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 to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed 11/6/25 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 14, 18, 20 and 26 have been amended as requested. New claims 27-33 have been added. Applicant’s amendments to claim 14 are found sufficient to overcome the 112 2nd paragraph rejections and the obviousness type rejections made over the cited prior art of Salter et al., US 2015/0329041 as set forth in the Action dated 8/6/25. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration the following new ground of rejections are set forth herein below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 18, 28,31 and 33 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.
4. With regard to claim 18, the recitation of “the metal foil” in line 5 lacks antecedent basis.
5. With regard to claims 28 and 31, it is not clear what is meant by the recitation of “wherein the second end of the at least one conductor spaced apart from the circuit board, the at least one conductor extending from the printed circuit board along the webbing to the second end of the at least one electric conductor. It is unclear what feature/embodiment Applicants are attempting to capture? It appears that the second ends meet? Do Applicants intend of the ends (first and/or second) of one conductor extend to meet the end (first or second) of another second conductor?
6. Claim 33 is rejected for its dependency on claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 14-17 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Mahdi et al., US 2015/0265200 A1 in view of Salter et al., US 2015/0329041.
With regard to claim 14, the published patent application issued to Mahdi et al., teach a seatbelt comprising a plurality of spaced apart sensors units (3) comprising a plurality of sensors (31-33) that are disposed either on a common flexible printed circuit board (6) or separate multiple circuit boards connected via electrical lines (35 and 36) (title, abstract, figures 3a and 3b, figures 5 and 6, paragraph 0067, 0068, 0073 and 0087). Said sensor units (3) can comprise different sensors (paragraph 0074). With regard to the conductor limitation, the Examiner is of the position that sensors of Mahdi et al., meet the claimed conductor limitations. Mahdi et al., teach various types of sensors such a pressure, EKG, radio waves/signals etc (paragraphs 0071-0085). Mahdi et al., specifically teach that the EKG sensor includes a flexible electrode of electrically conductive material (paragraphs 0077 and 0079). Specifically regarding the limitation pertaining to spacing the claimed conductor from the printed circuit board, the Examiner is of the position that a seatbelt comprising multiple spaced apart sensor units (3) each comprising differing sensors (31-33) wherein each sensor unit (3) are disposed on separate circuit boards and are further connected via electrical lines (35 and 36) meet this structural arrangement. For example, the sensors disposed on one flexible printed circuit board are spaced from the sensors disposed on a second different flexible printed circuit board. Applicant’s claims do not exclude a seatbelt comprising multiple printed circuit boards.
Mahdi et al., teach a seatbelt but does not teach the claimed webbing.
The published patent application issued to Salter et al., teach a vehicle seatbelt comprising a webbing, a photoluminescent structure comprising a flexible printed circuit board, electrical conductors and a controller connected to a power source (title, abstract, figure 3A, paragraphs 27,30, 35, 36). Said webbing can be woven into belt using polyamide or polyester yarns (paragraph 27).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the seatbelt of Mahdi et al., with a commonly known and used webbing materials such as the webbing materials taught by Salter et al. Employing such materials would be within the skill of a of an ordinary worker in the art and could be accomplished without undue experimentation.
With regard to claim 15, Said flexible circuit board can be made from copper (paragraph 30). With further regard to claims 15 and 24, Salter et al., teach that the layers of the photoluminescent structure can comprise conductive ink, metal comprising layers, binder and polymer comprising layers (paragraphs 38-44). The Examiner is of the position that these layers are sufficient to meet the limitation of plastic, thermoplastic and metal “foils” (claim 24). The Examiner is of the position that since Mahdi et al., teach a multitude of different types of sensors and the claimed flexible printed circuit board, it would be within the skill of ordinary worker in the art form the sensors and/or circuit boards with any of the materials Salter et al., discussed above. Motivation is found in the desire to provide a specific sensor/conductor to detect specific properties such as cardiac, pressure, heat etc.
With regard to claims 16 and 17. Mahdi et al., teach that the plurality of sensors (3) and sensors (31-33) disposed separate multiple flexible circuit boards are connected via electrical lines (35 and 36) (title, abstract, figures 3a and 3b, figures 5 and 6, paragraph 0067, 0068, 0073, 0077 and 0087). The Examiner is of the position that electrical lines (35 and 36) are sufficient to meet the limitation of the claimed wire or thread. Furthermore, Mahdi et al., teach wire bound sensors (paragraph 0087). The Examiner is of the position that such a wire bound sensor, particularly the exemplified EKG sensor meets the limitation of a wire or thread conductor as set forth in claim 17.
With regard to claims 20-21, Salter et al., teach positive and negative electrodes comprising layers of conductive epoxy and indium tin oxide (paragraph 0036). Said layers of the photoluminescent structure can joined to the circuit board via printing, lamination or coating (paragraphs 0041). Coating and/or lamination is considered sufficient to meet the limitation of “gluing” and “soldered” as set forth in claims 20 and 21 (paragraphs 40-41). The Examiner is of the position that it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use commonly known methods and materials to join the sensors (conductors) or Mahdi et al., to the claimed flexible printed circuit board.
With regard to claims 22-23, Salter et al., teach covering the photoluminescent structure comprising the printed circuit board with a polymer comprising woven fabric layer (paragraph 0044). The Examiner is of the position the decorative layer is sufficient to meet a “melted” protective cap of a cured textile. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a covering protection to the sensors (conductors).
With regard to claim 25, the Examiner is of the position that the decorative layer also meets the limitation of a “padding” layer.
With regard to claim 26, Mahdi et al., teach heat sensors (paragraph 0086).
9. Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Mahdi et al., US 2015/0265200 A1 in view of Salter et al., US 2015/0329041 as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Yasuhiko (Japanese Patent Application Publication JP-2008-067850).
Mahdi et al., and Salter et al., is set forth above.
Mahdi et al.., in view of Salter et al., does teach a seat belt comprising a woven webbing, but fails to teach a woven webbing comprising a conductive thread or filament.
Yasuhiko, however, discloses a weave which is made of a conductive warp 20 and a non-conductive weft 24. Both of these apparatuses are used in the same field of endeavor (motor vehicle subparts) and it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the woven material of Yasuhiko comprising a conductive warp element to form the woven webbing of Salter et al. Such a combination would yield a predictable result, which is to allow for reduced manufacturing costs associated with providing additional conducting/sensing layers and/or capabilities. Furthermore, this is considered to be a simple substitution of one known conducting element for another known conducting element.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. With regard to claims 27, 29, 30 and 32, said claims are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789