DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 03/07/2025, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 03/07/2025.
Claims 1-11 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to DE 102022/122770, filed on 09/08/2022; and is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/074443, filed on 09/06/2023. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, line 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a safety belt component” should read, “the safety belt component”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10, line 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the mounted state” should read, “a mounted state”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 6 and 11 are 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.
Claims 4 and 6 recite the limitation “in particular”; and claim 11 recites the limitation “preferably”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “the safety belt component is connected to one end of the tension cable in a form-fitting and/or force-fitting manner”, and the claim also recites “in particular by a plastic deformation of the safety belt component" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; claim 6 recites the broad recitation “the frame has an entry design for the deformation element that widens”, and the claim also recites “in particular towards the safety belt component" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; and claim 11 recites the broad recitation “a deflection element is arranged in the frame, on which element the tension cable rests during the tightening process, wherein the frame and the deformation element are designed such that the deformation element penetrates into the frame, at least up to the deflection element, at the end of an unloaded tightening process”, and the claim also recites “wherein the deformation element is preferably pulled at least partially along the deflection element and into the frame at the end of the unloaded tightening process” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Therefore, these claim limitations are indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the phrases following “in particular” and “preferably” will not be interpreted as a required limitation of the claim.
Claim 11 states, “The tightening device according to claim 1, wherein a deflection element is arranged in the frame, on which element the tension cable rests during the tightening process, wherein the frame and the deformation element are designed such that the deformation element penetrates into the frame, at least up to the deflection element, at the end of an unloaded tightening process, wherein the deformation element is preferably pulled at least partially along the deflection element and into the frame at the end of the unloaded tightening process.”. This claim is unclear and indefinite, because it is unclear a) if the “tightening process” and “unloaded tightening process” are different, and b) (if yes to a) how the “tightening process” and “unloaded tightening process” are different. The specification does not provide any guidance or clarity on this matter. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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 1-4, 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi (US 2004/0256850).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses a tightening device {10} for a safety belt component {8: “The pretensioner device 10 is connected to a buckle 8” [0026]}, comprising
- a gas generator {22} for generating a pressurized gas,
- a piston {21} that can be driven by the pressurized gas {“gas generator 22 is ignited, and the pressure of the generated gas pushes the piston rod 21 forward causing the bent intermediate portion of the cable 12 connected to the annular head 21a formed in the free end of the piston rod 21 to be pushed aside” [0048]},
- a tension cable {12} that is connected to the piston {21} and is connected to a safety belt component {8 (Fig. 1): “The cable 12 extends in parallel with the cylinder 19 along a lower side thereof, and reaches the annular head 21a of the piston rod 21. An intermediate point of the cable 12 is passed circumferentially around the outer circumferential surface of the annular head 21a so that the cable 12 loops back from the annular head 21a, and extends in the shape of letter V. The terminal end of the part of the cable 12 that extends from the annular head 21a in an obliquely upward direction is connected to the buckle 8 via the eye end 28” [0037]} that is to be set into a tightening motion {“the cable… is kept fixed in position against the tension from the buckle 8” [0035]},
- a tightening tube {19} for receiving and guiding the piston {21: “piston rod 21 axially moveably received in an inner bore 19a of the cylinder 19” [0042]}, and
- a receptacle {19a (left end of 19a in Fig. 4)} that accommodates the gas generator {22: “gas generator 22 provided in a rear end of the cylinder 19” [0042]}, wherein
the tension cable {12} extends through a frame {11+16 (Figs. 3-4): “the cable 12 is pulled into a space between the base plate 11 and cover 16” [0051]} on the side facing away from the tightening tube {19 (right side in Figs. 2-5): “the outer circumferential surface of the cylinder 19 is supported by the base plate 11 and cover 16 that surround the cylinder 19” [0032]}, and in that a deformation element {28 (28a, 28b)} is formed on an end region of the tension cable {12} associated with the safety belt component {8 (Figs. 2-3, 7)}, the deformation element {28 (28b)} entering the frame {11+16 (11e+16e)} at the end of a tightening process {“as the tapered portion 28b is engaged by the tapered recesses 11e and 16e and moves in the direction to widen the tapered recesses 11e and 16e” [0055]}, and the frame {11+16} being designed such that the frame {11+16} is deformed by the deformation element {28 (28b)} entering the frame {11+16 (11e+16e): “as the tapered portion 28b is engaged by the tapered recesses 11e and 16e and moves in the direction to widen the tapered recesses 11e and 16e” [0055]}.
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi discloses {Figs. 7-8} the deformation element {28} has an outer circumference {28b: “tapered portion 28b” [0054]} which tapers along the tension cable {12} in the direction of the frame {11+16 (11e+16e)}.
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi discloses the safety belt component {8} is connected to the tension cable {12 (Figs. 2-3)}, and the deformation element {28 (28a, 28b)} is attached as an independent component to the tension cable {12 (Fig. 2): “28 is connected to the cable 12 via a sleeve 28a which is integrally attached to the corresponding end of the cable 12 by crimping” [0028]} and to the safety belt component {8 (Fig. 3): “sleeve 28a of the eye end 28 provided on the base end of the buckle 8” [0054]}.
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi discloses the safety belt component {8} is connected to one end of the tension cable {12} in a form-fitting and/or force-fitting manner {“cable 12 having one… end connected to an eye end 28 in the form of a plate member having a hole formed therein for connecting the buckle 8 thereto by using a threaded bolt. This eye end 28 is connected to the cable 12 via a sleeve 28a which is integrally attached to the corresponding end of the cable 12 by crimping” [0028]}.
Regarding claim 6, Yamaguchi discloses the frame {11+16} has an entry design {11e+16e} for the deformation element {28 (28b)} that widens in particular towards the safety belt component {8 (Fig. 8): “tapered recesses 11e and 16e that widen toward the buckle 8, and the buckle 8 is provided with a tapered portion 28b similar to that of the previous embodiment. The tapered recesses 11e and 16e are appropriately dimensioned such that the free end of the tapered portion 28b can fit into the tapered recesses 11e and 16e and provided with a tapering angle smaller than that of the tapered portion 28b. Therefore, as the tapered portion 28b is engaged by the tapered recesses 11e and 16e and moves in the direction to widen the tapered recesses 11e and 16e, the kinetic energy can be absorbed gradually toward the terminal end of the movement of the buckle 8” [0055]}.
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi discloses the frame {11+16} is U-shaped in cross section {a U-shape with the open end of the U facing left in Figs. 4-5}.
Regarding claim 8, Yamaguchi discloses {Figs. 2-3} an end cap {14, 17} is fitted onto the frame {11+16}.
Regarding claim 11, Yamaguchi discloses a deflection element {17} is arranged in the frame {11+16}, on which element the tension cable {12} rests during the tightening process {Fig. 3}, wherein the frame {11+16} and the deformation element {28} are designed such that the deformation element {28} penetrates into the frame {11+16}, at least up to the deflection element {17}, at the end of an unloaded tightening process {Fig. 7}, wherein the deformation element {28} is preferably pulled at least partially along the deflection element {17} and into the frame {11+16} at the end of the unloaded tightening process {Fig. 7: “The sleeve 28a of the eye end 28 provided on the base end of the buckle 8 is also provided with a tapered portion 28b having a smaller tapering angle than the tapered portion 17b so that the tapered portion 28b can fit into the tapered portion17b. Thereby, during operation, these two tapered portions 17b and 28b engage each other in such a manner that the tapered portion 28b on the side of the buckle 8 force its way into the tapered portion 17b on the side of the cable guide 17, and progressively widens the tapered portion 17b while the force that pulls the cable 12 remains great enough. Therefore, owing to such an engagement between the two tapered portions 17a and 28b, the kinetic energy can be absorbed gradually toward the terminal end of the movement of the buckle, and a result similar to that of the previous embodiments can be achieved” [0054]}.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Fredriksson (US 10,569,683).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi discloses the deformation element {28} is attached as a crimping connection on the tension cable {12: “28 is connected to the cable 12 via a sleeve 28a which is integrally attached to the corresponding end of the cable 12 by crimping” [0028]} and as a bolted connection on the safety belt component {8: “28 in the form of a plate member having a hole formed therein for connecting the buckle 8 thereto by using a threaded bolt” [0028]}.
However, Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose the deformation element is attached as an overmolding on the tension cable and on the safety belt component.
Fredriksson teaches a deformation element {“The overmolding” (Col. 6, lines 39-40)} is attached as an overmolding on a tension cable {28} and on a channel {24: “overmolding may eliminate the need for fasteners to hold the cable 28 within the channel 24 and may provide a bond between the channel 24 and the cable 28” (Col. 6, lines 40-42)}.
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 tightening device, as disclosed by Yamaguchi, such that the deformation element is attached as an overmolding on the tension cable and on the safety belt component, as taught by Fredriksson, in order “to eliminate gaps… provide a secure fit… eliminate the need for fasteners” (Col. 6, lines 38-40).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Chicken (DE 19918596 B4), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi discloses the tightening device {10} comprises a sheath {29}, wherein the sheath {29} surrounds the tension cable {12} in a region between the frame {11+16} and the safety belt component {8 (Fig. 3)}.
However, Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose the sheath surrounds the safety belt component at least in part.
Chicken teaches a tightening device comprises a sheath {2}, wherein the sheath {2} surrounds the tension cable {8} in a region between the frame {30} and the safety belt component {1+31}, and surrounds the safety belt component {1+31} at least in part {Fig. 4}.
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 tightening device, as disclosed by Yamaguchi, such that the sheath surrounds the safety belt component at least in part, as taught by Chicken, so that the tension cable, safety belt component and deformation element are all “protected” [0024].
Regarding claim 10, Yamaguchi discloses the frame {11+16} has an engagement portion {11f (Fig. 4)} which, in the mounted state, is arranged outside the tightening tube {19}, wherein the engagement portion {11f} of the frame {11+16} is fixed to the tightening tube {19} by pressing the tightening tube {19 (Fig. 4): “because the outer circumferential surface of the cylinder 19 is supported by the base plate 11 and cover 16 that surround the cylinder 19, the cylinder 19 is effectively prevented from tilting” [0032]}.
However, Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose the engagement portion is arranged inside the tightening tube.
Chicken teaches {Fig. 5} an engagement portion {28} of a frame {12 “gas generator housing 12” [0026]} is arranged inside a tightening tube {6: “tube 6” [0033]}.
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 tightening device, as disclosed by Yamaguchi, such that the engagement portion is arranged inside the tightening tube, as taught by Chicken, so that “sealing of the cylindrical tube 6 with respect to the gas generator housing is achieved” [0035], since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda.
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 on (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
