Ex Parte Stroik

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

13655219 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/655,219 10/18/2012
27111 7590
GORDON & REES LLP
101 WEST BROADWAY
SUITE 1600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
04/03/2018
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-1111576 2555
EXAMINER
KIM,SANGK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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.
Appeal2016-002178
Application 13/655,219
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
TK Holdings Inc. ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-19, and 21-24, which
are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 8-24; Reply Br. 2-5. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). An oral hearing was
held on January 10, 2018.
We REVERSE.
TK Holdings Inc. is the applicant, as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46,
and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002178
Application 13/655,219
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention "relates generally to the field of
retractors for use in occupant restraint systems (e.g., seatbelt systems)," and,
more specifically, "relates to retractors being configured with a load limiting
device to provide energy management." Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative
of the subject matter on appeal.
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;
a locking base including a shoulder engaging a cavity of
the spool, wherein the locking base is configured to selectively
lock the spool; and
an energy absorbing member having a first end directly
connected to the locking base, such that the first end is fixed
relative to the locking base, and a second end directly
connected to the spool, such that the second end is fixed
relative to the spool;
wherein the energy absorbing member provides a
progressive level of load resistance upon relative rotation
between the spool and the locking base.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Clute
Bell
US 6,592,064 B2
US 6,969,022 B2
2
July 15, 2003
Nov. 29, 2005
Appeal 2016-002178
Application 13/655,219
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 10, 12-17, 19, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Bell. 2 Final Act. 2.
II. Claims 1, 2, 6-13, 19-21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Clute. Id. at 3.
III. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Clute. Id. at 3--4.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites a retractor for a seatbelt system having a
webbing for restraining a secured occupant, where the retractor includes a
spool configured to wind and unwind the webbing, a locking base, and "an
energy absorbing member" that has a first end "directly connected to the
locking base" (and is thereby fixed relative thereto) and a second end
"directly connected to the spool" (and is thereby fixed relative thereto),
whereby "the energy absorbing member provides a progressive level of load
resistance upon relative rotation between the spool and the locking base."
Appeal Br. 25, Claims App. (emphasis added). Independent claims 10 and
19 include similar recitations, including that the energy absorbing member
"provides a progressive level of load resistance" upon relative rotation
between the lock base and the spool, as ends of the energy absorbing
member are connected to the base and the spool, respectively. Id. at 26, 28
2 We note that the rejection of claims 11, 18, and 23 under this ground,
as anticipated by Bell, has been withdrawn by the Examiner and thus is not
before us for review as part of the instant appeal. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2016-002178
Application 13/655,219
(emphasis added). Therefore, as Appellant explains, the claimed energy
absorbing member (specifically disclosed as being a torsion spring) must
provide an increasing "progressive level of load resistance," as opposed to a
constant or decreasing (digressive) level of load resistance. See Appeal
Br. 8-10, 18-20 (citing Spec. i133; Fig. 21).
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner finds that each of Bell and Clute
discloses such an energy absorbing member that provides a progressive level
of load resistance upon relative rotation between the spool and the base.
Final Act. 2 (relying on Bell's load limiting wire 5), 3 (relying on Clute's
bending element 14). Appellant persuasively explains, however, that neither
of these elements actually provides "a progressive level of load resistance,"
as the claims require. See Appeal Br. 8-10, 18-20; Reply Br. 2--4.
Upon review of the evidence before us, we agree with Appellant that
neither Bell's load limiting wire 5 nor Clute' s bending element 14 provides
the "progressive level of load resistance" required by the claims. More
specifically, Bell's load limiting wire 5 (as relied on in Rejection I), appears
to have a "constant" or "uniform" (as opposed to an increasing or
"progressive") level of load resistance during the time that it is carrying
load. See Appeal Br. 18-20; Reply Br. 4 (citing Bell, col. 4, 11. 57---64); see
also Bell, col. 3, 1. 63 - col. 4, 1. 29 (describing operation of load limiting
wire 5 as only carrying load during the "Stage 1" of Figure 9). Further,
Clute's bending element 14 (as relied on in Rejections II and III), appears to
have a "decreasing" or "digressive" (as opposed to an increasing or
"progressive") level of load resistance during the time that it is carrying
load. See Appeal Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Clute, col. 3, 11. 7-18); see
4
Appeal 2016-002178
Application 13/655,219
also Clute, col. 4, 11. 13-37 (describing operation of bending element 14 as
working through deformation to damp retraction force).
Moreover, we agree with Appellant that neither Bell's load limiting
wire 5 (see Appeal Br. 20; Reply Br. 4) nor Clute's bending element 14 (see
Appeal Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2) have ends that are connected to the base and
the spool, respectively, such that there is no indication that either element
would "wind up" upon relative rotation between the spool and the base to
thereby provide the recited "progressive level of load resistance." Thus, the
Examiner's position that the cited art has the same structural elements and
configuration as the claimed invention (see Ans. 3, 7), as would be required
of a sustainable anticipation rejection, is not supported by the record.
Accordingly, because the Examiner's rejections are premised on
findings that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do
not sustain them.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10, 12-17,
19, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bell.
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-13,
19-21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Clute.
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clute.
REVERSED
5