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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 5-6 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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 22 recites “the compressive force”. Examiner suggests changing to “a compressive force.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 recites “the teeth.” Examiner suggests changing to simply “teeth.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “a second control pin is provided on the coupling pawl.” The limitation was already recited in claim 1, from which claim 11 depends. Examiner suggests deleting the limitation from claim 11. 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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation "the coupling pawl" in lines 13, 15-16, 20, 21, 24, and 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is to “at least one coupling pawl” is in line 9. Every subsequent recitation is to a singular coupling pawl. Examiner suggests changing all recitations of the limitation in claim 1 to “at least one coupling pawl”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "with which control pin" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites both “a first control pin” and a “second control pin.” Examiner believes it should be changed to “with which the first control pin.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fixed end toward the free end" in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of a fixed end or a free end. There is a previous recitation in the claim that recites “a spring arm which is fixed at one end.” Examiner suggests changing to “a fixed end of the spring arm toward a free end of the spring arm.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second control pin" in lines 23-24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is only to “a first control pin.” Examiner suggests amending to “a second control pin.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the coupling pawl" in lines 4 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is to “at least one coupling pawl” is in line 9 of claim 1. Examiner suggests changing all recitations of the limitation to “at least one coupling pawl”.
Claim 2 recites “a compressive force” in line 9. It is unclear to Examiner whether this is the same compressive force previously recited in claim 1. Examiner suggests clarifying as “the compressive force” if it is the same as claim 1, or clarifying the force if the force is not the same as claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the coupling pawl" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is to “at least one coupling pawl” is in line 9 of claim 1. Examiner suggests changing the recitation of the limitation to “at least one coupling pawl”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the engaged position" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation to an engaged portion, rather, claim 1 only discusses an engagement movement. Examiner suggests clarifying.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the coupling pawl" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is to “at least one coupling pawl” is in line 9 of claim 1. Examiner suggests changing the recitations of the limitation to “at least one coupling pawl”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the end face" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of the end face; Examiner suggests changing to “an end face.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first tooth" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is to “at least one first tooth” in claim 5, from which 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the angle" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing to “an angle.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the radially outwardly directed end faces of the teeth" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of faces, except in reference to a first tooth. Examiner suggests changing to “radially outwardly directed end faces of the teeth of the toothing” in order to provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first or the second tooth" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitations are to “at least one first tooth” and “at least one second tooth.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the coupling pawl" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is to “at least one coupling pawl” is in line 9 of claim 1. Examiner suggests changing the recitation of the limitation to “at least one coupling pawl”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the catch tooth" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of a catch tooth. Examiner believes “the catch tooth” is another element, and not relate to the previous first or second tooth. Examiner suggests changing to “a catch tooth.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first tooth" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitations are to “at least one tooth.” Examiner suggests positively claiming a singular tooth or recitation to “at least one tooth.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the contact surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what contact surface is being claimed. Examiner believes the reference may be to the previously recited “frontside contact surface.” Examiner suggests clarifying.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the coupling pawl" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is to “at least one coupling pawl” is in line 9 of claim 1. Examiner suggests changing the recitation of the limitation to “at least one coupling pawl”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the engaged position" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of any engaged position.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said control pin" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner believes the recitation is a reference to “the first control pin.” Examiner suggests clarifying and amending.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the coupling pawl" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is to “at least one coupling pawl” is in line 9 of claim 1. Examiner suggests changing the recitation of the limitation to “at least one coupling pawl”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the disengagement movement" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior mention to disengagement, only to engagement. Examiner suggests changing to “a disengagement movement.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the coupling pawl" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is to “at least one coupling pawl” is in line 9 of claim 1. Examiner suggests changing the recitation of the limitation to “at least one coupling pawl”.
Claim 11 recites “with which control pin the coupling pawl slides” in lines 3-4. It is unclear to which control pin the claim is referencing. Examiner believes the control pin referenced is the second control pin, therefore Examiners suggests changing to “the second control pin.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the coupling pawl" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is to “at least one coupling pawl” is in line 9 of claim 1. Examiner suggests changing the recitation of the limitation to “at least one coupling pawl”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the engaged position" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of any engaged position.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the coupling pawl" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is to “at least one coupling pawl” is in line 9 of claim 1. Examiner suggests changing the recitation of the limitation to “at least one coupling pawl”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the curved shorter side" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of any side. Examiner suggests changing to “a curved shorter side.”
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the coupling pawl" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is to “at least one coupling pawl” is in line 9 of claim 1. Examiner suggests changing the recitation of the limitation to “at least one coupling pawl”.
Claim 15 recites “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 2. Examiner suggests Applicant amend claims to use consistent terminology for the contact surface that is intended to be claimed or to amend the dependency of claim 15. 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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected due to their dependency from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-15 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 prior art fails to disclose, suggest, or render obvious, alone or in combination, a belt retractor for a seat belt device of a motor vehicle, comprising a rotatably mounted belt reel onto which a seat belt of the seat belt device can be wound, and a reversible belt tensioner having a drive wheel which, when activated, drives the belt reel in the winding direction via the drive wheel, and a positively controlled tensioner coupling transferring the drive movement from the drive wheel onto the belt reel, with at least one coupling pawl mounted on the drive wheel, which, in order to establish and disconnect a rotational connection of the drive wheel, can be moved into and out of engagement with a toothing that is fixed on the belt reel, and a control element with a first control contour for controlling the engagement movement of the coupling pawl in the toothing fixed on the belt reel, characterized in that wherein a first control pin is provided on the coupling pawl, with which control pin the coupling pawl slides on the first control contour during the engagement movement, and the first control contour is formed by a spring arm which is fixed at one end to the control element, and the first control pin slides on the spring arm from the fixed end toward the free end during the engagement movement of the coupling pawl, wherein the coupling pawl, in the event of a rotational movement of the toothing fixed on the belt reel, is forced radially outwards in the take-up direction, and via the compressive force exerted on the spring arm by the first control pin, the control element is forced to perform a relative movement, during which the second control pin of the coupling pawl slides onto a second blocking surface, wherein the second blocking surface blocks the coupling pawl against a radially inwardly directed pivoting movement into the toothing fixed on the belt reel. The closes prior art of reference is Korean Patent KR 10-1439373 to Park. Specifically, Park discloses having a belt retractor with a reel (see Figure 1), with at least one coupling pawl (370), 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. However, Park, and other prior art, fail to disclose specifically having a first and second control pin, multiple blocking surfaces, and the control contour formed as a spring arm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited on the PTO-892 relates to seat belt retractors.
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
