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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of the response dated 4/30/2026. The claims were amended with claims 11-14 added. Claims 1 and 5-14 are pending and are discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 of claim 14 recites “wherein in the circular receptacle is radially inward” appears to be a typographical error. Examiner suggests removing “in” and the limitation read “wherein the circular receptacle is radially inward.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2003/0184076 to Devereaux et al. (hereinafter Devereaux).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3
Regarding claim 1, Devereaux discloses a tensioning device (Abstract) for a safety belt component (see Abstract), having a gas generator (52) for generating a pressurized gas, a piston (46) that can be driven by the pressurized has, a tension cable (30) that is connected to the piston (46) and is connectable to a safety belt component (28) to be put into a tensioning movement, a tensioner tube (40) for receiving and guiding the piston (46), and a receptacle (54) that accommodates the gas generator (52), wherein the tension cable (30) extends through a frame (110) at the end facing away from the tensioner tube (40), and a deflection element (see Modified Figure 3 above indicated the deflection element as the entirety of the deflection section) is mounted in the frame (110), wherein the tension cable (30) bears directly against the deflection element (see Modified Figure 3), the deflection element (see Modified Figure 3) has a deflection surface (148, 138) which is circular in cross-section (see at least Figure 3 where 30 goes between 148 and 138) at least in sections and against which the tension cable (30) bears; the deflection element (see Modified Figure 3) is mounted in the frame (110) by means of a bushing (154), the deflection element (see Modified Figure 3) having a circular receptable for the bushing (see 68 on 60 as part of the entirety of the deflection element) for the bushing (154; see at least Figure 2); the circular receptable (68) being arranged eccentrically in relation to the circular defection surface (148, 138; see at least Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Devereaux discloses the deflection element (see Modified Figure 3) is flat in a section against which the tension cable does not bear (see at least area near 144 in Figure 3 that is straight and does not bear against the cable or any other flat section such as 84 on the deflection element).
Regarding claim 6, Devereaux discloses an outer contour of a further component of the tensioning device (sensor 102) is adapted to an outer contour of the deflection element (see Figure 3 were the outside of 102 is aligned with the outside of the deflection element near 100 in Figure 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, suggest, or render obvious at least: that a deflection surface forms part of an outer counter of the deflection element; a plug element is adapted to an outer contour of the deflection element; where the inflator and cable guide are integrally formed and are entirely within the tensioner tube; and the circular receptacle is radially inward of the deflection surface. The closest prior art is cited in the above rejection and fails to disclose or render obvious these limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant incorporated subject matter from claims 2-4 in independent claim 1. The subject matter was previously rejected in the action dated 1/30/2026 in view of Devereaux. Applicant has argued that the circular receptacle element is formed on a different structure than the deflection element. However, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the entirety of the deflection element includes all elements past the tension tube including at least all elements mounted with 126 and as annotated on the above Modified Figure 3. As such, the circular receptacle element would be part of the deflection element. As such, Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument persuasive and has attempted to clearly define elements of the prior art for Applicant in the above rejection.
Conclusion
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 Tiffany L. Webb whose telephone number is (571)272-3950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30-5.
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.
/T.L.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights