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 § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fugel et al (US 6,241,172).
Fugel discloses in figures 1 – 2 and 5-12 a belt retractor for a seatbelt of a motor vehicle, comprising - a belt shaft (13) rotatably mounted in a housing frame (10, 11) - a profile head (14) which can be locked with respect to the housing frame (11); a multi-stage first force-limiting device (15, 35, 36, 38, fig 5, 6); wherein the first force-limiting device 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 (fig 1, 2) and at least one second force-limiting device (19, 18, 20, 21); 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 (col 4 lines 40-60); and the first force-limiting device is separate and independent from the second force-limiting device (claim 1). Combining the multi-stage bar of fig 5 -6 with the embodiment in fig 1 – 1a serves to change the force level over a wider adjustment range. 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 (39) 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 wheel element (61, figs 9 - 12) 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 (24) 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 (figs 2, 7-10) (claim 6). a driver which drives a force-limiting element in the coupled state, is decoupled from the belt shaft-in the initial state (figs 2, 7-8) (claim 7). 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).
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axblom et al. (DE 102019107663; US 2021/0276510).
Axblom discloses in figures 1 – 23 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, 22, 23, 25a, 24, 26, 27a, b, 25b, several different embodiments, figs 14-22); and the first force-limiting device is separate and independent from the second force-limiting device (claim 1). Axblom does not explicitly disclose 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. However, Fugel discloses in figures 1 – 1a and 5 – 6 at least one second force-limiting device (19, 18, 20, 21); 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 (col 4 lines 40-60). At the time of filing PHOSITA at the time of filing would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Fugel and Axblom. The motivation would have been able to change the force level over a wider adjustment range, enhancing the characteristics of the belt retractor during an accident. 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). 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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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).
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