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 Claims
This action is in reply to the arguments / remarks filed on May 28th 2026.
Claims 11-15 were canceled.
Claims 1-10 and 16-25 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis et al. (US 20230350018 A1), hereinafter Dennis, in view of Morrow et al. (US 2005/0062595 A1), hereinafter Morrow.
Regarding claim 21, Dennis discloses [Note: what is not disclosed clearly is strike-through]:
A passenger restraint system, comprising:
a webbing configured to be draped across a passenger; and (Dennis [0021] " The substrate 320 (which may also be referred to as “webbing”) is typically constructed from nylon and/or polyester fibers that are woven together to produce a strap that operates as the first restraint 112.)
a concealed metallic marker, detectable by a millimeter-wave (mm-wave) radar system, within the webbing, the concealed metallic marker is within the webbing (Dennis [0021] “The material 322 is a radar reflective material (e.g., a material that reflects a transmitted radar wave with a stronger signal than a material that is not radar reflective) that is woven with the substrate 320 such that the material 322 is fixed in the substrate 320.”)
Dennis fails to disclose the limitation below. Morrow discloses:
within the webbing, the concealed metallic marker is within the webbing in a pattern that indicates an extended amount of the webbing from a spool (Morrow [0032] “These marker components might include, for example, metallic fibers placed within the belt restraint webbing at predefined locations such that their relative positions when deployed are indicative of the state of the restraint system—for example, presence and location of occupants, size of those occupants, locations of the head restraints, extent to which the belt restraints have been extended from the spool, and the like. A variety of sensors, such as RF sensors, may be used to characterize the embedded marker components.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Morrow into the invention of Dennis. Both Dennis and Morrow are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Dennis to modify the pattern to specifically indicate the extended amount of webbing from the spool as taught by Morrow. Dennis discusses concepts related to this, with passages discussing using a total length of webbing to determine a passenger shape (See Dennis [0022]), but does not discuss an amount of webbing extended from a spool directly. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus of Dennis in order to classify the state of restraint usage, in this case webbing extension, without the need for a separate sensor (See Morrow [0002-0003], [0032]) .
Regarding claim 22, Dennis in view of Morrow discloses the passenger restraint system of claim 21. Dennis further discloses:
wherein at least one of a length of an exposed portion of the pattern or an orientation of the exposed portion of the pattern indicates whether the passenger restraint system is worn as expected (Dennis [0022] " The material 322 may also include a known geometric pattern that has a known positional relationship with respect to the first restraint 112. The geometric pattern may be interpreted by the sensor 106 to determine a three-dimensional position of the first restraint 112, a curvature of the first restraint 112, a position of the first restraint 112 with respect to the first occupant 114, and whether any portions of the first restraint 112 are obstructed from view by the sensor 106. ").
Regarding claim 23, Dennis in view of Morrow discloses the passenger restraint system of claim 21. Dennis further discloses:
The passenger restraint system of claim 21, wherein the pattern comprises at least one of:
alphanumeric characters formed by the concealed metallic marker that indicate a length of the webbing extending from the spool; or a length-based pattern formed by the concealed metallic marker, where the length- based pattern varies along the length of the webbing. (Dennis [0023] “In some implementations, the material 424 can include various lengths of the material 424 arranged in various orientations (e.g., along the width of the substrate 320, along the length of the substrate 320, and angled relative to the length and width of the substrate 320).”, Examiner notes that here Dennis discloses a length-based pattern.).
Regarding claim 24, Dennis in view of Morrow discloses the passenger restraint system of claim 21. Dennis further discloses:
the webbing is a shoulder strap to be angularly draped over a shoulder of the passenger (Dennis Fig. 2, further Dennis [0018] “For example, the first restraint 112 may be movably coupled with (e.g., the first restraint 112 can be unrolled from and/or rolled up using a spool) one of the restraint anchors 110 (e.g., the restraint anchor 110 positioned adjacent to a shoulder of the first occupant 114), may be fixed to another one of the restraint anchors 110 (e.g., the restraint anchor 110 positioned adjacent to a hip of the first occupant and below the restraint anchor 110 positioned adjacent to the shoulder of the first occupant 114), and may be releasably coupled with another one of the restraint anchors 110 that is positioned adjacent to the opposite hip of the first occupant 114 (e.g., via a latch movably positioned on the first restraint 112).”) ; and
the pattern is to indicate an angle of the shoulder strap across the passenger (Dennis [0032] “Furthermore, the shape of a restraint can be a position of the restraint relative to other objects in the vehicle 100 (e.g., the seats, floor, roof, etc.), a pattern exhibited by the restraint, an angular orientation of the restraint, or a combination of any of the above characteristics.”).
Regarding claim 25, Dennis in view of Morrow discloses the passenger restraint system of claim 21. Dennis further discloses:
The passenger restraint system of claim 21, wherein the webbing is at least one of a shoulder strap (Dennis Fig. 2, further Dennis [0018] “For example, the first restraint 112 may be movably coupled with (e.g., the first restraint 112 can be unrolled from and/or rolled up using a spool) one of the restraint anchors 110 (e.g., the restraint anchor 110 positioned adjacent to a shoulder of the first occupant 114), may be fixed to another one of the restraint anchors 110 (e.g., the restraint anchor 110 positioned adjacent to a hip of the first occupant and below the restraint anchor 110 positioned adjacent to the shoulder of the first occupant 114), and may be releasably coupled with another one of the restraint anchors 110 that is positioned adjacent to the opposite hip of the first occupant 114 (e.g., via a latch movably positioned on the first restraint 112).”) or a chest strap of a child restraint device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 16-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1, 16, and dependents thereof the prior record, specifically:
Dennis et al (US 20230350018 A1) teaches a method for using a mm-wave radar system in conjunction with metallic markings in a restraint, consisting of a webbing, to determine proper restraint usage.
Thomas et al. (US 20230026640 A1) teaches a method for the classification of a restraint system state zones determined by markings within a restraint belt.
The combination of Dennis and Thomas fail to teach a mm-wave radar system configured to “detect, from reflected mm-wave radar waves, a size of a passenger, a concealed metallic marker within a webbing of a restraint device that varies in a length-based pattern from a spool, and an extended amount of the webbing according to the length-based pattern from the spool; estimate an expected extended amount of the webbing from the spool according to the size of the passenger;“.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Response to the Non-final Office Action”, filed May 28th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 16, and dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of these claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claim 17 to address informalities. The objection to this claim is therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Response to the Non-final Office Action”, filed May 28th, 2026, with respect to the rejection claim 21 and dependent claims under, 35 U.S.C. 103 and 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Morrow et al. (US 2005/0062595 A1) under 35 U.S.C. 103, as detailed in the present Action.
Conclusion
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 THOMAS JAMES HALLORAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8643. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/T.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights