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 with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7-13, 21-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 21-22 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 Thomas (DE102018122481).
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, and wherein the plurality of stripes define the alternating pattern of bright and dark (Fig. 2) in near-infrared.
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 an obvious design choice among seatbelt strip pattern design), which 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.
Thomas teach a seatbelt for automated optical position detection (paragraph 0001), comprising: a belt having a plurality of stripes defining an alternating pattern of bright and dark (paragraphs 0034-0035), wherein the plurality of stripes define the alternating pattern of bright and dark (Fig. 2) in near-infrared (paragraphs 0010-0011, optical detection device is designed to detect pattern in near-infrared range, which does not generate any light in human visible spectrum, wherein near-infrared image is monochrome such as bright and dark).
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 Thomas into the apparatus of Hamada and Joeanne, in order to avoid possible distortion to driver during operation of the optical detection device.
To claim 7, Hamada, Joeanne and Thomas 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, Joeanne and Thomas 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, Joeanne and Thomas teach claim 9.
Hamada teach wherein both of the outermost stripes are dark stripes (Fig. 4).
To claim 21, Hamada, Joeanne and Thomas teach claim 1.
Hamada teach wherein the plurality of interior stripes include at least five of the interior stripes (Figs. 1, 4).
To claim 22, Hamada, Joeanne and Thomas teach claim 1.
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).
Claim(s) 2-4, 8, 13, 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”), Thomas (DE102018122481) and Brielmann et al. (US2014/0232165).
To claim 2, Hamada, Joeanne and Thomas teach claim 1.
Hamada, Joeanne and Thomas 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, Joeanne and Thomas into having bright stripes with different widths by design preference.
To claim 3, Hamada, Joeanne and Thomas teach claim 1.
But, Hamada, Joeanne and Thomas 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, Joeanne and Thomas into having dark stripes with different widths by design preference.
To claim 4, Hamada, Joeanne and Thomas teach claim 1.
But, Hamada, Joeanne and Thomas 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, Joeanne and Thomas into having bright stripes having different widths and dark stripes with different widths by design preference.
To claim 8, Hamada, Joeanne and Thomas 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, Joeanne and Thomas into a specific pattern by design preference.
To claim 13, Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas 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 about a centerline mid-way between opposite edges of the belt, and wherein the asymmetric pattern includes two bright stripes having different widths, and two dark stripes having different widths, and wherein the plurality of stripes define the alternating pattern of bright and dark in near-infrared (as explained in responses to claims 1 and 4 above).
To claim 26, Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas and Brielmann teach claim 13.
Hamada teach wherein the outermost stripes each have a same width (Figs. 1, 4).
Claim(s) 11-12, 23, 25, 29 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”), Thomas (DE102018122481) and Yilmaz (US2022/0250570).
To claim 11, Hamada, Joeanne and Thomas teach a system for detecting seatbelt positioning, comprising:
a seatbelt having a plurality of stripes extending lengthwise along a length of the seatbelt longer than an entire width of the seatbelt, the plurality of stripes being arranged in an alternating pattern of bright and dark, and each having a width in a direction perpendicular to a lengthwise dimension of the seatbelt, wherein the plurality of stripes include a plurality of interior stripes surrounded by outermost stripes that extend along opposite edges of the seatbelt, and wherein the widths of the plurality of interior stripes define an asymmetric pattern about a centerline mid-way between opposite edges of the belt (as explained in response to claim 1 above), wherein Thomas further teach wherein the system (Fig. 1) further comprises: a camera (7 of Fig. 1, paragraph 0033) configured to capture an image of an occupant wearing the seatbelt (paragraph 0002, determine whether the seatbelt is fastened or not); and a processor in communication with the camera and programmed to: receive the image of the occupant wearing the seatbelt, detect a detection point having a plurality of transitions between black and white segments corresponding to the plurality of interior stripes (paragraphs 0007, 0038), and determine, based on locations of the plurality of transitions between the black and white segments, an orientation of the seatbelt at the detection point (paragraphs 0006-0029).
In furthering obvious implementation of Thomas into the system of Hamada and Joeanne, Yilmaz teach using camera to determine whether a seatbelt is fastened (abstract), wherein pattern of seatbelt for optical detection can be varied by design preference (Figs. 8A-G, vertical like Fig. 8D, or horizontal like Fig. 8F; paragraphs 0018-0022).
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 Yilmaz into the system of Hamada, Joeanne and Thomas, in order to provide option in implementing seatbelt pattern for detection.
To claim 12, Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas and Yilmaz teach claim 11.
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 23, Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas and Yilmaz 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).
To claim 25, Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas and Yilmaz teach claim 11.
Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas and Yilmaz 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 (Thomas, Figs. 2-3, paragraph 0006).
To claim 29, Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas and Yilmaz teach claim 11.
Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas and Yilmaz teach wherein the plurality of stripes define the alternating pattern of bright and dark in near-infrared (Thomas, paragraphs 0010, 0011; Yilmaz, paragraphs 0018, 0021, 0023).
Claim(s) 24, 27-28 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”), Thomas (DE102018122481), Yilmaz (US2022/0250570) and Brielmann et al. (US2014/0232165).
To claim 24, Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas and Yilmaz teach claim 23.
Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas and Yilmaz 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 (obvious in Yilmaz, paragraphs 0019, 0022, pattern may also be formed from one or more lines of varying size, width, length, orientation, or other characteristics that allow the camera to identify the location of the pattern).
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, Joeanne, Thomas and Yilmaz into having bright stripes with different widths and/or dark stripes with different widths by design preference.
To claim 27, Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas and Yilmaz teach claim 11.
Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas and Yilmaz obviously teach wherein the plurality of interior stripes includes at least five of the interior stripes (Yilmaz, paragraphs 0019, 0022, pattern may also be formed from one or more lines of varying size, width, length, orientation, or other characteristics that allow the camera to identify the location of the pattern).
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 (Fig. 2, 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, Joeanne, Thomas and Yilmaz into having bright stripes with different widths by design preference.
To claim 28, Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas and Yilmaz teach claim 11.
Hamada, Joeanne, Thomas, Yilmaz and Brielmann teach wherein the asymmetric pattern includes two bright stripes having different widths, and two dark stripes having different widths (as explained in response to claim 24 above).
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 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 at (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 December 17, 2025
Prosecution Insights