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 .
This is a non-final Office action responsive to the reply filed on 09/09/2026.
Claims 1, 8 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/09/2026 has been entered.
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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sterner et al. (US Patent No. 8,813,323).
Regarding claim 1, Sterner et al. discloses a seat belt device, comprising:
a latch plate comprising a snap-fit notch and configured to connect to an end part of a seat belt (see annotated Fig. 1);
a shell comprising a latch plate channel, the latch plate channel configured for the latch plate to extend into (see annotated Fig. 1); and
a locking piece comprising two positioning plates and a locking plate (shaded area), the locking plate having two broad face surfaces opposite to each other in a thickness direction of the locking piece, the two positioning plates each connected to the locking plate and extending perpendicularly (a-a is perpendicular to c-c, or b-b is perpendicular to c-c, see annotated Fig. 5) from at least one of the two broad face surfaces of the locking plate in the thickness direction of the locking piece, connecting the two positioning plates, the locking piece disposed on the shell between a locking position and a release position, the two positioning plates sliding fit with the shell, wherein the two positioning plates are perpendicular to and protrude from the locking plate in a thickness direction of the locking piece, when the locking piece is in the locking position and the latch plate extends into the latch plate channel, the locking plate is snap-fitted in the snap-fit notch, and when the locking piece is in the release position, the locking plate is configured to avoid the latch plate (see annotated Figs. 1 and 5, also Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 2, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein the two positioning plates (A and B) or (C and D) protrude from the locking plate in a same direction (see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein the two positioning plates (A and D) or (B and C) protrude from the locking plate in opposite directions (see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein a first positioning plate of the two positioning plates comprises a first inclined segment that has a top surface facing away from the locking plate in the thickness direction of the locking piece, the top surface comprises a first surface inclined off a surface of the locking plate, and in the locking position, an angle a1 between the first inclined segment and an insertion direction of the latch plate is smaller than an angle a2 (see Fig. 3) between the surface of the locking plate and the insertion direction of the latch plate (see annotated Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 5, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein each of the two positioning plates comprises two inclined segments symmetrically disposed, each of the two inclined segments has a first thickness at a center and a second thickness at an end of each of the two positioning plates, the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, and one of the two inclined segments is the first inclined segment (see annotated Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein the two positioning plates have a same shape (see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein the shell comprises two shell plates and a connecting plate connecting the two shell plates, the latch plate channel is formed on inner sides of the two shell plates and the connecting plate, each of the two shell plates comprises a limiting hole (44, 46) penetrating through each of the two shell plates along a thickness direction of each of the two shell plates, the locking plate is configured to be fitted in the limiting hole, the locking piece passes through the two limiting holes, and inner surfaces of the two positioning plates are respectively sliding fit with outer surfaces of the two shell plates in the thickness direction of the locking piece (see Fig. 4A and annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein the two positioning plates are configured to be in sliding contact with the two shell plates during movement of the locking piece, orthographic projections of the two positioning plates on the shell plates at least partially overlap with solid portions of the shell plates outside the two limiting holes, the two positioning plates remain in sliding contact with the outer surfaces of the two shell plates throughout the movement of the locking piece (see annotated Figs. 1 and 5, also Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein the limiting hole is a fan- shaped hole, and the locking plate is fitted with arc edges of the two limiting holes (see Fig. 4A and annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Sterner et al. further discloses, comprising a safety piece, the safety piece comprising a stopping groove and disposed on the shell between a stopping position and an avoiding position, the locking piece disengaged from the stopping groove when the safety piece is in the avoiding position to allow the locking piece to move, and the locking piece engaged in the stopping groove when the safety piece is in the stopping position to prevent the locking piece from moving (see annotated Figs. 1 and 5, also Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 11, Sterner et al. further discloses, comprising an elastic piece deformable between a compression state and a reset state, connected to the safety piece, abutting against the locking piece in the reset state to drive the safety piece to move to the avoiding position, driving the safety piece to rotate to the stopping position in the compression state, pressed to the compression state by the latch plate after the latch plate is inserted into the latch plate channel, and reset to the reset state after the latch plate is disengaged from the latch plate channel (see annotated Figs. 1 and 5, also Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 13, Sterner et al. further discloses, comprising a connecting piece disposed on the shell and configured to connect to a seat belt tensioner (see annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Sterner et al. discloses a vehicle, comprising a seat belt device,
wherein the seat belt device comprises:
a latch plate comprising a snap-fit notch and configured to connect to an end part of a seat belt (see annotated Fig. 1);
