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 § 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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gutierrez (US 2019/0283705).
Regarding claim 1, Gutierrez discloses a vehicle seat belt system {Figs. 1-3} comprising: a seat belt {3 (Figs. 1-2)}; a seat belt tang {4+18 (Fig. 3)} operatively connected to the seat belt {3 (Fig. 1)} and engageable with a female receiver {“buckle receiver”: “The figure showing latch 4 being planar and having a general rectangular shape with a distal end having a protrusion with latch tongue 18 including a square shape and aperture 19 configured to be received by a conventional belt buckle receiver therein” [0022]}; a housing {2} securely fastened to the tang {4+18 (Fig. 1)}; and a blade {7} located in the housing {2 (Figs. 2-3)} and being selectively movable across the seat belt {3} thereby to cut the seat belt {3 (Fig. 2): “blade cuts the seat belt fabric horizontally… also uses a serrated blade with shark-tooth or serrated design across the full length of the belt to ensure point to point cutting across the entire width of the belt. The serrated blade better penetrates the belt fabric first for an easy and clean cut that uses a minimal force to accomplish its purpose. The claimed device also does not use any external elements to cut the belt (the blade is internal), and the semi-circular shape between the serrated design makes the cutting of the belt soft and easy.” [0026]}.
Regarding claim 3, Gutierrez discloses the housing {2} defines at least one slot {10, 12, 17 (Fig. 3)}; and wherein the seat belt {3} extends through said at least one slot {10: “a rectangular shaped aperture 10 to receive belt 3” [0025], 12: “at least two rectangular apertures 12 to receive belt 3” [0024], 17: “at least two belt loop openings 17 disposed along the longitudinal axis (to receive belt 3)” [0022]}.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutierrez in view of Fang (CN 209719509).
Regarding claim 2, Gutierrez discloses all the aspects of claim 1. Gutierrez further teaches the blade has a “semi-circular shape” [0026], and that “It is additionally noted and anticipated that although the device is shown in its most simple form, various components and aspects of the device may be differently shaped or slightly modified when forming the invention herein. As such those skilled in the art will appreciate the descriptions and depictions set forth in this disclosure or merely meant to portray examples of preferred modes within the overall scope and intent of the invention and are not to be considered limiting in any manner. While all of the fundamental characteristics and features of the invention have been shown and described herein, with reference to particular embodiments thereof, a latitude of modification, various changes and substitutions are intended in the foregoing disclosure and it will be apparent that in some instances, some features of the invention may be employed without a corresponding use of other features without departing from the scope of the invention as set forth. It should also be understood that various substitutions, modifications, and variations may be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention” [0027], and that “Although specific embodiments of the invention have been disclosed, those having ordinary skill in the art will understand that changes can be made to the specific embodiments without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. The scope of the invention is not to be restricted, therefore, to the specific embodiments” [0028].
However, Gutierrez does not explicitly disclose the blade is a cutting disc.
Fang teaches the blade {15} is a cutting disc {15} to cut a seat belt {“drives the cutting disc 15 to rotate to cut the seat belt” [0034]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle seat belt system, as disclosed by Gutierrez, such that the blade is a cutting disc, as taught by Fang, in order to “improve the efficiency of cutting the seat belt, and save the time and effort required to cut the seat belt, thereby improving the efficiency of self-rescue” [0009].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614