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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 6 and 7 are not clearly depicting the limiting elements. It is difficult to visualize the invention using figures 6 and 7 as the gray scale coloring is washing out key claimed features such as the angle sensors and the rotary encoders. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim5 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the toothing" in lines 6-7. While “two toothings” were introduced in the previous lines, the limitation of “the toothing having the larger number of teeth, meshes with the toothing of the drive gear” makes it difficult to differentiate whether or not the limitation is referring to only one of the two toothings or attempting to introduce two different toothings of the previously disclosed “two toothings”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0327078 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Son et al. discloses a belt retractor (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶40) with a device for sensing the extension length of a safety belt (Pg. 3, ¶54), wherein:
the belt retractor has a frame that can be fixed to the vehicle and a belt shaft that is rotatably mounted in the frame and on which the safety belt can be wound (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶40, spindle 12 corresponding to a belt shaft), and
the device for sensing the extension length comprises a first rotary encoder and a first rotational angle sensor (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶45, detecting sensor 18-1 having Hall integrated circuits 18-2 which correspond to rotary encoders as they transmit signal to the controller), and
a reduction gear unit is provided which reduces the rotational movement of the belt shaft to a rotational movement of the first rotary encoder (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶41, reduction gear unit) at a slower rotational speed (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶42 depicting that reduction of output gear 16),
wherein a second rotary encoder and a second rotational angle sensor are provided, and the second rotary encoder is driven by the belt shaft to a rotational speed that is greater than the rotational speed of the first rotary encoder (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶46, detecting sensor 28-1 and Hall integrated circuits 28-2 moving at greater speeds than the detecting sensor 18 as per its placement on the reduction gear seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Son et al. discloses wherein the second rotary encoder is arranged on a gear of the reduction gear unit (Fig. 2; Pg. 3, ¶¶42, 46, first reduction gear 24).
Regarding claim 3, Son et al. discloses wherein the gear is a drive gear of the reduction gear unit that is connected to rotate conjointly with the belt shaft (Fig. 1 depicting gear 24 as the drive gear as it is in direct connection to motor 20).
Regarding claim 4, Son et al. discloses wherein the reduction gear unit has a rotatably mounted output gear arranged in a fixed position on the belt retractor, and the first rotary encoder is arranged on the output gear (Fig. 1-2; Pg. 3, ¶41, output gear 16).
Regarding claim 11, Son et al. discloses wherein the reduction gear unit reduces the rotational movement of the belt shaft to the extent that the first rotary encoder rotates by less than one revolution about its axis of rotation from the rotational angle position of the belt shaft when the safety belt is completely wound up to the rotational angle position of the belt shaft when the safety belt is fully extended (Pg. 4, ¶70).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017 /0327078 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Son et al. discloses wherein the reduction gear has an adjustable reduction ratio (Pg. 3, ¶42; Pg. 4, ¶70). Son et al. discloses the claimed invention, except for the specific numerical wherein the reduction gear has a reduction ratio of at least 1:5. 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 incorporate a gear ration of 1:5 to the reduction gear, 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 that such a modification would be obvious as it merely requires changing the dimension of the already disclosed gears and changing said ratio may vary based on the desired reduction outcome. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017 /0327078 A1) as applied to claims 1-4 and 11-12 above, and further in view of Holbein et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,891,596 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Son et al. discloses wherein an intermediate gear arranged between the drive gear and the output gear is provided (Fig. 2; Pg. 3, ¶42, gear 26 corresponding to an intermediate gear), but fails to discloses the intermediate gear being a two-stage gear. Holbein et al. teaches wherein the intermediate gear is formed by a two-stage gear with two toothings having different diameters and a different number of teeth which, with the toothing having the larger number of teeth, meshes with the toothing of the drive gear, and, with the toothing having the smaller number of teeth, meshes with the toothing of the output gear (Fig. 3-5; Col. 2, Ln. 22-36, stepped gear 18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Holbein et al., in combination with the intermediate gear from Son et al. as such a modification would reduce the motor speed while increasing torque, making it ideal for heavy-duty applications such as sudden body weight of the passenger during emergency environments.
Regarding claim 6, Son et al. discloses wherein reduction gear unit has at least one gear rotatably mounted on a bearing journal, but fails to discloses a housing cap. Holbein et al. teaches wherein the belt retractor has a first housing cap held on the frame which houses the reduction gear unit (Fig. 3-5; Col. 2, Ln. 22-36, shell 16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Holbein et al., in combination with the reduction gear unit from Son et al. as such a modification would provide protection from debris and unwanted foreign objects during operation.
Regarding claims 7-10, Son et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a second housing cap. Holbein et al. teaches wherein a second housing cap with a slotted hole opening that is provided which covers the reduction gear unit to the outside and to which the first and/or the second rotational angle sensor are fastened, and wherein the second housing cap is attached to the first housing cap or to a part firmly connected thereto (Fig. 3-5; Col. 3, Ln. 48-64, cover 42 covering sensor 40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Holbein et al., in combination with the sensors and encoders from Son et al. as such a modification would provide protection from debris and unwanted foreign objects during operation preventing false readings from the sensors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references refer to seatbelt retractors comprising angle sensors and encoders which are provided on a reduction gear unit.
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
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights