Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/294,595

Vehicle Safety Guard System with Impact Detection

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 02, 2024
Examiner
COLILLA, DANIEL JAMES
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Public Transportation Safety Int'L Corp.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
805 granted / 1197 resolved
+15.3% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1247
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
38.6%
-1.4% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1197 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Claims 1, 9, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 7, “the at least one side panel” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. Previously, in line 2, Applicant has recited, “a side panel portion.” In claim 9, line 2, “the a” appears to be improper grammar and will be interpreted as --a-- for purposes of applying prior art. In claim 13, line 5, “the at least one side panel” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims, previously, in line 2 of the claim, Applicant has recited, “a side panel portion.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Humpish (EP 2995509). With respect to claim 1, Humpish discloses a vehicle comprising: a body having a front end portion and a side panel portion as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 9 of Humpish: [AltContent: textbox (side panel portion)] [AltContent: textbox (door)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (front end portion)][AltContent: ] PNG media_image1.png 487 700 media_image1.png Greyscale a pair of front steerable wheels 14 spaced in a transverse direction of the body of the vehicle (as shown above); at least one pair of transversely spaced rear wheels 22/22 (only one of which is shown) which are longitudinally spaced from the front steerable wheels 14; a door provided along the at least one side panel (as shown above); a safety guard 18 configured to extend downward from the body along one of the front end portion and the side panel portion for engaging animate and inanimate objects in order to prevent the objects from going under the vehicle; and a detection system (as shown in Fig. 10 of Humpish) including a plurality of sensors 28/28 configured to sense an impact experienced by the safety guard 18 and a control unit 26 for analyzing the impact (“configured to deploy the airbag in the vent that a predetermined threshold is reached or exceeded,” Humpish, paragraph [0036]). With respect to claim 2, Humpish discloses that the plurality of sensors 28/28 include both impact sensors and cameras (“mechanical impact sensor,” and “camera,” Humpish, paragraph [0036]). With respect to claim 5, Humpish discloses that it can be determined if an impact is equal to or exceeds a threshold of a force value (Humpish, paragraph [0036]) which can be interrupted as “to determine a likelihood of damage to the safety guard by the impact.” With respect to claim 6, Humpish discloses a warning system for issuing at least one of an audible or visual warning (“audio and/or visible warnings,” Humpish, paragraph [0002]) when an impact is experienced by the safety guard. With respect to claim 7. Humpish discloses that the audible or visual warning is presented to an operator of the vehicle “audio and/or visible warnings inside and/or outside the vehicle,” Humpish paragraph [0002]). With respect to claim 9, Humpish discloses a safety guard 18 configured to extend downward along one of a front end portion and the a panel portion of a vehicle body as shown in below in the image taken from Fig. 9 of Humpish: [AltContent: textbox (panel portion)] [AltContent: textbox (door)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (front end portion)][AltContent: ] PNG media_image1.png 487 700 media_image1.png Greyscale for engaging animate and inanimate objects in order to prevent the objects from going under the vehicle, said safety guard 18 incorporating a detection system (shown in Fig. 10 of Humpish) including a plurality of sensors 28/28 configured to sense an impact experienced by the safety guard 18 and to signal a control unit 26 for analyzing the impact (“configured to deploy the airbag in the vent that a predetermined threshold is reached or exceeded,” Humpish, paragraph [0036]). With respect to claim 10, Humpish discloses that the plurality of sensors 28/28 include both impact sensors and cameras (“mechanical impact sensor,” and “camera,” Humpish, paragraph [0036]). With respect to claim 13, Humpish discloses a method of detecting an impact to a safety guard extending downward from one of a front end portion and a side panel portion of a body of a vehicle 10 having a pair of front steerable wheels 14 spaced in a transverse direction of the body of the vehicle (as shown in Fig. 9of Humpish), at least one pair of transversely spaced rear wheels 22 longitudinally spaced from the front steerable wheels (only one of which is shown), and a door (indicated below) provided along the at least one side panel as shown in below in the image taken from Fig. 9 of Humpish: [AltContent: textbox (side panel portion)] [AltContent: textbox (door)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (front end portion)][AltContent: ] PNG media_image1.png 487 700 media_image1.png Greyscale said method comprising: sensing an impact experienced by the safety guard 18 with a plurality of sensors 28/28 (Humpish, paragraph [0036]); and analyzing signals from the plurality of sensors in evaluating the impact (“configured to deploy the airbag in the vent that a predetermined threshold is reached or exceeded,” Humpish, paragraph [0036]). With respect to claim 15, Humpish discloses that the plurality of sensors 28/28 include both impact sensors and cameras (“mechanical impact sensor,” and “camera,” Humpish, paragraph [0036]). With respect to claim 16, Humpish discloses determining if an impact is equal to or exceeds a threshold of a force value (Humpish, paragraph [0036]) which can be interrupted as “determining a likelihood of damage to the safety guard by the impact.” With respect to claim 18, Humpish discloses issuing at least one of an audible or visual warning (“audio and/or visible warnings,” Humpish, paragraph [0002]) when an impact is experienced by the safety guard. With respect to claim 19. Humpish discloses that the audible or visual warning is presented to an operator of the vehicle “audio and/or visible warnings inside and/or outside the vehicle,” Humpish paragraph [0002]). With respect to claim 21, Humpish discloses analyzing the impact (“configured to deploy the airbag in the vent that a predetermined threshold is reached or exceeded,” Humpish, paragraph [0036]). 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. Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpish (EP 2995509), as applied to claims 2, 10, or 13 above, and further in view of Okuda (JP 2014-013677). With respect to claims 3, 11, and 14, Humpish discloses the claimed vehicle, safety guard, or method except that he is silent on the exact location of the impact sensors 28/28. However, Okuda teaches a similar vehicle, guard rail, or method including a guard rail 11 including an impact sensor 14 built into the safety guard 11 (Okuda, abstract, bottom of pg. 8 and top of pg. 9. of machine translation of Okuda; Fig. 4). It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Okuda with the vehicle, guard rail, or method disclosed by Humpish for all the impact sensors for the advantage of loss or accidental disconnection of the impact sensors from the guard rail. With respect to claims 4 and 12, Humpish discloses the claimed vehicle, safety guard, or method except that he is silent on the exact location of the impact sensors 28/28. However, Okuda teaches a similar vehicle, guard rail, or method including a guard rail 11 including an impact sensor 14 that can be a impact sensor or a camera (Okuda, abstract, bottom of pg. 8 and top of pg. 9. of machine translation of Okuda; Fig. 4). It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Okuda with the vehicle, guard rail, or method disclosed by Humpish for all the impact sensors and cameras for the advantage of loss or accidental disconnection of the impact sensors from the guard rail. Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpish (EP 2995509), as applied to claims 6 or 18 above, and further in view of Yezersky et al. (US 2020/0307481). With respect to claims 8 and 20, Humpish discloses the claimed vehicle or method except for the audible or visual warning being presented as a notification to a remote supervisory or service center. However, Yezersky et al teaches a similar vehicle and method with side sensors 115/116 wherein the audible or visual warning (“emergency beacon,” Yezersky et al., paragraph [0052] ) is presented as a notification to a remote supervisory or service center (“nearest available ground station,” Yezersky et al., paragraph [0052]). It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Yezersky et al. with the vehicle or method disclosed by Humpish for the advantage of automatically alerting proper authorities in the event of an emergency situation. Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpish (EP 2995509), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kraus (US 2022/0084333). With respect to claim 17, Humpish disclosed the claimed method except for the step of triggering a notification when the guard needs to be replaced because of wear or damage. However, Kraus teach a method in which a vehicle triggers a notification when the a vehicle part needs to be replaced because of wear or damage (“transmits an alert to a display indicating that a malfunctioning or damaged part or system has been identified,” Kraus, abstract). It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Kraus with the method disclosed by Humpish for the advantage of alerting a user when a vehicle part is damage and may not be performing properly. 20. The method of claim 18, wherein the audible or visual warning is presented as a notification to a remote supervisory or service center. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpish (EP 2995509), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hoye (US 2017/0066374). With respect to claim 21, Humpish disclose the claimed method except for the step of evaluating the impact includes analyzing whether the impact was due to vehicle operator error. Humpish discloses for analyzing the impact (“configured to deploy the airbag in the vent that a predetermined threshold is reached or exceeded,” Humpish, paragraph [0036]). It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Hoye with the method disclosed by Humpish for the advantage of determining any legal liability of an impact or improving operator training based on date gathered from the impact. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ossadnik, Danna et al., and Jeon are cited to show other examples of a vehicle with a guard rail and impact sensors. Shin is cited to show another example of a vehicle including a side panel portion including an impact sensor and a camera. Tanaka is cited to show another example of a vehicle including a side panel portion including an impact sensor. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00. 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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. /Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 02, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600476
LOCKING DEVICE AND CARGO DECK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600287
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RESTRAINING CARTS AND OTHER CARGO USING FORWARD AND REARWARD BRACKETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600410
VEHICLE SUBFRAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600279
VEHICULAR DOOR TRIM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589807
VEHICLE BATTERY CASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+22.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1197 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month