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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on January 26, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, and 13 have been amended. Claims 14-21 have been canceled. Claims 22-28 have been added. Claims 1-13 and 22-28 are pending and examined below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 26, 2026 with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the claims rendering the previous objections moot.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 26, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1, Applicant argues the cited art of record Garofalo et al., US 20120112900 A1, in view of Schelberg et al., US 20100176608 A1, hereinafter referred to as Garofalo, and Schelberg, respectively, fails to explicitly disclose all of the features of claim 1 as presently amended. Applicant argues the claimed invention’s use of wireless signals and the claimed configuration of a flasher couple between a controller and reflector differs from the prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Garofalo discloses one or more sensors configured to generate a communication indicating whether a seat belt of an occupied seat of a vehicle is latched, a controller configured to receive the communication, a light, a flasher, and causing the light to flash when the seat belt of the occupied seat is not latched (Light may flash – See at least ¶24 and 27; Controller for executing seat belt status control – See at least Fig. 2; Light emitting diodes – See at least ¶22).
Additionally, Garofalo’s structure is analogous to the claimed flasher coupled between the controller and reflector as the flasher is understood as a component of a control system that causes a light to flash, given there is no well-established meaning of “flasher” in the art. Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose a flasher as a separate element from its controller, however, it is functionally indistinct from the claimed invention as Garofalo similarly causes a light to flash, supporting a finding of obviousness in view of Garofalo.
Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose using wireless communication to achieve this. However, Cotter, US 7812716 B1, teaches it is well known and routine in the art of detecting and monitoring seat belt usage to use wireless communication between a sensor for detecting seat belt usage and a controller (Seat belt usage – See at least Abstract; Sensors and controller connected wirelessly – See at least Col. 4 Lines 58-60), as further discussed below.
The same arguments apply to similar limitations and arguments regarding independent claims 2 and 13.
For at least the above, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited art of record.
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 22-25, 27, and 28 contain the trademark/trade names “Bluetooth,” “WiBro,” “WiMAX,” and “WiFi.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe wireless communication protocols and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garofalo et al., US 20120112900 A1, Cotter, US 7812716 B1, and in view of Schelberg et al., US 20100176608 A1, hereinafter referred to as Garofalo, Cotter, and Schelberg, respectively.
As to claim 1, Garofalo discloses a seat belt detection device comprising:
one or more sensors configured to generate a communication indicating whether a seat belt of an occupied seat of a vehicle is latched (Safety belt circuit – See at least ¶37; Sensor indicating whether safety belt fastened – See at least ¶48);
a controller configured to receive the communication from the one or more sensors (Controller for executing seat belt status control – See at least Fig. 2);
a light (Light – See at least ¶7); and
a flasher coupled [to] the controller and the reflector, wherein the controller is configured to control the flasher to cause the light to flash or change color when the communication indicates that the seat belt of the occupied seat is not latched (Flashing light indicating seat belt use – See at least ¶27).
Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose a reflector arranged approximate to a rear of a vehicle, and light built in the reflector. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Garofalo and include the feature of a reflector including a light, the reflector being arranged approximate to a rear of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Garofalo uses rear-mounted lights to communicate and Schelberg teaches reflectors, (which Examiner notes are conventional and well-known features of motor vehicles, like the vehicle of Garofalo), can include integrated light sources to improve the overall fit and appearances of these types of components (See at least ¶2 of Schelberg).
Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose a flasher as a separate element from a controller as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Garofalo and include the feature of a flasher coupled between the controller and the reflector, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Garofalo’s flashing feature is functionally indistinct from the claimed invention as Garofalo similarly uses a controller to send signals downstream which cause a light to flash, supporting a finding of obviousness in view of Garofalo.
The combination of Garofalo and Schelberg fails to explicitly disclose using a wireless protocol as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Garofalo and Schelberg and include the feature of using a wireless protocol as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Cotter teaches it is well known and routine in the art of detecting and monitoring seat belt usage to use wireless communication between a sensor for detecting seat belt usage and a controller (Seat belt usage – See at least Abstract; Sensors and controller connected wirelessly – See at least Col. 4 Lines 58-60 of Cotter).
Claims 2-4, 6-13, 22, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garofalo et al., US 20120112900 A1, and Cotter, US 7812716 B1, hereinafter referred to as Garofalo, and Cotter, respectively.
As to claim 2, Garofalo discloses a seat belt detection device, comprising:
a first sensor configured to send a first communication indicating whether a seat housed in a vehicle is occupied (Sensor determines seat occupancy – See at least ¶48 and Fig. 3);
a second sensor configured to send a wireless communication indicating whether a seat belt associated with the seat is latched Sensors for determining whether occupied seat has seat belt latched – See at least ¶37 and Fig. 2);
an indicator that is visible externally from the vehicle (Visual indicators – See at least ¶25 and Fig. 1);
a controller configured to receive the first communication from the first sensor and the second communication from the second sensor and a flasher coupled [to] the controller and the indicator, wherein the controller is configured to control the flasher to cause the indicator to flash or change color when the first and second communications indicate that the seat is occupied and is not latched (Flashing light indicating seat belt use – See at least ¶27).
Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose flasher coupled between the controller and the indicator. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Garofalo and include the feature of a flasher coupled between the controller and the reflector, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Garofalo’s flashing feature is functionally indistinct from the claimed invention as Garofalo similarly uses a controller to send signals downstream which cause a light to flash, supporting a finding of obviousness in view of Garofalo.
Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose using wireless communication. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Garofalo and include the feature of using a wireless protocol as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Cotter teaches it is well known and routine in the art of detecting and monitoring seat belt usage to use wireless communication between a sensor for detecting seat belt usage and a controller (Seat belt usage – See at least Abstract; Sensors and controller connected wirelessly – See at least Col. 4 Lines 58-60 of Cotter).
As to claim 3, Garofalo discloses the second sensor is configured to detect whether the seat belt associated with the seat is latched in response to the first sensor detecting the seat is occupied (Sensors for determining whether occupied seat has seat belt latched – See at least ¶37 and Fig. 2).
As to claim 4, Garofalo discloses the first sensor comprises a switch arranged in the seat (Circuit logic – See at least ¶37).
As to claim 6, Garofalo discloses the indicator comprises a light within the vehicle that is externally visible (Visual indicators may be located internally – See at least ¶25 and Fig. 1).
As to claim 7, Garofalo discloses the indicator comprises a light arranged in or on an external surface of the vehicle (Visual indicators may be located externally – See at least ¶25 and Fig. 1).
As to claim 8, Garofalo discloses the indicator comprises an existing exterior light of the vehicle (Visual indicators – See at least ¶25 and Fig. 1; Examiner notes all physical structures exist by their nature.).
As to claim 9, Garofalo discloses the existing exterior light is configured to provide an indication of the unlatched seat belt selected from the group consisting of a brighter output, a flashing output, a change in color, a change in a flashing pattern, or a strobe output (Light may flash – See at least ¶24 and 27).
As to claim 10, Garofalo discloses the indicator comprises an interior light of the vehicle, and wherein the controller is configured to flash the interior light on and off when an occupied seat has an unlatched seat belt (Visual indicators may be located internally – See at least ¶25 and Fig. 1; Light may flash – See at least ¶24 and 27).
As to claim 11, Garofalo discloses the indicator comprises a light selected from the group consisting of a brake light, a turn-signal light, a hazard light, a license plate light, or a fog light (License plate light – See at least ¶25 and Fig. 1).
As to claim 12, the combination of Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose the controller is communicatively coupled to the indicator and the first sensor or the second sensor by a wireless protocol. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Garofalo and include the feature of the controller is communicatively coupled to the indicator and the first sensor or the second sensor by a wireless protocol, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Cotter teaches it is well known and routine in the art of detecting and monitoring seat belt usage to use wireless communication between a sensor for detecting seat belt usage and a controller (Seat belt usage – See at least Abstract; Sensors and controller connected wirelessly – See at least Col. 4 Lines 58-60 of Cotter).
As to claim 13, Garofalo discloses a method comprising:
sending, by a sensor, a communication indicating whether a seat belt an occupied seat of a vehicle is latched (Safety belt circuit – See at least ¶37); and
receiving, by a controller from the sensor, the communication (Controller for executing seat belt status control – See at least Fig. 2);
controlling, by the controller in response to the communication, a flasher coupled [to] the controller and a light on an external area of the vehicle to cause the light to flash or change color when the controller receives the communication (Flashing light indicating seat belt use – See at least ¶27).
Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose using a wireless protocol as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Garofalo and Schelberg and include the feature of using a wireless protocol as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Cotter teaches it is well known and routine in the art of detecting and monitoring seat belt usage to use wireless communication between a sensor for detecting seat belt usage and a controller (Seat belt usage – See at least Abstract; Sensors and controller connected wirelessly – See at least Col. 4 Lines 58-60 of Cotter).
Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose a reflector on an external area of the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Garofalo and include the feature of a reflector on an external area of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Garofalo uses rear-mounted lights to communicate and Schelberg teaches reflectors, (which Examiner notes are conventional and well-known features of motor vehicles, like the vehicle of Garofalo), can include integrated light sources to improve the overall fit and appearances of these types of components (See at least ¶2 of Schelberg).
As to claim 22, Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose the wireless protocol is Bluetooth®. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Garofalo and include the feature of the wireless protocol is Bluetooth®, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Cotter teaches it is well known and routine in the art of detecting and monitoring seat belt usage to use Bluetooth (Bluetooth – See at least Col. 4 Lines 58-60 of Cotter).
As to claim 26, Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose the wireless protocol is FM. Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose the wireless protocol is FM. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Garofalo and include the feature of the wireless protocol is Bluetooth®, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Cotter teaches it is well known and routine in the art of detecting and monitoring seat belt usage to use radio frequency communication (RF – See at least Col. 4 Lines 58-60 of Cotter).
As to claims 27 and 28, Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose the wireless protocol is one or more of Bluetooth®, WiBro, WiMAX, WiFi®, or FM. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Garofalo and include the feature of the wireless protocol is one or more of Bluetooth®, WiBro, WiMAX, WiFi®, or FM, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Cotter teaches it is well known and routine in the art of detecting and monitoring seat belt usage to use Bluetooth or any other known in the art wireless protocol (Bluetooth – See at least Col. 4 Lines 58-60 of Cotter).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garofalo et al., US 20120112900 A1, and Cotter, US 7812716 B1, as applied above to claim 2, and further in view of Lary, US 6059066 A, hereinafter referred to as Garofalo, Cotter, and Lary, respectively.
As to claim 5, the combination of Garofalo and Cotter fails to explicitly disclose at least one of the first sensor or the second sensor comprises an optical sensor. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Garofalo and Schelberg and include the feature of at least one of the first sensor or the second sensor comprises an optical sensor, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Lary teaches optical sensors are well-known and routine sensors for determining whether a seat belt is buckled (Optical sensor used to determine buckled/unbuckled – See at least Col. 4 Lines 42-49 of Lary).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garofalo et al., US 20120112900 A1, and Cotter, US 7812716 B1, as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of "WiBro." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiBro, hereinafter referred to as Garofalo, Cotter, and Wikipedia, respectively.
As to claim 23, the combination of Garofalo and Cotter fails to explicitly disclose the wireless protocol is WiBro. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Garofalo and Cotter and include the feature of the wireless protocol is WiBro, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Cotter teaches it is well known and routine in the art of detecting and monitoring seat belt usage to use any wireless protocol known in the art (Any wireless standard known in the art – See at least Col. 4 Lines 58-60 of Cotter), and Wikipedia teaches WiBro was a well-known wireless protocol available at the time of Garofalo’s and Cotter’s disclosures.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garofalo et al., US 20120112900 A1, and Cotter, US 7812716 B1, as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of "WiMAX." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX, hereinafter referred to as Garofalo, Cotter, and Wikipedia, respectively.
As to claim 24, Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose the wireless protocol is WiMAX. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Garofalo and Cotter and include the feature of the wireless protocol is WiMAX, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Cotter teaches it is well known and routine in the art of detecting and monitoring seat belt usage to use any wireless protocol known in the art (Any wireless standard known in the art – See at least Col. 4 Lines 58-60 of Cotter), and Wikipedia teaches WiMAX was a well-known wireless protocol available at the time of Garofalo’s and Cotter’s disclosures.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garofalo et al., US 20120112900 A1, and Cotter, US 7812716 B1, as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of "Wi-Fi." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi, hereinafter referred to as Garofalo, Cotter, and Wikipedia, respectively.
As to claim 25, Garofalo fails to explicitly disclose the wireless protocol is WiFi®. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Garofalo and Cotter and include the feature of the wireless protocol is Wi-Fi, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Cotter teaches it is well known and routine in the art of detecting and monitoring seat belt usage to use any wireless protocol known in the art (Any wireless standard known in the art – See at least Col. 4 Lines 58-60 of Cotter), and Wikipedia teaches Wi-Fi was a well-known wireless protocol available at the time of Garofalo’s and Cotter’s disclosures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668