a shell comprising a latch plate channel, the latch plate channel configured for the latch plate to extend into (see annotated Fig. 1); and
a locking piece comprising two positioning plates and a locking plate (shaded area), the locking plate having two broad face surfaces opposite to each other in a thickness direction of the locking piece, the two positioning plates each connected to the locking plate and extending perpendicularly (a-a is perpendicular to c-c, or b-b is perpendicular to c-c, see annotated Fig. 5) from at least one of the two broad face surfaces of the locking plate in the thickness direction of the locking piece, connecting the two positioning plates, the locking piece disposed on the shell between a locking position and a release position, the two positioning plates sliding fit with the shell, wherein the two positioning plates are perpendicular to and protrude from the locking plate in a thickness direction of the locking piece, when the locking piece is in the locking position and the latch plate extends into the latch plate channel, the locking plate is snap-fitted in the snap-fit notch, and when the locking piece is in the release position, the locking plate is configured to avoid the latch plate (see annotated Figs. 1 and 5, also Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 15, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein the two positioning plates (A and B) or (C and D) protrude from the locking plate in a same direction (see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein the two positioning plates (A and D) or (B and C) protrude from the locking plate in opposite directions (see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein a first positioning plate of the two positioning plates comprises a first inclined segment that has a top surface facing away from the locking plate in the thickness direction of the locking piece, the top surface comprises a first surface inclined off a surface of the locking plate, and in the locking position, an angle a1 between the first inclined segment and an insertion direction of the latch plate is smaller than an angle a2 (see Fig. 3) between the surface of the locking plate and the insertion direction of the latch plate (see annotated Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 18, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein each of the two positioning plates comprises two inclined segments symmetrically disposed, each of the two inclined segments has a first thickness at a center and a second thickness at an end of each of the two positioning plates, the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, and one of the two inclined segments is the first inclined segment (see annotated Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 19, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein the two positioning plates have a same shape (see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Sterner et al. discloses, wherein the shell comprises two shell plates and a connecting plate connecting the two shell plates, the latch plate channel is formed on inner sides of the two shell plates and the connecting plate, each of the two shell plates comprises a limiting hole (44, 46) penetrating through each of the two shell plates along a thickness direction of each of the two shell plates, the locking plate is configured to be fitted in the limiting hole, the locking piece passes through the two limiting holes, and inner surfaces of the two positioning plates are respectively sliding fit with outer surfaces of the two shell plates in the thickness direction of the locking piece (see Fig. 4A and annotated Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
400
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Sterner et al. (US Patent No. 8,813,323).
Regarding claim 12, Sterner et al. discloses during movement of the locking piece, the two positioning plates at least partially overlap with the two shell plates, and the two positioning plates do not fall within the two limiting holes (see Figs. 2-4B and annotated Figs. 1 and 5).
Sterner et al. does not discloses each of the two positioning plates has a length of 8-14 mm and a width of 8-14 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have each of the two positioning plates has a length of 8-14 mm and a width of 8-14 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner V. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is obvious to modify the length and width dimensions of the positioning plates in order to optimize the length and width and facilitate to engage and disengage the latch plate from the shell and fit the locking piece inside the limiting hole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and 14 the applicant alleged that “Sterner's outer sections do not extend perpendicularly from a broad face surface of the locking plate. There is no broad face surface of Sterner's locking plate from which the outer sections protrude. Rather, the outer sections are planar extensions of the locking plate itself, all lying in the same flat plane”. The examiner disagrees because Sterner broadly discloses the recited claim limitation “a locking piece comprising two positioning plates and a locking plate (shaded area, see annotated Fig. 5), the locking plate having two broad face surfaces opposite to each other in a thickness direction of the locking piece, the two positioning plates each connected to the locking plate and extending perpendicularly (a-a is perpendicular to c-c, or b-b is perpendicular to c-c, see annotated Fig. 5) from at least one of the two broad face surfaces of the locking plate in the thickness direction of the locking piece.”
Regarding rejection of claim 12 the applicant alleged that the dimension “is specifically selected to further enhance stability and therefore cannot be characterized as a mere design choice. The dimensions are directly tied to ensuring a sufficient broad face overlap area between the positioning plates and the shell plates to prevent the positioning plates from falling into the limiting holes, as expressly described in the specification”. The examiner disagrees because it is obvious the positioning plates’ length and width dimensions from Sterner can be modified in order to optimize the length and the width, and to facilitate engagement and disengagement of the latch plate from the shell and properly fit the locking piece inside the limiting hole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Jason W. San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/LOUIS A. MERCADO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights