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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20220398404) and further in view of Evans (WO 2022147093).
Regarding claim 1, Chung discloses a safety belt (50) for a motor vehicle (10) (see abstract, para. 0005), the safety belt having markings which can be optically detected in an infrared spectral range (stripes 68a-g, see para. 0038), wherein: the marking comprises edge markings of both edges of the safety belt (68a, and 68g on the edge of belt 50), and the marking (68) has a marking which is asymmetrical to the longitudinal axis of the safety belt (see para. 0038, fig.7-10 stripes are arranged in an asymmetric pattern along the length of the belt).
Chung fails to disclose wherein the safety belt is formed by at least two different yarns, each having different optical properties in the infrared spectral range, and wherein each of the yarns is formed by adding a material before the yarn is formed from a melt such that the optical properties of the yarns are each configured to be present over an entire volume.
However, Evans teaches wherein the safety belt is formed by at least two different yarns (infrared absorbing yarn and infrared reflecting yarn), each having different optical properties in the infrared spectral range (absorbing vs reflecting), and wherein each of the yarns is formed by adding a material before the yarn is formed from a melt such that the optical properties of the yarns are each configured to be present over an entire volume (adding IR additive into the thermoplastic masterbatch before melt & spinning so that the desired IR properties exist through the yarn volume, see para. 0011-0012 and 0025). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the improvement technique of forming the two different yarns with Chungs IR-patterned seatbelt because both provide reliably detecting a seatbelt using infrared imaging with a reasonable expectation of success. Incorporating the modified IR yarns into the belt webbing of Chung would improve detection durability and stability overtime (reduced fading or washout or wear from normal use, see para. 0008).
Regarding claim 2, Chung discloses wherein the edge marking of both edges is formed by longitudinal stripes (see two outermost stripes, fig. 9, 68a, and 68g).
Regarding claim 3, Chung discloses wherein the two longitudinal stripes of the edge making (68a, and 688) are identical (see para. 0038, fig.9).
Regarding claim 4, Chung discloses wherein the marking has at least three longitudinal stripes (see para. 0038, seatbelt may have fewer or greater than the 7 stripes shown, see fig.9).
Regarding claim 5, Chung discloses wherein at least one longitudinal stripe (68b-f) of the marking is arranged between the edge marking (68a, 68g).
Regarding claim 6, Chung discloses wherein two longitudinal stripes of the marking (68b-f) are arranged between the edge marking, wherein the shape of these two longitudinal stripes differs from each other (see para. 0038, irregular stripe pattern).
In regards to claim 10, Chung discloses a detection system (12) for detecting the state of use of a safety belt (50)according to claim 1 (see above) in a motor vehicle (10), comprising: at least one camera (see para 0027-0028) which is designed to capture images in the infrared spectral range (capable of capturing infrared), the camera (20a-20f) being designed to capture images of the at least one safety belt (50), and comprising: an electronic data processing device (30), wherein the data processing device (30) is designed to recognize the safety belt and the state of use of the safety belt by an occupant (see para. 0034, method fig.12 and para. 0051-53).
In regards to claim 11, Chung discloses the data processing device (30) is designed to detect the marking which is asymmetrical with respect to the longitudinal axis of the safety belt and the edge markings (see para. 0044-53).
In regards to claim 12, Chung discloses wherein the data processing device (30) is designed to determine the seating position and/or the size of an occupant from the detection of the safety belt (see para. 0043, the processor determines a distance that can provide more accurate measurements regarding the position of the occupant).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung and Evans as applied to claims above, and further in view of Hiroki (US 20190375360).
Regarding claim 7, Chung discloses wherein two longitudinal stripes (68b-f) of the marking are arranged between the edge marking. Chung fails to disclose wherein these two longitudinal stripes are dashed. However, Hiroki teaches markers provided on the surface of a safety belt for the purpose of proper use detection wherein the marker member may be attached, printed or sewn into the material with various patters, including but not limited to longitudinal stripes that are dashed, see fig.3 which appears to have a “checkerboard pattern with the dashed stripes. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the pattern of the two longitudinal stripes in view of Hiroki.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung and Evans as applied above and further in view of Herbert (US 20200055480).
Regarding claim 8, Chung fails to discloses wherein the marking preferably has transverse bar markings which connect the edge marking of both edges of the safety belt to one another. A similar safety belt for a motor vehicle with markings that can be optically detected in the infrared spectral range is taught by Herbert. Herbert discloses edge markings as well as transverse bar markings which connect the edge marking of both edges of the safety belt to one another in order to assist with precise calibration with the camera and avoid improper conclusions regarding the detection of the person and the safety belt. See fig. 5E,para. 0037, safety belt 50 with edge markings 52 and transverse markings 51 connecting the edges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the known improvement technique as taught by Herbert, including additional markings for the cameras to detect and thereby improve the data used for determining the proper use of the seat belt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 06/11/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Chung fails to disclose the new amended feature of claim 1. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Evans (WO 2022147093) provided by examiner, see above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See pto-892 for a list of prior art that teach belts forming of at least two different yarns with different properties similar to that claimed in the instant application.
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 CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
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, Paul Dickson can be reached at 571-272-7742. 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.
/C.A.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/PAUL N DICKSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614