Ex Parte STROIK

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

13679466 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/679,466 11/16/2012
27111 7590
GORDON & REES LLP
101 WEST BROADWAY
SUITE 1600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
06/22/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gary Lee STROIK JR.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TKHD-1109457 4248
EXAMINER
KIM,SANGK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipdocket@gordonrees.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY LEE STROIK, JR.
Appeal2017-007776
Application 13/679,466 1
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 11, 12, and 15. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, TK Holdings
Inc., is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 1-15 and 21-24 are the currently pending claims. Claims 1, 11, 12,
and 15 are rejected. Appeal Br. 13-16 (Claims App'x.). Claims 9, 10, 13,
14, and 24 are withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner. Id. at 2.
Claims 5, 6, and 22 are indicated as allowable by the Examiner. Id. The
rejections of claims 2--4, 7, 8, 21, and 23 are withdrawn by the Examiner.
Ans. 3.
Appeal2017-007776
Application 13/679,466
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosure is directed to a seatbelt assembly having load
absorbing capabilities. Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims
before us on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A retractor assembly for a seatbelt system having a
webbing for restraining a secured occupant, the retractor
compnsmg:
a spool configured to wind and unwind the webbing about
an axis of rotation, the spool includes a side with an opening
therein;
a collar including an outer surface and an inner surface,
the outer surface configured to engage the opening;
a locking base configured to operatively engage the inner
surface; and
an energy absorbing member configured to provide a
progressive level of load resistance via compression of the
energy absorbing member in a direction parallel to the axis of
rotation upon relative rotation between the spool and the locking
base.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shiotani et al.
(hereinafter "Shiotani")
Japan
(hereinafter "JP '968")
US 2004/0206844 Al Oct. 21, 2004
JP 2004-249968 A Sept. 9, 2004
2
Appeal2017-007776
Application 13/679,466
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
I. Claims 1 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by JP '968. 3
II. Claims 12 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over JP '968 and Shiotani.
Claim 1
OPINION
Rejection I - The rejection of claims 1 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by JP '968
The Examiner finds that JP '968 discloses, inter alia, a retractor
assembly including a spool, a collar, a locking base, and an "energy
absorbing member 21" that is "configured to provide a progressive level ...
of load resistance via compression of the energy absorbing member in a
direction parallel to the axis of rotation." Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted).
According to the Examiner, energy absorbing member 21 "is pinched by the
locking base 14 as it shears off, thus it is being compressed/squeezed) upon
relative rotation between the spool and the locking base." Id. ( emphasis
omitted).
Appellant argues that JP '968 fails to disclose a retractor having an
energy absorbing member that is configured to provide a progressive level of
load resistance via compression. Appeal Br. 5. Further, Appellant argues
that JP '968 does not disclose that it provides a progressive level of load
3 We derive our understanding of this reference based upon a machine
language translation contained within the prosecution history of this
app li cation.
3
Appeal2017-007776
Application 13/679,466
resistance via compression because it provides its load resistance via
shearing. Id. at 6. Further, Appellant argues even assuming that in JP '968
"pinching" is occurring, JP '968 does not disclose that the "pinching" results
in load resistance due to compression. Id. at 8.
In response to these arguments, the Examiner opines that "the sheared
outer portion of ... [ energy absorbing member] 21 is not pinched by the
locking base, see page 6, last paragraph through page 7." Ans. 4. The
Examiner further explains that "JP [']968 clearly teaches the concept of
compression load since the energy [ absorbing] member 21 is pinched by the
locking base 14 as it shears off." Id. We understand the Examiner's
position to be that the inner circumference of the energy absorbing member
21 of JP '968 is compressed between locking base 14 and the spool 4 and the
outer circumference of energy absorbing member 21 is not compressed so
that the energy absorbing member may shear along the line 21d to, thus,
dissipate energy.
Appellant responds that JP '968 discloses that a large shearing force is
applied to the scribe line 21d of energy absorbing member 21 so that a
progressive load resistance is provided, citing paragraph 41 of JP '968.
Reply Br. 2. Further, Appellant argues that JP '968 does not disclose that
the energy absorbing member "is subjected to compressive loading in order
to 'provide a progressive level of load resistance."' Id.
Claim 1 requires an "energy absorbing member configured to provide
a progressive level of load resistance via compression of the energy
absorbing member." Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App'x.). Thus compression of
the claimed energy absorbing member must produce a progressive level of
load resistance.
4
Appeal2017-007776
Application 13/679,466
Below is an annotated copy of Figure l(a) of JP '968 4 illustrating the
positions of the spool 4, the locking base 14, and the energy absorbing
member 21.
(:r~r.::_:./n~ ~ }~·::'~;:·'-.:.: ~~:·:n
"' ··"·. .. ' "'21d ',.
'l 4,d \ ,; ' '-~21
--·14b L,
i
/
2 1 ! .,a.,.. I
22
Figure 1 (a), reproduced above, discloses the energy absorbing member 21
positioned between the locking base 14 and the spool 4. JP '968 ,r 33.
Engaging recesses 21 b, 21 c in the energy absorbing member 21 are engaged
by engaging projection 14d of the locking base 14 to couple the locking base
14 to the energy absorbing member 21 for rotation. Id. ,r 3 5. Locking base
14 extends axially outwardly to the shearing line 21 d so that the shearing
line is not positioned between the spool and flange. See id. ,r 36 ("It is set to
the position outside the periphery edge of the flange like part 14b of the
locking base 14 (position in which the energy absorption member 21 is not
pinched by the flange like part 14b of the locking base 14)").
4 We have annotated this figure and the one below to facilitate our
understanding of the invention of JP '968.
5
Appeal2017-007776
Application 13/679,466
Figure l(b), reproduced below, is an enlarged perspective view of the
energy absorbing member 21, annotated to show the engaging recesses 21 b,
21c, shearing line 21d, part 21e, and projection 22.
2.i d
'•
~';:::;;l'~siE~ct
~' \ 2 l t .,.,./······
I .22----··········""""""",, .....
Figure l(b) above discloses projection 22 of JP '968 cooperating with
part 21 e so that upon relative rotation of the locking base 14 and spool 4,
projection 22 causes energy absorbing member 21 to shear along the
shearing line 21d. Id. ,r 38. Paragraph 41 of JP '968 discloses that the
shearing force tears the energy absorbing member 21 by relative rotation
between the spool 4 to the locking base 14. JP '968 ,r 41. Further, as the
projection 22 rotates, it tears apart the energy absorption member 21
continuously along the shearing line 21 d. Id. Thus, when the spool and the
locking base rotate relative to one another, energy is absorbed by the
shearing of member 21 along line 21 d.
Reviewing the JP '968 reference in terms of cause and effect,
compression or pinching of the energy absorbing member 21 does not cause
the energy absorbing member to provide a "progressive level of load
6
Appeal2017-007776
Application 13/679,466
resistance," as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App'x.).
Assuming that compression of the inner circumference of energy absorbing
member 21 occurs, it would not control the level of load resistance provided
by shearing along line 21 d because shear line 21 d extends outside of the
locking flange 14b and, thus, is not effected by the interaction between spool
4 and locking base 14. JP '968 discloses that engaging projection 14d
engages with engaging recesses 21 b, 21 c to prevent relative rotation between
the spool and the energy absorbing member 21. JP '968 ,r 35. The spool 4
and locking base 14 "pinch" the energy absorbing member 21 to prevent
relative rotation between the energy absorbing member and the locking base.
Id. Holding the energy absorbing member in place does not cause anything
else to occur. Pinching merely holds the member in place. It is the relative
rotation between the spool 4 and locking base 14, during an emergency, that
causes the projection 22 to tear the energy absorbing member 21 along line
21d to thus provide a progressive level of load resistance. Id. ,r,r 38, 39.
Thus, while a progressive level of load resistance is disclosed in JP '968, it
is caused by the projection 22 shearing the energy absorbing member 21 and
not by compression of the energy absorbing member as required by the
claim. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11
Claim 11 contains limitations similar to claim 1 discussed supra.
Compare Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App'x.), with id. at 15. The Examiner
relies on the same deficient findings with regard to JP '968 discussed above
in our analysis of claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the rejection of claim 11.
7
Appeal2017-007776
Application 13/679,466
Rejection II - The rejection of claims 12 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over JP '968 and Shiotani
Claims 12 and 15 depend from claim 11. Appeal Br. 15-16 ( Claims
App'x.). The rejection of claims 12 and 15 relies upon the same erroneous
finding as the rejection of claim 11. Final Act. 4. Therefore, for the same
reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 12 and
15.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 11, 12,
and 15 are reversed.
REVERSED
8