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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 13, applicant argued that regions 14, 16, 18, 102 in cited figures in Hamada are shown as having different weaving structures but not defining an alternating pattern of bright and dark. Applicant then argued that Joeanne being non-analogous to “a seatbelt for automated optical position detection.”
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to Hamada, argued claim does not expressly limit how “alternating pattern of bright and dark” is defined by the claimed seatbelt. The claimed seatbelt may be defined by coloring, but also possible by weaving structures. Clearly, Hamada teaching defining alternating weaving structures side by side, which shows different lightings/distributions of light and shade. Unless the argued claim limits definition of bright and dark, different weaving structures as a whole would show one is darker (or brighter) than the other. In response to applicant's argument that Joeanne is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, a seatbelt is considered as a narrow webbing, such as ones shown in Joeanne. In response to applicant's argument that Joeanne’s teaching is not for automated optical position detection, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Joeanne clearly shows how “defining an alternating pattern of bright and dark” can be implemented with plurality of stripes on a narrow webbing, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize such feature embedded in webbing figures of Hamade by design preference.
Thus, rejections are proper and maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 08/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-12 under 103 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 Hamada, Joeanne and Kuepper.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-10, 21-23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. (JP2013018432) in view of Joeanne (“Narrow Fabrics and Webbing”).
To claim 1, Hamada teach a seatbelt for automated optical position detection, comprising:
a belt having a plurality of stripes extending lengthwise along a length thereof longer than an entire width thereof, the plurality of stripes defining an alternating pattern of bright and dark, and each having a width in a direction perpendicular to a lengthwise dimension of the belt (L, W, Figs. 1, 4),
wherein the plurality of stripes include a plurality of interior stripes surrounded by outermost stripes that extend along opposite edges of the seatbelt (Figs. 1, 4), and
wherein the widths of the interior stripes define an asymmetric pattern (as shown in Figs. 1, 4; since widths of interior stripes are not equal, asymmetric pattern is interpreted as comparing neighboring stipes pair by pair; alternatively, asymmetric pattern would be an obvious modification by design preference if looking at all interior stripes together), and wherein each of the interior stripes are at least as wide as each of the outermost stripes (Figs. 1-2, 4-5).
But, Hamada do not expressly disclose the asymmetric pattern about a centerline mid-way between opposite edges of the belt.
Joeanne teach an asymmetric webbing pattern being about a centerline mid-way between opposite edges of the belt (page 1, Half-Striped Webbing figure), which makes implementing asymmetric webbing pattern obvious by design preference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Joeanne into the apparatus of Hamada, in order to apply alternative webbing pattern by design preference.
To claim 7, Hamada and Joeanne teach claim 1.
Hamada teach wherein the interior stripes include at least two bright stripes and at least two dark stripes (Figs. 1, 4).
To claim 9, Hamada and Joeanne teach claim 1.
Hamada teach wherein at least one of: both of the outermost stripes are dark stripes, or both of the outermost stripes are bright stripes (Figs. 1, 4).
To claim 10, Hamada and Joeanne teach claim 9.
Hamada teach wherein both of the outermost stripes are dark stripes (Fig. 4).
To claim 21, Hamada and Joeanne teach claim 1.
Hamada teach wherein the plurality of interior stripes include at least five of the interior stripes (Figs. 1, 4).
To claims 22 and 25, Hamada and Joeanne teach claims 1 and 11.
Hamada teach wherein the asymmetric pattern causes two opposite faces of the belt to be optically distinguishable, thereby enabling an optical sensing system to detect a twist in the seatbelt (as shown and explained in response to claim 1 above, wherein enabling an optical sensing system to detect a twist in the seatbelt is obviously applicable to man or machine).
To claim 23, Hamada and Joeanne teach claim 11.
Hamada teach wherein the asymmetric pattern includes two bright stripes and two dark stripes (Figs. 1, 4; as explained in response to claim 11 above).
Claim(s) 2-4, 8, 13-14, 24, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. (JP2013018432) in view of Joeanne (“Narrow Fabrics and Webbing”) and Brielmann et al. (US2014/0232165).
To claim 2, Hamada and Joeanne teach claim 1.
Hamada and Joeanne teach wherein the asymmetric pattern includes two bright stripes having different widths (obvious as shown in Joeanne).
Brielmann further teach having five stripes across the width of a seatbelt strap, wherein having a different number of stripes and/or a different width for the stripes cross the width of said seatbelt strap is optional (paragraph 0058), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into and modify the apparatus of Hamada and Joeanne into having bright stripes with different widths by design preference.
To claim 3, Hamada and Joeanne teach claim 1.
But, Hamada and Joeanne do not expressly disclose wherein the asymmetric pattern includes two dark stripes having different widths.
Brielmann teach having five stripes across the width of a seatbelt strap, wherein having a different number of stripes and/or a different width for the stripes cross the width of said seatbelt strap is optional (paragraph 0058), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into and modify the apparatus of Hamada and Joeanne into having dark stripes with different widths by design preference.
To claim 4, Hamada and Joeanne teach claim 1.
But, Hamada and Joeanne do not expressly disclose wherein the asymmetric pattern includes both of two bright stripes having different widths, and two dark stripes having different widths.
Brielmann teach having five stripes across the width of a seatbelt strap, wherein having a different number of stripes and/or a different width for the stripes cross the width of said seatbelt strap is optional (paragraph 0058); in view of a limited number of different width arrangements, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into and modify the apparatus of Hamada and Joeanne into having bright stripes having different widths and dark stripes with different widths by design preference.
To claim 8, Hamada and Joeanne teach claim 1.
Brielmann teach having five stripes across the width of a seatbelt strap, wherein having a different number of stripes and/or a different width for the stripes cross the width of said seatbelt strap is optional (paragraph 0058).
Though Brielmann do not expressly disclose wherein the interior stripes have widths in accordance with a pattern: 1:1:4:2:1, 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 apparatus of Hamada and Joeanne into a specific pattern by design preference.
To claim 13, Hamada, Joeanne and Brielmann teach a seatbelt for automated optical position detection, comprising:
a belt having a plurality of stripes extending lengthwise along a length thereof longer than an entire width thereof, the plurality of stripes defining an alternating pattern of bright and dark, and each having a width in a direction perpendicular to a lengthwise dimension of the belt, wherein the plurality of stripes include a plurality of interior stripes surrounded by outermost stripes that extend along opposite edges of the belt, wherein the widths of the interior stripes define an asymmetric pattern, and wherein the asymmetric pattern includes two bright stripes having different widths, and two dark stripes having different widths (as explained in response to claim 4 above).
To claim 14, Hamada, Joeanne and Brielmann teach claim 13.
Hamada teach wherein both of the outermost stripes are dark stripes or both of the outermost stripes are bright stripes (Figs. 1, 4).
To claim 24, Hamada and Joeanne teach claim 23.
Hamada, Joeanne and Brielmann teach wherein the asymmetric pattern includes the two bright stripes each having different widths, wherein the asymmetric pattern includes the two dark stripes each having different widths (as explained in response to claim 4 above).
To claim 26, Hamada, Joeanne and Brielmann teach claim 13.
Hamada teach wherein the outermost stripes each have a same width (Figs. 1, 4).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. (JP2013018432) in view of Joeanne (“Narrow Fabrics and Webbing”) and Kuepper et al. (US2020/0238851).
To claim 5, Hamada and Joeanne teach claim 1.
But, Hamada and Joeanne do not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of stripes define the alternating pattern of bright and dark in near-infrared.
Kuepper teach seatbelt comprising stripes define the alternating pattern of bright and dark in near-infrared (paragraphs 0063, 0067, 0078), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the apparatus of Hamada and Joeanne, in order to provide marker to camera sensor.
To claim 11, Hamada, Joeanne and Kuepper teach a system for detecting seatbelt positioning (as explained in response to claim 5 above).
To claim 12, Hamada, Joeanne and Kuepper teach claim 11.
Hamada, Joeanne and Kuepper teach wherein at least one of: both of the outermost stripes are dark stripes, or both of the outermost stripes are bright stripes (Hamada, Figs. 1, 4).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. (JP2013018432) in view of Joeanne (“Narrow Fabrics and Webbing”), Brielmann et al. (US2014/0232165) and Kuepper et al. (US2020/0238851).
To claim 19, Hamada, Joeanne and Brielmann teach claim 13.
Hamada, Joeanne, Brielmann and Kuepper teach wherein the plurality of stripes define the alternating pattern of bright and dark in near-infrared (as explained in response to claim 5 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached on (408) 918-7630. 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 September 4, 2025