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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “1” should be changed to --1,--.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “1” should be changed to --1,--.
In line 3, “that” should be deleted.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “1” should be changed to --1,--.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “that” should be deleted.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “4” should be changed to --4,--.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “1” should be changed to --1,--.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “1” should be changed to --1,--.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “1” should be changed to --1,--.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “1” should be changed to --1,--.
In line 4, “that” should be deleted.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “11” should be changed to --11,--.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “that” should be deleted.
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 1-17 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.
The limitation “a seatbelt of the seatbelt retractor” does not accurately describe the invention because the seatbelt 7 is not a part of the seatbelt retractor 2. This rejection could be overcome by deleting “of the seatbelt retractor” in line 4.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the end sides of the housing" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the end” to --end-- in line 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction of the axis of rotation of the seatbelt shaft" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the longitudinal” to --a longitudinal-- in line 3.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the legs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the other longitudinal strut" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the other” to --another-- in line 3.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the opposite edge side of the backrest" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the opposite” to --an opposite-- in line 3.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the end sides of the housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the end” to --end-- in line 2.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction of the axis of rotation of the seatbelt shaft" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the longitudinal” to --a longitudinal-- in line 2.
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 1-4, 9, 11-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Husted et al. (US 5,697,670). Husted discloses a seatbelt retractor 56 for attachment in and/or on a backrest 14 of a vehicle seat 10, wherein the seatbelt retractor has a housing 58 in which a seatbelt shaft (a portion of “a spool” of the retractor - column 3, lines 32-35) is mounted so as to be rotatable about an axis of rotation, around which seatbelt shaft a seatbelt 16 can be wound, wherein the seatbelt is guided out of the seatbelt retractor through an outlet opening (Fig. 2), wherein two attachment arms (where bolt 62 passes through the housing 58 – see Fig. 2) which project radially with respect to the axis of rotation of the seatbelt shaft and are spaced apart from one another are provided on the housing for attaching the seatbelt retractor in or on the backrest of the vehicle seat, and are designed for pivotable attachment to the backrest (column 4, lines 7-10). The attachment arms are pivotably fastened about a pivot axis 62 extending in parallel with the axis of rotation of the seatbelt shaft (Figs. 2-4). The attachment arms are arranged at end sides of the housing in relation to a longitudinal direction of the axis of rotation of the seatbelt shaft (Fig. 2). The pivotable fastening of the attachment arms is formed in each case by a bearing opening in the attachment arms, and the bearing openings are arranged coaxially with respect to one another (Fig. 2; column 4, lines 7-10). The attachment arms taper conically radially outwards starting from the housing (Fig. 2). The backrest has at least two longitudinal struts spaced apart from one another and arranged parallel to one another, and the seatbelt retractor is pivotably attached to the longitudinal struts by means of the attachment arms (Fig. 2). One of the longitudinal struts is arranged at one edge side of the backrest, and another longitudinal strut is arranged at the opposite edge side of the backrest (Fig. 2). The seatbelt retractor is arranged, with the axis of rotation of the seatbelt shaft, parallel to an upper edge side of the backrest (Fig. 2).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Husted et al. (US 5,697,670). Husted teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above. Husted does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 10. However, the recited dimensions do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Said prior art teach retractors that are pivotably attached to a backrest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH J FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)270-7802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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.
/KEITH J FRISBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights