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.
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 and 6 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 5 and 6 recite the limitation “the flattened portions” in line 3 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 5 and 6 depend from claims 1-3 which do no recite or claim a flattened portion. It appears to Examiner that claims 5 and 6 previously were multiply dependent from claims 3 or 5 and 3 to 5, respectively. Claim 4 is the only other claim that mentions the flattened portions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by European Patent EP 0803399 to Wier.
Regarding claim 1, Wier discloses a force limiter (1) for a seat belt of a seat belt device (58) of a motor vehicle, comprising a fitting part (64), a deformation tube (10), a tensile transmission element (14) and a displacement part (12) which is connected to the tensile transmission element (14) with tension resistance and is arranged in or on the deformation tube (10), wherein the deformation tube (10) has a linear portion (see Figure 3 and 4; lower part of 10), in or at the open end of which the displacement part (12) is held, wherein the deformation tube (10) has a deflection portion (see Figure 3 top portion near buckle) formed integrally with the linear portion (bottom straight portion as shown in Figure 3), in which the tensile transmission element (14) is deflected.
Regarding claim 2, Wier discloses the displacement part (12) comprises a deformation portion (in areas of 34, 26) which is non-round in cross section (see Figure 2) and has a greater external dimension (A) than the inner diameter (D) of the deformation tube (2) in cross section in at least one extension direction.
Regarding claim 7, Wier discloses the displacement part (12) has a cylindrical guide portion (18) which has an outer diameter corresponding to the inner diameter of the deformation tube (10; see Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
201
325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Portion of Figure 4
Regarding claim 9, Wier discloses the fitting part (64) comprises a fastening portion (at center of 64) for fastening the force limiter (1) to a vehicle-fixed structure (52), a first fixing portion (see Annotated Portion of Figure 4 above) comprising the deformation tube (10) in the region of the linear portion (see Annotated Portion of Figure 4 above) and a second fixing portion (see Annotated Portion of Figure 4 above) comprising the deformation tube (10) in the region of the deflection portion (see Annotated Portion of Figure 4 above).
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, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,021,131 to Moeker.
Regarding claim 1, Moeker discloses a force limiter (13) for a seat belt of a seat belt device (9) of a motor vehicle, comprising a fitting part (31), a deformation tube (23), a tensile transmission element (15) and a displacement part (25) which is connected to the tensile transmission element (15) with tension resistance and is arranged in or on the deformation tube (23), wherein the deformation tube (23) has a linear portion (see Figure 7) in or at the open end (near 29) of which the displacement part (25) is held, wherein there is a deflection portion (19), in which the tensile transmission element is deflected.
Moeker fails to disclose the deformation tube has a deflection portion formed integrally with the linear portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to have integrally formed the deflection portion with the linear portion, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 7, Moeker discloses the displacement part (25) has a cylindrical guide portion (at 29) which has an outer diameter corresponding to the inner diameter of the deformation tube (23; see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 10, Moeker is discussed above, but does not disclose the deformation tube is oval-shaped in the region of the open end of the deflection portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to have made the open end of the deformation tube of Moeker oval-shaped with a reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice to made the different portion various shapes. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 11, Moeker discloses at least one additional deformation element (31) is provided in the deformation tube (23) for realizing a progressive or degressive force limitation curve (see at least claim 5 and Figures 4, 6, and 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 8, and 12-14 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.
Claims 5 and 6 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 at least: the non-round deformation has at least two radially outwardly projecting cams on its radial outer side; the non-round deformation portions have at least two flattened portions in cross section on their radial outer side; the deformation tube comprises at least one radially inwardly shaped bead, which limits the displacement path of the displacement part in the deformation tube; a blocking element which blocks the displacement part or the tensile transmission element and is movable by a controllable actuator from a blocking position to a release position. The closest prior art is discussed above, but fails to disclose the elements listed above, either alone or in combination.
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 relates to various types of force limiters for seat belts.
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