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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “323” has been used to designate both “insertion hole” and “second locking protrusion.” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 381 and 385. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pages 6 and 7, reference character 311 is referred to as plurality of protrusions and plurality of locking protrusions. Examiner believes this is a minor oversight and all references to 311 should be a plurality of locking protrusions.
On page 9, second paragraph: “a space defining portion 394” should be “a space defining portion 384.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 10 recites “an extension member which extends from the other side of the fastening member.” Examiner believes this to be a minor error and that “fastening member” is meant to be “fastening ring” based on the written description and the drawings. Examiner suggests changing from “member” to “ring.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “a vehicle sensor device which is configured according to claim 1.” A vehicle sensor device is already positively claimed in claim 1, Examiner suggests changing to “the vehicle sensor device configured according to claim 1.” Lines 3-4 recite “a seat belt webbing” which was previously positively claimed in claim 1, from which claim 6 depends. Examiner suggests changing to “the seat belt webbing.” Line 5 recites “a spindle” which was previously positively claimed in claim 1, from which 6 depends. Examiner suggests changing to “the spindle.” Line 6 recites “a pilot lever” and “a steering disk” which were both previously claimed in claim 1, from which 6 depends. Examiner suggests changing to “the pilot lever” and “the steering disk.” 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.
Claim 5 is 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 wobble gear" in line 7. Claim 5 depends from claim 1, which does not claim having a wobble gear. A wobble gear is positively claimed in claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to Examiner whether Applicant intended to positively recite a wobble gear in the claim or the clam should depend from claim 2 to have proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2014-234108 to Hitoshi et al. (hereinafter Hitoshi; citations below to English translation) in view of Japanese Patent JP 2010-167545 to Iwata et al. (hereinafter Iwata; citations below to English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hitoshi discloses a vehicle sensor (30) device comprising: a steering disk (25) which is disposed on one side of a spindle (22) and rotates according to a retraction operation or a pulling-out operation of a seat belt webbing (19); a bearing plate (27) in which the steering disk (25) is accommodated; a sensor housing (32) which is installed to be rotatable based on an installation angle of the bearing plate and a change in an inclination of an object to be mounted; a ball (35) which moves in the sensor housing (32) according to a change in the inclination and acceleration of a vehicle; an upper cover (37) which is disposed on an upper portion of the ball and rotatably disposed according to movement of the ball (35); a pilot lever (36) which rotates in contact with the upper cover by rotation of the upper cover (37) to be coupled to or decoupled from the steering disk (25) (see at least Figures 3-4; see also page 3, paragraph 5). Hitoshi discloses a ratchet lever (36) has, on a side of a claw part (36a), a lever contact part (36i) which prevents the operation of the ratchet lever (36) by coming into contact with a switch lever (60) when a lock canceller lever is operated (see page 5, paragraph 2).
However, Hitoshi fails to disclose a lock canceller lever which releases the contact with the steering disk and the pilot lever to rotate the steering disk, enabling the seat belt webbing to be retracted and pulled out.
Iwata discloses a retractor for a seat belt that has a lever to preventing end lock caused by a webbing acceleration sensor (see Abstract). Iwata discloses a cancel lever (90) having a protrusion part (91) that contacts the outer surface of a disk (87) so that the cancel lever (90) holds a lock to prevent the lock (20) from being rotated at a lock release position at which the lock cannot be engaged with an inner gear (11) therefore making it so to prevent end lock of the webbing (see at least page 7, paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to have used the cancel lever of Iwata on the acceleration sensor system of Hitoshi with a reasonable expectation of success as a reasonable structure for a lock canceller lever in order to help prevent end lock due to malfunction of the acceleration sensing means. The combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Hitoshi discloses a seat belt retractor (11) comprising a sensor (30) configured to detect a change in the inclination of a vehicle and a change in the pulling-out acceleration of a seat belt webbing (19); and a spindle (22) around which the seat belt webbing (19) is wound, wherein the seat belt retractor (11) rotates a pilot lever (36) to be coupled to or decoupled from a steering disk (25) based on the detected change in the inclination of the vehicle and the pulling-out acceleration of the webbing (see at least last paragraph on page 2; see also Figures 3 and 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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.
Claim 5 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: Regarding claims 2-4, the prior art alone or in combination fails to disclose, suggest, or render obvious having at least a wobble gear which is disposed on one side of the bearing plate and rotates in the opposite direction of a rotation direction of the spindle; a center gear which penetrates through the wobble gear to be coupled to a coupling shaft of the spindle; and a clutch lever which is coupled to the sensor gear and is rotated by the wobble gear to selectively come into contact with or to be separated from the sensor housing, wherein the wobble gear has a first interlocking protrusion to rotate the clutch lever, and a second interlocking protrusion to rotate the lock canceller lever. The closest prior art of record is discussed above, but both Hitoshi and Iwata fail to disclose having the combination of the wobble gear with bearing plates, a clutch lever, and interlocking protrusions. Regarding claim 5, the prior art alone or in combination fails to disclose, suggest, or render obvious an ALR lever which comes into contact with or is separated from one side of the steering disk to restrict or release a rotational motion of the steering disk, wherein the ALR lever comprises: a fastening ring which is rotatably coupled to a plate surface of the bearing plate; a second interlocking member which extends from one side of the fastening ring toward the wobble gear, and has an interlocking protrusion protruding from one end thereof, and a contact protrusion protruding from the other end thereof to come into contact with the lock canceller lever; and an extension member which extends from the other side of the fastening member by a predetermined length to cause an end to selectively come into contact with or to be separated from the steering disk to restrict or release the rotational motion of the steering disk. The closest prior art of record is discussed above in reference to Hitoshi and Iwata. While Iwata does further disclose having an ALR lever, but does not disclose it having the details of a fastening ring, a wobble gear, and interlocking protrusions with a contact protrusion. Thus, claims 2-5 contain allowable subject matter.
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 retractors and seat belt sensors for locking/unlocking during retraction.
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