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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because there appear to be random dashes (-) throughout the Abstract. They appear at least in lines 4 and 7 of the Amended Abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “can be” at line 3 and line 10 should be replaced with “is configured to be”. 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 5-10, 12, 14, and 16 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first tooth” at lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 depends from claim 4, which introduces “at least one first tooth”. It is noted that claim 7 also recites “the first tooth” at line 3.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the first or the second tooth” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 that does not recite or mention a “first tooth.” The “first tooth” is recited in claim 5. It is unclear to Examiner whether Applicant intended to positively recite a first tooth in claim 6 or whether claim 6 was better suited to depend from claim 5. Examiner believes claims 6 would be better defined as depending from claim 5 rather than claim 1. Additionally, “the second tooth” lack antecedent basis as “at least one second tooth” is introduced at line 3 of claim 6.
Claim 7 recites “the contact surface.” It is unclear to what contact surface is being referenced and thus lacks antecedent basis. Claims 1 and 6 from which 7 depends recites having “a front-side contact surface.” Examiner is unsure if this is the same contact surface being claimed in claim 7. Examiner suggests amending claim language to use consistent terminology for all elements.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second control contour" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this was attempted to be a second control contour, or whether this is an oversight and should be “the first control contour” which was properly claimed in claim 1, from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the first control pin” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 from which claim 10 depends does not positively recite having a “first control pin.” Examiner suggest that claim 10 would be better suited to depend from claim 8 or 9, both of which provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “with which control pin the coupling pin slides on the second control contour.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation in this claim. Claim 12, and claims 1 and 11 from which it depends, do not recite a “control pin” or a “coupling pin.” The claim clearly recites having a “second control pin.” The claim is unclear as to whether the “second control pin” is the “control pin” or whether there is to be more than one. Further, it is unclear from the claim what or where the “coupling pin” would entail.
Claim 14 is unclear. The claim recites “the blocking contour” in line 3, however the limitation lack sufficient antecedent basis as it depends from only claim 1. Claim 13 first recites “a blocking contour” with a description of limitations. It is unclear to Examiner whether there is an oversight in claim dependency and claim 14 should depend from claim 13, or whether claim 14 should be clarified to positively recite the limitation of “a blocking contour.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the end-face contact surface” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best Examiner understands, “the end-face contact surface” is the same as “a front-side contact surface” claimed in claim 1. Examiner suggests Applicant amend claims to use consistent terminology for the contact surface that is intended to be claimed. Examiner has treated the claim as “the end-face contact surface” and “a front-side contact surface” being the same element in order to further prosecution.
Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependency from rejected claim 8.
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 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korean Patent KR 10-1439373 to Park.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a belt retractor (see Figure 1) for a seatbelt device of a motor vehicle, comprising a rotatably mounted belt reel (Abstract, see Figure 1) onto which a seatbelt of the seatbelt device can be wound (see Abstract), and a reversible belt tensioner having a drive wheel (330) which, when activated, drives the belt reel in the winding direction via the drive wheel (330), and a positively controlled tensioner coupling (see Figure 4a) transferring the drive movement from the drive wheel (330) onto the belt reel, with at least one coupling pawl (370) mounted on the drive wheel (330), which, in order to establish and disconnect a rotational connection of the drive wheel (330), can be moved into and out of engagement with a toothing (400) that is fixed on the belt reel, and a control element (320) with a first control contour (321) for controlling the engagement movement of the coupling pawl (370) in the toothing (400) fixed on the belt reel, wherein a force transmission surface (332) extending in the radial direction is provided on the drive wheel (330) and is arranged in such a way that the coupling pawl (370) comes into contact with a front-side contact surface (contact surface of the coupling pawl 370) by the engagement movement in the toothing (400) fixed on the belt reel, and the drive wheel (330) drives the coupling pawl (370) in the engagement position into the toothing (400) fixed on the belt reel to transmit the rotary movement to the belt reel (see at least abstract and Figures 4-7) via the force transmission surface (332) while exerting a compressive force in the peripheral direction of the drive wheel (330).
PNG
media_image1.png
289
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 5b
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses at least one first tooth (see Modified Figure 5b above) is provided on the coupling pawl (370), in the engaged position, engages in the toothing (400) fixed on the belt reel (see engaged setting shown in Figure 5b).
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses the coupling pawl (370) has a curved arcuate shape and is arranged in such a way that the curved shorter side faces the toothing (400) fixed on the belt reel (see at least Figure 5b where the shorter side (bottom) of the pawl 370 faces 400).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses the coupling pawl (370) is pivotably mounted in a pivot bearing (333) which is arranged on the end of the coupling pawl (370) that is more remote from the front-side contact surface (surface where 370 meets toothing 400; see at least Figure 6a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 11, and 13 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.
Claims 5-10, 12, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 closest prior art of reference is Park that is referenced above and used in the rejection of several of the claims. Park discloses the details of claims 1, 4, 15, and 16, but fails to disclose, suggest, or render obvious, alone or in combination, the details of the claims not rejected above. The details of the blocking surface, coupling pawl, and multiple control pins recited in claims 2-3 and 5-14 were not found in the prior art, alone or in combination. As such, Examiner believes the details of these claims are allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited on the attached PTO-892 all relate to seat belt reels.
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