Tanaka (US 4,113,200 A) does not go into depth regarding the connection between the housing 41 and the frame or base 11. The limitation of the fastening and deformation sections are what are taught in by Ichida (US 2021/0206342 A1), and such teaching merely requires one skilled in the art as it would merely require a shape change of an already existing spring cover. In the instance of Ichida, the figures properly depict a fastening section as well as a deformation section. While these sections are not labeled, they are still presented within the prior art reference. The tabs depicted in Ichida is structurally similar to the applicant’s description of a fasteninign and deformation section, thus, a recitation of the claimed material or article’s intended use cannot alone patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 I-II, citing, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Thus, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as Ichida is, it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 II, citing In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Further, regarding applicant’s argument that neither Tanka nor Ichida disclose any deformation sections or any radial movement of the spring covers, paragraph 11 of the applicant’s specification is cited to show the relationship between said fastening and deformation unit where it states:
“Due to the radially elastic holding of the spring housing on the frame or the wall section of the frame of the belt retractor, the spring housing and therefore also the first end of the return spring held thereon can carry out at least slight radial movements so that, conversely, the radial forces acting upon the belt shaft can be reduced.”
It should be noted that is explicitly stated that it is only “due to the radially elastic holding of the spring housing” is what causes an “at least slight radial movement[s]”. It is understood that the holding of the housing is what causes said “slight” radial movement, which can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. However, one skilled in the art may see this as loose connection between the housing and the frame, or they may understand that plastic deformation which then require and understand that all materials undergo plastic deformation which is clearly caused by a rotational force enacted by the spring. Thus, it would remain obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the structured tabs, taught in Ichida, as it would help distribute any force acting on the housing.
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, 3-8 and 13 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 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 belt 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, and wherein the spring housing has a main housing (Figs. 2-3; Col. 4, Ln. 1-6, housing 41). 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.
Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for the main housing having a fastening or deformation section. However, Ichida teaches the spring housing having a main housing having fastening sections arranged radially on the outside, the fastening sections being connected to the main housing via resilient deformation sections that are configured such that the spring housing can move radially relative to the fastening sections via deformation of the resilient deformation sections (Fig. 4; Pg. 2, ¶32, case 31 having fastening sections with corresponding deformation sections). It is understood that the configuration of the housing being radially moving is caused by the elasticity of the housing as a radial force is enacted on it by the spring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fastening and deformation sections, understood to be the structured tabs taught in Ichida, as it would help distribute any force acting on the housing.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for the relationship of the fastening and deformation sections. However, Ichida teaches wherein the fastening sections are each connected to the main housing via two deformation sections, and the fastening sections, together with the deformation sections provided thereon, each delimit a free space to the main housing (Fig. 4; Pg. 2, ¶32, case 31 having fastening sections with corresponding deformation sections).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for the shape of the fastening and deformation sections. However, Ichida teaches wherein a plurality of fastening sections are provided, and in each case two fastening sections are arranged symmetrically to one another in relation to a central axis of the belt retractor, and wherein the fastening sections are arranged in such a way that they each form a stop, which limits the radial deflection of the spring housing made possible by the deformation sections (Fig. 4 clearly depicting a symmetric arrangement of the sections as well as a division on the deformation section further providing a stop).
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.
Furthermore, 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 forming a stop 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.
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).
Claims 9-12 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) as applied to claims 1, 3-8 and 13 above, and further 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
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, 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
Prosecution Insights