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 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.
Claim 8 is 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 8, the phrase "in particular" 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).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Axblom et al. (DE 102019107663).
Axblom discloses in figures 1 – 9 a belt retractor for a seatbelt of a motor vehicle, comprising - a belt shaft (2) rotatably mounted in a housing frame (1) - a profile head (3) which can be locked with respect to the housing frame (1); a multi-stage first force-limiting device (4); wherein the first force-limiting device (11) can be coupled to the profile head and to the belt shaft wherein the first force-limiting device allows a force-limited relative rotation of the belt shaft with respect to the locked profile head and at least one second force-limiting device (5, 12) in an initial state, the second force-limiting device is decoupled, so that the force-limited relative rotation of the belt shaft with respect to the locked profile head takes place without a force-limited involvement of the second force-limiting device (claim 1). the second force- limiting device can be coupled to the profile head and to the belt shaft so that in a coupled state the force-limited relative rotation of the belt shaft with respect to the locked profile head takes place with a force-limited involvement of the second force-limiting device (claim 2). the second force-limiting device -comprises a pyrotechnic drive (9, 17) by means of which a transfer of the belt retractor from the initial state into a coupled state can be triggered (claim 3). the second force-limiting device comprises a clamping element (7, 8) which can in particular be driven pyrotechnically (claim 4). the second force-limiting device comprises a wheel element (15, figures 8, 16a) which is rotatably mounted with respect to the housing frame in the initial state and which is blocked in its rotation in a coupled state (claim 5). a driver (17, 16) which drives a force-limiting element in the coupled state, rotates with the belt shaft and/or the first force-limiting device in the initial state (claim 6). a driver which drives a force-limiting element in the coupled state, is decoupled from the belt shaft-in the initial state (claim 7). As best understood by the Examiner, the driver can be coupled to the belt shaft by means of pawls (6, 14), wherein the pawls are mounted in particular on a coupling ring which rotates with the belt shaft and is connected to a wheel element in the initial state (figure 6, 7, 10, 11, 21) (claim 8). the second force-limiting device is arranged between the profile head and the belt shaft or on a side of the belt shaft opposite the profile head (claim 9). the second force-limiting device-comprises at least one belt (23), which deforms during the force limitation, as a force-limiting element (claim 10). a pyrotechnic drive of the first force-limiting device and a pyrotechnic drive of the second force-limiting device are arranged in separate housings (figure 12) (claim 11). the second force-limiting device is selectively coupled by a pyrotechnic drive (5, 13) so that the force-limited relative rotation of the belt shaft with respect to the locked profile head takes place without a force-limited involvement of the second force-limiting device (claim 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Axblom discloses that the decoupling device 5 is a decoupling device of the
first force-limiting device… the decoupling device 5 nor the second force limiting element 12 of Axblom corresponds to a separate second force-limiting device as claimed ... that second force-limiting device 22 is coupled to the profile head and the belt shaft both before and after decoupling of the first device. Thus, Axblom fails to disclose an initially decoupled second force-limiting device as claimed. Axblom discloses separate first and second force-limiting elements (11, 12) having distinct force-limiting characteristics .the second force-limiting element is selectively engaged through coupling element 6 and decoupling device 5 and corresponds to the claimed second-force limiting device that is decoupled in an initial state and decoupled in a later state. (“Inside the transmission tube 20 are a first force limiting element 11 in the form of a torsion bar and a second force limiting element 12 arranged in the form of another torsion bar. The first force limiting element 11 is on the one hand non-rotatable with the profile head 3 coupled and on the other hand inside the transmission tube 20 connected to it in a rotationally fixed manner. The second force limiting element 12 is on the one hand non-rotatable with the first force limiting element 11 connected and on the other hand in the in the 1 to 5 shown initial state via a coupling element 6 a decoupling device 5 non-rotatable with the belt shaft 2 connected.” “In this second stage of the force-limited webbing pull-out movement, however, there is still a rotationally fixed connection between the belt shaft 2 and the second power transmission element 12 by means of the coupling elements 6 , Because the second force limiting element 12 has a lower force limiting level than the first force limiting element 11 , the second force limiting element is twisted 12.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matzen et al. (DE 102022123958); Lui (CN 113183915).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Nicole Verley whose telephone number is (571)270-3542. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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 at (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.
/NICOLE T VERLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights