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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 10th, 2024 and July 29, 2025 have been considered by the examiner and an initialed copies of the statements are hereby attached.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 and 16-25 have been examined as detailed in this office action. Claims 11-15 were not examined as they were withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: There is a grammatical issues in the phrase "Estimating the expected arrangement of the passenger restraint device estimating the expected arrangement of the passenger restraint device". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 16, 18, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dennis et al. (US 2023/0350018 A1), hereinafter Dennis.
Regarding claim 1, Dennis discloses
A system, comprising: a millimeter-wave (mm-wave) radar sensor (Paragraph 004 " One aspect of the disclosure is a system that includes a radar sensor"); a processor (Paragraph 0031 " In an example hardware configuration, the controller 646 generally includes a processor 750"); and a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Paragraph 0031 " a memory 752 "): control the mm-wave radar sensor to transmit mm-wave radar waves towards a seat of a vehicle (Fig. 2, further paragraph 0020 " The sensor 106 is configured to transmit electromagnetic waves into the cabin 104 and to receive reflected electromagnetic waves that are reflected off objects located within the cabin "); detect, from reflected mm-wave radar waves, an arrangement of a concealed metallic marker within a passenger restraint device of the seat relative to a passenger in the seat (Paragraph 0021 " The first restraint 112 is shown to include a substrate 320 and a material 322. 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. 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. The material 322 may be a metal or metal fibers manufactured to produce a thread or a thin, flexible rod that can be woven with the substrate 320."); estimate an expected arrangement of the passenger restraint device relative to the passenger (Paragraph 0006, " A controller is configured to determine a shape of the occupant restraint based on the reflected radar waves and that the shape of the occupant restraint indicates the occupant restraint is being worn incorrectly by an occupant.", further Spec 0022 " 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. "); and generate a notification responsive to the reflected mm-wave radar waves indicating that the arrangement of the passenger restraint device is different than the expected arrangement of the passenger restraint device (Paragraph 0014 " Upon determining that the restraint is being misused, notification of the misuse can be provided, and an operating state of the vehicle can be changed.").
Regarding claim 3, Dennis discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein: the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to detect the arrangement of the concealed metallic marker within the passenger restraint device comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to detect an orientation of the passenger restraint device (Paragraph 0022 “Spec Paragraph 0022 "The sensor 106 may be configured to recognize the non-repeating arrangement and determine the shape of the substrate 320 based on the three-dimensional shape of the non-repeating arrangement"); and the machine-readable instructions further comprise a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to compare a detected orientation of the passenger restraint device with an expected orientation of the passenger restraint device (Spec Paragraph 0039 " At operation 868, the shape of a restraint is compared to an expected shape. For example, the memory 752 and/or the storage 754 may include one or more expected shapes of a restraint used in a vehicle. The expected shapes may include an expected shape for a three-point restraint like the first restraint 112 and the second restraint 212. The expected shapes may also include an expected shape for a five-point restraint and any other type of restraint that may be used.").
Regarding claim 16, the same citations and arguments as claim 1 apply.
Regarding claim 18, the same citations and arguments as claim 3 apply.
Regarding claim 21, Dennis discloses
A passenger restraint system, comprising: a webbing configured to be draped across a passenger; and a concealed metallic marker, detectable by a millimeter-wave (mm-wave) radar system, within the webbing, the concealed metallic marker is within the webbing in a pattern (Paragraph 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. 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. The material 322 may be a metal or metal fibers manufactured to produce a thread or a thin, flexible rod that can be woven with the substrate 320.") that indicates whether the passenger restraint system is worn as expected (Paragraph 0022 “The sensor 106 may be configured to recognize the non-repeating arrangement and determine the shape of the substrate 320 based on the three-dimensional shape of the non-repeating arrangement.”, further paragraph 0042 “In addition to the misuse case described above, various other misuse cases will result in a determined three-dimensional shape that does not match the expected shape.”).
Regarding claim 22, Dennis discloses
The passenger restraint system of claim 21, 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 (Paragraph 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 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 a spool; or a length-based pattern formed by the concealed metallic marker, where the length-based pattern varies along the length of the webbing (Fig. 4, further paragraph 0022 " Each feature of the material 322 (e.g., peaks, valleys, straight sections, curves, etc.) along the substrate 320 is unique, so determining locations of those unique features in three-dimensional space can aid in determining not only the shape of the substrate 320, but also in determining a size of the first occupant 114. For example, a peak of the material 322 may be located in a specific location along the length of the substrate 320. ").
Regarding claim 24, Dennis discloses
The passenger restraint system of claim 21, wherein: the webbing is a shoulder strap to be angularly draped over a shoulder of the passenger (Paragraph 0018 " For example, as shown in FIGS. 1-2, the restraint anchors 110 are fixed in three locations (e.g., two of the restraint anchors 110 are positioned adjacent to a hip of the first occupant 114 and one of the restraint anchors 110 is positioned adjacent to a shoulder of the first occupant 114) to provide a three-point restraint.");
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) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis in view of Hofbeck et al. (US 2005/0062595 A1), hereinafter Hofbeck.
Regarding claim 2, Dennis discloses [Note: what Dennis does not disclose is strike-through],
The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions that, (Dennis paragraph 0031 " The storage 754 may form a computer readable medium that stores instructions (e.g., code)") when executed by the processor, cause the processor to detect the arrangement of the concealed metallic marker within the passenger restraint device comprise machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor , cause the processor to detect the arrangement of the concealed metallic marker within at least one of: a vehicle safety belt (Dennis paragraph 0022 “The sensor 106 may be configured to recognize the non-repeating arrangement and determine the shape of the substrate 320 based on the three-dimensional shape of the non-repeating arrangement.”);
Hofbeck discloses,
a head restraint of a child car seat; a shoulder strap of the child car seat; or a buckle of the child car seat (Hofbeck Fig. 1, paragraph 0059 "The exact expansion of the body or object can be determined by many small reflectors 6 arranged in the seats 10 (head rest 11, back rest 12 and seat surface 13), since the positions of the reflectors 6 and of the transceivers 1 relative thereto is known.").
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hofbeck into the invention of Dennis. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar system designed to detect correct restraint usage within a vehicle. Dennis discloses the implantation of markings into passenger restraints by use of metal threads that are reflective to radar, and thus can be used to observe proper restraint usage. Hofbeck discloses a radar system in the cabin of a vehicle designed to classify occupants and restraint usage, but also includes the implantation of markers in head restraints. Further, Dennis motivates the use of their claimed invention in the context of child seats (Dennis paragraph 0045 “The sensor 106 can also be used to detect whether a child is present in a child seat to prevent a child from being left in the vehicle 100.”). Thus, the combination of Dennis and Hofbeck would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in order to detect reflectors embedded in the restraints of a child seat using radar.
Regarding claim 9, Dennis discloses [Note: what Dennis does not disclose is strike-through],
The system of claim 1, wherein the mm-wave radar sensor comprises:
Hofbeck discloses,
multiple transmit channels (Hofbeck paragraph 0091 " The signals can also be transmitted in different transmission channels, with different carrier frequencies, in order to avoid interference during the signal transmission."); and multiple receive channels (Hofbeck paragraph 0019 " a high-frequency receiver disposed to receive the high-frequency signals.".
Dennis discloses a radar sensor, but does not explicitly disclose the use of multiple transmit and receive channels. Hofbeck does disclose the use of multiple channels, and additionally provides a motivation for the use of multiple channels in that it avoids interference during signal transmission. Using the motivation provided in Hofbeck, the combination of Dennis and Hofbeck would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to transmit from the radar sensor in multiple channels.
Claim(s) 4-8,10,17, 19-20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis in view of Thomas et al. (US 2023/0026640 A1), hereinafter Thomas.
Regarding claim 4, Dennis teaches [Note: what Dennis does not disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 1, wherein: the machine-readable instructions further comprise a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to detect a position of the passenger (Dennis paragraph 0043 In addition to misuse cases, the controller 646 may also determine that a restraint is being misused based on a position of the occupant, as indicated by the shape of the restraint.); and the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to estimate the expected arrangement of the passenger restraint device comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor (Dennis paragraph 0039 “At operation 868, the shape of a restraint is compared to an expected shape. For example, the memory 752 and/or the storage 754 may include one or more expected shapes of a restraint used in a vehicle. The expected shapes may include an expected shape for a three-point restraint like the first restraint 112 and the second restraint 212. The expected shapes may also include an expected shape for a five-point restraint and any other type of restraint that may be used.”) ,
Thomas discloses,
causes the processor to estimate the expected arrangement of the passenger restraint device based on the position of the passenger (Thomas Fig. 15, further paragraph 0070 “The seatbelt routing zone module 66 repeatedly generates the seatbelt routing zones and, in doing so, adjusts the locations and shape of the seatbelt routing zones based on the ever-changing posture and location of the occupant as indicated by the landmarks.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Thomas into the invention of Dennis. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar system designed to detect correct restraint usage within a vehicle based on the size and shape of its occupants. Dennis discloses a system for the detection of the misuse of car restraints, where the expected shape of a passenger restraint is estimated based upon measured markers in the restraint. Dennis does not specifically teach that estimation is based on the size and position of the passengers, although it does imply that such quantities could be measured (Dennis paragraph 0032 “In some embodiments, the shape of a restraint can be a position of the restraint relative to an occupant (e.g., relative to the torso, head, neck, and/or shoulders of the occupant), and the shape of the restraint can be used to determine whether the occupant is out of position (e.g., laying down, head resting against a support, feet not on the floor, etc.).”). Thomas discloses a similar system for the detection of seatbelt misuse, and teaches the estimation of correct seatbelt routing based upon the location and shape of the passenger. The combination of Dennis and Thomas would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in order to detect the position of a passenger, then generate an expected restraint position based upon said position.
Regarding claim 5, Dennis teaches (Note: what Dennis does not teach is strike-through),
The system of claim 1, wherein: the machine-readable instructions further comprise a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to estimate a size of the passenger (Dennis paragraph 0022 " Each feature of the material 322 (e.g., peaks, valleys, straight sections, curves, etc.) along the substrate 320 is unique, so determining locations of those unique features in three-dimensional space can aid in determining not only the shape of the substrate 320, but also in determining a size of the first occupant 114. For example, a peak of the material 322 may be located in a specific location along the length of the substrate 320. If the peak is located near the restraint anchor 110 positioned near the shoulder of the first occupant 114, that may indicate that the first occupant 114 is small. On the other hand, if the peak is located near the restraint anchor 110 to which the first restraint 112 is latched, that may indicate the first occupant 114 is large"); the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to detect the arrangement of the concealed metallic marker within the passenger restraint device comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to detect an extended amount of the passenger restraint device (Dennis paragraph 0022 " The sensor 106 may be configured to recognize the non-repeating arrangement and determine the shape of the substrate 320 based on the three-dimensional shape of the non-repeating arrangement. Implementations including a non-repeating pattern may be beneficial in determining a location of a specific portion of the substrate ");
Thomas teaches,
the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to estimate the expected arrangement of the passenger restraint device comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to estimate an expected extended amount of the passenger restraint device based on an estimated size of the passenger (Thomas paragraph 0053 “The seatbelt routing zone module 66 determines the proportional size of the seatbelt routing zones, the proportional shape of the seatbelt routing zones, and the location of the seatbelt routing zones based on the size of the occupant as indicated by the landmarks. The seatbelt routing zone module 66 adjusts the locations and shape of the seatbelt routing zones to correspond to the posture of the occupant as indicated by the landmarks.”, further Thomas paragraph 0082 "In another example, the seatbelt routing classification module 68 determines the total length of the portion(s) of a longitudinal centerline of the seatbelts that is disposed within each seatbelt routing zone.").
Dennis teaches a radar system that estimates the size of a passenger using machine-readable instructions to a processor. Further, the system provides instructions to the processor to detect concealed metallic markers within the restraint, where the restraint contains length-dependent markings to determine the extended amount. However, Dennis does not teach the estimation of the expected extended amount based upon the estimated size of the passenger. Thomas teaches a detailed mapping of seatbelt routing, where routing zones are generated by detection of the passenger size. From these zones, which originate from passenger size, the total amount of unspooled restraint is estimated. The combination of Dennis and Thomas would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in order to detect the size of a passenger, then estimate the expected amount of passenger restraint device based on said size.
Regarding claim 6, Dennis further discloses,
The system of claim 5, wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to estimate the expected extended amount of the passenger restraint device comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to identify a length-based variation in a form of the concealed metallic marker (Dennis Paragraph 0022 " Implementations including a non-repeating pattern may be beneficial in determining a location of a specific portion of the substrate 320. Each feature of the material 322 (e.g., peaks, valleys, straight sections, curves, etc.) along the substrate 320 is unique, so determining locations of those unique features in three-dimensional space can aid in determining not only the shape of the substrate 320, but also in determining a size of the first occupant 114. For example, a peak of the material 322 may be located in a specific location along the length of the substrate 320.").
Regarding claim 7, Dennis further discloses,
The system of claim 6, wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to identify the length-based variation in the form of the concealed metallic marker comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to identify, within the concealed metallic marker, at least one of: alphanumeric characters formed by the concealed metallic marker; or a length-based pattern formed by the concealed metallic marker, where the length-based pattern varies along a length of the passenger restraint device (Dennis paragraph 0022 " the material 322 may be woven into the substrate 320 to produce shapes (e.g., squares, triangles, circles, etc.), letters, words, images, etc. in a pattern that is identifiable by the sensor 106 and/or a controller associated with the sensor 106. ").
Regarding claim 10, Dennis discloses [Note: what Dennis does not disclose is strike-through],
The system of claim 1,
Thomas discloses,
wherein the machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to control the mm-wave radar sensor to transmit the mm-wave radar waves towards the seat of the vehicle comprise a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to control the mm-wave radar sensor based on at least one of: an indication that the vehicle is turned on; or an indication that the passenger is in the seat (Thomas Fig. 1, Paragraph 0043 " The occupant detection sensor 16 outputs a signal indicating when the occupant 42 is sitting in the vehicle seat 12.", further, Paragraph 0058 "At 72, the seatbelt routing classification module 68 determines whether an occupant is present in the vehicle seat 12 based on an input from the occupant detection sensor 16 or the in-cabin sensor 20. If an occupant is present in the vehicle seat 12, the method continues at 76. ").
Dennis teaches a radar system for the detection of passenger restraint misuse. However, Dennis does not teach the use of an external signal indicating that either the vehicle is turned on or a passenger is in a seat. Thomas teaches the use of a generic occupant detection sensor that dictates the activation of the passenger detection system. It would be a simple substitution to implement the occupancy detector of Thomas into the invention of Dennis. The combination of Dennis and Thomas would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in order to detect the presence of a passenger, then cause the processor to control the radar based upon that information.
Regarding claim 17, Dennis discloses
The method of claim 16 wherein: the method further comprises detecting a characteristic of the passenger (Dennis paragraph 0045 "In addition to determining misuse of restraints as described above, the system and methods described herein can be implemented to determine other aspects of the vehicle 100 and the occupants therein. For example, the sensor 106 can detect whether each occupant is in a corresponding seat and classify each occupant within the vehicle 100 (e.g., determine whether each occupant is a child, adult, male, female, etc.). "); and
Thomas teaches,
estimating the expected arrangement of the passenger restraint device based on the characteristic of the passenger (Thomas paragraph 0059 “At 74, the landmark module 64 generates landmarks, such as the stick figure representations 52 and the facial feature representations 54 of FIGS. 1 and 2, in proportion to the size and/or shape of the occupant and aligned with the occupant's location as indicated by the image generated by the in-cabin sensor 20.”, further paragraph 53 “The seatbelt routing zone module 66 determines the proportional size of the seatbelt routing zones, the proportional shape of the seatbelt routing zones, and the location of the seatbelt routing zones based on the size of the occupant as indicated by the landmarks.”).
Dennis teaches the characterization of occupants using the in-cabin radar system. Dennis does not teach the estimation of the expected arrangement of the passenger restraint device based on the characteristics of the passenger. Thomas uses a three-dimensional representation of the occupant to generate an expected arrangement of the passenger restraint. The combination of Dennis and Thomas would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize the characteristics of the passenger to estimate the expected arrangement of the restraint device.
Regarding claim 19, the same references and arguments of claim 5 are applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same references and arguments of claim 8 are applied.
Regarding claim 25, Dennis discloses [Note: what Dennis does not disclose is strike-through],
The passenger restraint system of claim 21, wherein the webbing is at least one of a shoulder strap(paragraph 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")
Thomas discloses,
or a chest strap of a child restraint device (Thomas fig. 14, further paragraph 0068 " At 84, the seatbelt routing zone module 66 generates one or more five-point belt routing zones based on the landmarks. For example, the seatbelt routing zone module 66 may determine the size, shape, and location of the five-point belt routing zones based on the size of the occupant as indicated by the landmarks. Five-point belt routing zones include seatbelt routing zones for a child occupant in a child restraint seat with a five-point seatbelt.”)
Conclusion
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, William Keller can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648