DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 03/09/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
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 04/07/2026, with respect to the non-final rejection (01/13/2026) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Nelsen (US 20200114842 A1).
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 1-5, 7, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen (US 20200114842 A1) in view of Wengreen (US 20200247357 A1) and Kinsman (US 8973693 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Nelsen discloses a vehicle (100, Fig. 1) comprising: a chassis (108); a seating area supported by the chassis; one or more sensors (118) configured to acquire data to facilitate detecting whether a condition is met for unrestricted operation of the vehicle; and a control system (120) configured to:
Acquire the data from the one or more sensors (“sensor array 118 provides sensor data to the controller 120”, paragraph [0040]); and
Restrict operation of the vehicle responsive to the condition being not met by:
Reducing a speed (see “prevented from travelling faster than a predetermined speed”, paragraph [0063]) of the vehicle from a current speed to a non-zero reduced (“30 mph”, paragraph [0063]) speed based on the current speed of the off-road vehicle being greater than the non-zero reduced speed, and
Limiting the speed of the off-road vehicle to the non-zero reduced speed (see “prevented from travelling faster than a predetermined speed”, paragraph [0063]) based on the current speed being less than the non-zero reduced speed such that the speed does not exceed the non-zero reduced speed based on user inputs to increase the speed of the off- road vehicle relative to the current speed.
Regarding the “reducing a speed” limitation, Nelsen discloses limiting a vehicle speed in response to a safety condition not being met. Nelsen does not explicitly disclose a situation in which a vehicle is travelling faster than the predetermined speed and then has its speed reduced to the predetermined speed based on the condition not being met. However, since there is a disclosed safety concern related to travelling above the speed threshold when the safety condition is not met, it would be a matter of common sense to reduce the speed of the vehicle below the threshold when the vehicle is travelling at a speed above the threshold and the condition is not met. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nelsen to meet the “reducing a speed” limitation because Nelsen teaches that there is a safety concern associated with travelling at a speed above a speed threshold when a safety condition is not met and teaches means for limiting the speed of the vehicle. Such a person would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve the safety of the vehicle.
Nelsen is silent in teaching that the vehicle is an off-road vehicle, and the control system is configured to: restrict operation of the off-road vehicle responsive to determining that a second condition of the plurality of conditions is not met by: inhibiting the off-road vehicle from moving based on the current speed indicating that the off-road vehicle is not moving, and causing the off-road vehicle to stop moving based on the current speed indicating that the off-road vehicle is moving
Wengreen teaches a vehicle comprising one or more sensors (55) configured to acquire data to facilitate detecting whether a condition is met (“detect at least one of a buckled state of the first seat belt”, paragraph [0171]) for unrestricted operation of the vehicle, and a control system (34) configured to: restrict operation of the off-road vehicle responsive to determining that a second condition of the plurality of conditions is not met by:
inhibiting the off-road vehicle from moving (“In response to the unfastening of the seat belt 53, the first self-driving vehicle 5a may cease driving”, paragraph [0268]) based on the current speed indicating that the off-road vehicle is not moving, and
causing the off-road vehicle to stop moving (“pull over to park”, paragraph [0268]) based on the current speed indicating that the off-road vehicle is moving.
Note, Wengreen teaches that the vehicle may resume motion after it has been detected that the condition is once again met (“…may resume driving”, paragraph [0268]). Accordingly, it follows that the vehicle would be prevented from resuming motion until the condition is met.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nelsen in view of Wengreen to arrive at the claimed invention and to produce a safer vehicle by further limiting vehicle functionality in response to certain safety related conditions not being met. Since the condition taught by Wengreen is different from the condition disclosed by Nelsen, the combination would result in a device that restricts operation of the vehicle responsive to determining that a second condition of a plurality of conditions is not met.
Regarding the “permit unrestricted operation” limitation, the prior art vehicles have their operations restricted responsive to certain condition not being met. Accordingly, operation would not be restricted if the conditions are met.
Nelsen in view of Wengreen is silent in teaching that the vehicle is an off-road vehicle. However; Nelsen makes no disclosure that would preclude the vehicle from being considered an “off-road vehicle”. Further, since the preamble of the claim does not provide any structure specific to off-road vehicles, the recitation, of “off-road” does not serve a basis for patentable distinguishment.
Nevertheless, Kinsman discloses an off-road vehicle (10, Fig. 1) comprising a chassis (4); and a seating area (32) supported by the chassis.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the vehicle system taught by Nelsen in view of Wengreen with the vehicle structure disclosed by Kinsman to arrive at the claimed invention and to produce a safer off-road vehicle. Further, the modification would have been obvious because it is an application of a known technique (permitting/restricting operation as taught by Nelsen in view of Wengreen) to a known device (the vehicle disclosed by Kinsman) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (improving operating safety of the vehicle).
With respect to claim 2, Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman as modified above teaches the off-road vehicle of claim 1, wherein the control system (Nelsen; 120, Fig. 1) is configured to operate an alarm (“audio and/or visual notifications”, paragraph [0039]) in response to determining that one or more conditions of the plurality of conditions are not met (“whether the hood 101 (or other closure) is securely closed”, paragraph [0039]).
With respect to claim 3, Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman as modified above teaches the off-road vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a display device (Nelsen; 117, Fig. 1), wherein the control system is configured to operate the display device to display a notification (“or more audio and/or visual notifications”, paragraph [0039]) regarding at least one of the plurality of conditions that is not met (“when a determination is made that the hood 101 is not securely closed via the latching mechanism…”, paragraph [0039]).
With respect to claim 4, Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman as modified above teaches the off-road vehicle of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors include at least one of a door sensor (Nelsen; “one or more door sensors”, paragraph [0040]).
With respect to claim 5, Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman as modified above teaches the off-road vehicle of claim 4, wherein the plurality of conditions includes at least one of a door of the off-road vehicle being closed (Nelsen; “detect when the driver door 105 is closed”, paragraph [0040]).
With respect to claim 7, Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman as modified above teaches the off-road vehicle of claim 5, wherein the one or more sensors include the seatbelt sensor (Wengreen; “detect at least one of a buckled state of the first seat belt”, paragraph [0171]), and the control system is configured to acquire from the seatbelt sensor, data indicative of whether a seatbelt tongue is engaged with a seatbelt buckle (see “first seat belt sensor detecting the unbuckled state”, paragraph [0041]), and responsive to determining that the seatbelt is not buckled, restrict operation of the off-road vehicle (“In response to the unfastening of the seat belt 53, the first self-driving vehicle 5a may cease driving”, paragraph [0268]).
With respect to claim 10, Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman as modified above teaches the off-road vehicle of claim 5, further comprising a body providing the seating area (Kinsman; 32, Fig. 1), wherein the body includes a door, wherein the one or more sensors include the door sensor (Nelsen; “one or more door sensors”, paragraph [0040]), and wherein the control system (Nelsen; 120) is configured to: acquire, from the door sensor, door data indicative of whether the door is in an open position or a closed position (Nelsen; “sensor array 118 provides sensor data to the controller 120”, paragraph [0040]); determine whether the door is in the open position or the closed position based on the door data (Nelsen; “detect when the driver door 105 is closed”, paragraph [0040]); and responsive to determining that the door is in the open position, restrict operation of the off-road vehicle moving (Nelsen; “inhibits the movement of the vehicle 100” and “driver door 105”, paragraph [0035]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen (US 20200114842 A1) in view of Wengreen (US 20200247357 A1) and Kinsman (US 8973693 B2) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hui (CN 204196844 U).
With respect to claim 6, Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman as modified above teaches the off-road vehicle of claim 5, wherein the one or more sensors includes the seatbelt sensor (Wengreen; see (“detect at least one of a buckled state of the first seat belt”, paragraph [0171]), but is silent in teaching that the control system is configured to: acquire, from the seatbelt sensor, a tension value of the seatbelt; compare the tension value of the seatbelt to a threshold; determine, based on the comparison, whether the occupant is wearing the seatbelt; and responsive to determining that the seatbelt is not being worn or properly worn by the occupant, restrict operation of the off-road vehicle
Hui discloses a method of determining if an occupant is wearing a seatbelt properly comprising: acquiring a tension value of a seat belt (see paragraph [0008]), comparing the tension value of the seatbelt to a threshold, and determining if the seatbelt is being worn properly based on the comparison (see paragraph [0048]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman in further view of Hui to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would have been considered obvious because it is a simple substitution of one known element (the seatbelt detector disclosed by Wengreen) for another known element (the seatbelt detector disclosed by Hui) to achieve predictable results (a system that accurately detects if an occupant is wearing a seatbelt).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen (US 20200114842 A1) in view of Wengreen (US 20200247357 A1) and Kinsman (US 8973693 B2) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Uszkur (US 20220227331 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman as modified above teaches the off-road vehicle of claim 5, wherein the control system is configured to: restrict operation of the off-road vehicle responsive to determining that the occupant is not properly wearing the seatbelt (Wengreen; (“In response to the unfastening of the seat belt 53, the first self-driving vehicle 5a may cease driving”, paragraph [0268]).
Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman as modified above is silent in teaching that the control system is configured to receive, from an optical sensor, optical data indicative of a position of the seatbelt relative to the occupant; acquire a model seatbelt position relative to a model occupant when being properly worn by the model occupant; compare the optical data indicative of the position of the seatbelt of the occupant relative to the model seatbelt position of the model occupant to determine whether the occupant is properly wearing the seatbelt
Uszkur discloses a method of determining whether an occupant is wearing a seatbelt comprising: a control system (6, Fig. 1) receiving, from an optical sensor (“camera”, paragraph [0040]), optical data (“images from the camera”, paragraph [0040]) indicative of a position of the seatbelt relative to the occupant (see paragraph [0052]); acquire a model seatbelt position relative to a model occupant when being properly worn by the model occupant (see “neural network”, paragraph [0040]); compare the optical data indicative of the position of the seatbelt of the occupant relative to the model seatbelt position of the model occupant to determine whether the occupant is properly wearing the seatbelt (see paragraph [0055]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman in further view of Uszkur to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide additional means for detecting if an occupant is wearing a seatbelt. Such a person would have been motivated to make the modification to ensure that the control system remains capable of determining if an occupant is wearing a seatbelt in the event that one means for determining if an occupant is wearing a seatbelt fails.
Claims 9 and 11rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen (US 20200114842 A1) in view of Wengreen (US 20200247357 A1) and Kinsman (US 8973693 B2) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Beller (DE 102019216628 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman discloses: the off-road vehicle of claim 5, further comprising a bed (Kinsman; 22, Fig. 38) supported by the chassis, and wherein the bed includes the tailgate (illustrated at 22, Fig. 38).
Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman is silent in teaching that the one or more sensors include the bed sensor, and wherein the control system is configured to: acquire, from the bed sensor, tailgate data indicative of whether the tailgate is in an open position or a closed position; determine whether the tailgate is in the open position or the closed position based on the tailgate data; and responsive to determining that the tailgate is in the open position, restrict operation of the off-road vehicle by: (a) limiting a speed of the off-road vehicle to a reduced speed, or (b) inhibiting the off-road vehicle from moving.
Beller discloses a control system (20) configured to: acquire, from a bed sensor (22), tailgate data indicative of whether the tailgate is in an open position or a closed position (see paragraph [0053]); determine whether the tailgate is in the open position or the closed position based on the tailgate data; and responsive to determining that the tailgate is in the open position, restrict operation of the off-road vehicle by: (a) limiting a speed of the off-road vehicle to a reduced speed, or (b) inhibiting the off-road vehicle from moving (“prevent the vehicle from starting”, paragraph [0056]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman in further view of Beller to arrive at the claimed invention and to improve the safety of the vehicle by preventing operation when the vehicle’s tailgate is open.
Regarding claim 11, Beller discloses that, “The classification of the closing state of a door can include the classification of the closing state of a front door, a rear door, a tailgate, a trunk or any opening of a vehicle based on the analysis of a captured closing sound using a neural network” (paragraph [0014]).
The vehicle disclosed by Kinsman comprises a windshield (888, Fig. 38) that is movable between an open position (see “open position”, Col. 18, L. 36) and a closed position (see “closed position”, Col. 18, L. 39).
Since the method disclosed by Beller is disclosed as being used with any opening of a vehicle, and since the vehicle disclosed by Kinsman includes an openable window, modifying Nelsen in view of Wengreen, Kinsman and Beller as described above would result in the off-road vehicle of claim 5, further comprising a windshield, wherein the one or more sensors include the windshield sensor, and wherein the control system is configured to: acquire, from the windshield sensor, windshield data indicative of whether the windshield is in an open position or a closed position; determine whether the windshield is in the open position or the closed position based on the windshield data; and responsive to determining that the windshield is in the open position, restrict operation of the off-road vehicle by: (a) limiting a speed of the off-road vehicle to a reduced speed, or (b) inhibiting the off-road vehicle from moving.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen (US 20200114842 A1) in view of Wengreen (US 20200247357 A1) and Kinsman (US 8973693 B2) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Silverman (US 4840248 A).
With respect to claim 12, Nelsen in view of Wengreen and Kinsman as modified above discloses: the off-road vehicle of claim 5 but is silent in teaching: the optical sensor, and wherein the control system is configured to: acquire, from the optical sensor, optical data indicative of whether limbs of the occupant are inside the seating area of the off-road vehicle; determine whether each of the limbs of the occupant are inside the seating area based on the optical data; and responsive to determining that one or more of the limbs of the occupant are not inside the seating area, restrict operation of the off-road vehicle by: (a) limiting a speed of the off-road vehicle to a reduced speed, or (b) inhibiting the off-road vehicle from moving.
Silverman discloses: a control system configured to: acquire, from an optical sensor (14, Fig. 1), optical data indicative of whether limbs of the occupant are inside the seating area of the vehicle (“an indication of the limb's protrusion”, Col. 3, LL. 4-5); determine whether each of the limbs of the occupant are inside the seating area based on the optical data; and responsive to determining that one or more of the limbs of the occupant are not inside the seating area, restrict operation of the off-road vehicle by: (a) limiting a speed of the off-road vehicle to a reduced speed, or (b) inhibiting the off-road vehicle from moving (“deactivates the vehicle by cutting off the power source to stop movement”, Col. 3, LL. 5-7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nelsen in view of Wengreen and kinsman in further view of Silverman to arrive at the claimed invention and to improve the safety of the vehicle by preventing vehicle movement when an occupant’s limbs extend outside of the vehicle.
Claims 13 and 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uszkur (US 20220227331 A1) in view of Greene (US 20070285219 A1) and Kinsman (US 8973693 B2).
With respect to claim 13, Uszkur discloses a vehicle (“the vehicle”, paragraph [0039]) comprising one or more sensors configured to acquire data regarding a number of occupants in the off-road vehicle (“which seats are occupied”, paragraph [0052]) and configured to acquire data regarding usage of the one or more seatbelts by occupants of the off-road vehicle (“status of the seat belts on the occupied seats”, paragraph [0052]); and a control system (6) configured to: acquire a first seatbelt characteristic from at least one of the one or more sensors, the first seatbelt characteristic indicating whether each occupant is properly wearing one of the one or more seatbelts (see “indicates positive locking”, paragraph [0050])); determine that each of the occupants is properly wearing one of the one or more seatbelts; allow unrestricted operation of the off-road vehicle; acquire a second seatbelt characteristic from at least one of the one or more sensors, the second seatbelt characteristic indicating whether each occupant is wearing one of the one or more seatbelts (see “the length of strap dispensed”, paragraph [0050]).
Uszkur is silent in teaching that the vehicle is an off-road vehicle comprising a chassis; a prime mover; a plurality of tractive elements, at least one of the plurality of tractive elements driven by the prime mover; a seating area having one or more seatbelts coupled to the chassis, and wherein the control system restricts operation of the vehicle by: reducing a speed of the off-road vehicle from a current speed to a non-zero reduced speed based on the current speed of the off-road vehicle being greater than the non-zero reduced speed, and limiting the speed of the off-road vehicle to the non-zero reduced speed based on the current speed being less than the non-zero reduced speed, such that the speed does not exceed the non-zero reduced speed based on user inputs to increase the speed of the off- road vehicle relative to the current speed.
Greene teaches a vehicle comprising a seatbelt sensor (see “a buckled seatbelt signal (e.g., based on a magnetic switch in the female portion of the buckle”, paragraph [0014]) and a control system (“automobile's stock computer”, paragraph [0014]) configured to determine that at least one of the vehicle occupants is not properly wearing one of the one or more seatbelts (“receives the unbuckled seatbelt alarm signal”, paragraph [0014]), and restrict operation of the off-road vehicle (“handicaps the operation of the automobile”, paragraph [0014]) by: reducing a speed of the off-road vehicle (“speed limitation”, paragraph [0014]) from a current speed to a non-zero reduced speed (“e.g., 10 miles-per-hour”, paragraph [0021]) based on the current speed of the off-road vehicle being greater than the non-zero reduced speed, and limiting the speed of the off-road vehicle to the non-zero reduced speed based on the current speed being less than the non-zero reduced speed, such that the speed does not exceed the non-zero reduced speed based on user inputs to increase the speed of the off- road vehicle relative to the current speed.
Note, Greene teaches preventing the vehicle from travelling faster than 10 mph when the seatbelt is unbuckled. In a situation in which the vehicle is already travelling faster than 10mph, preventing the vehicle from travelling faster than 10 mph would necessarily involve reducing the speed of the vehicle below 10 mph. Greene also further teaches that limiting the speed in this manner may protect occupants of the vehicle from serious injury or death (see paragraph [0021]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Uszkur in view of Greene to arrive at the claimed invention and to prevent high speed collisions that may result in serious injury or death from occurring when seatbelts are unfastened.
Kinsman teaches an off-road vehicle (“all-terrain vehicles”, Col. 1, L. 14) comprising a chassis (4, Fig. 1); a prime mover (150, Fig. 10A); a plurality of tractive elements (5/6, Fig. 1), at least one of the plurality of tractive elements driven by the prime mover; and a seating area (32).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Uszkur in view of Greene to an off-road vehicle such as the one disclosed by Kinsman to produce a safer off-road vehicle that limits the chances of serious injury or death when seatbelts are unfastened.
With respect to claim 15, Uszkur in view of Greene and Kinsman as modified above teaches the off-road vehicle of claim 13, wherein the control system is configured to operate an alarm (Uszkur; “warning alarm”, paragraph [0052]) in response to determining that one or more of the occupants is not wearing one of the one or more seatbelts (Uszkur; “the seat belt is not secure correctly”, paragraph [0052]).
With respect to claim 16, Uszkur in view of Greene and Kinsman as modified above teaches the off-road vehicle of claim 15, wherein the one or more sensors include at least one of a seatbelt sensor (Uszkur; “strap indicators indicate the seat belt is not secured correctly”, paragraph [0052]).
With respect to claim 17, Uszkur in view of Greene and Kinsman as modified above teaches the off-road vehicle of claim 16, wherein the one or more sensors include the optical sensor, and
wherein the control system is configured to: acquire, from the optical sensor (Uszkur; “camera”, paragraph [0040]), optical data indicative of a position of the one or more seatbelts relative to the occupants (Uszkur; “images from the camera”, paragraph [0040]); acquire a model seatbelt position relative to a model occupant when being worn by the model occupant (Uszkur; see “neural network”, paragraph [0040]); compare the optical data indicative of the position of the one or more seatbelts of each of the occupants relative to the model seatbelt position of the model occupant to determine whether each of the occupants is properly wearing one of the one or more seatbelts (see paragraph [0052]); and responsive to determining that one or more of the occupants is not wearing or properly wearing one of the one or more seatbelts, restrict operation of the off-road vehicle (Greene; “speed limitation”, paragraph [0014]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uszkur (US 20220227331 A1) in view of Greene (US 20070285219 A1) and Kinsman (US 8973693 B2) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hui (CN 204196844 U).
With respect to claim 18, Uszkur in view of Greene and Kinsman as modified above teaches the off-road vehicle of claim 16, wherein the control system is configured to: responsive to determining that one or more of the occupants is not wearing or not properly wearing one of the one or more seatbelts, restrict operation of the off-road vehicle (Greene; see “speed limitation”, paragraph [0014]).
Uszkur in view of Greene and Kinsman is silent in teaching that the control system is configured to: acquire, from the seatbelt sensor, a tension value of each of the one or more seatbelts; compare the tension value of each of the one or more seatbelts to a threshold; compare a number of seatbelts having a tension value above the threshold to the number of occupants in the off-road vehicle; determine, based on the comparison, whether each occupant is properly wearing one of the one or more seatbelts
Hui discloses a method of determining if an occupant is wearing a seatbelt properly comprising: acquiring a tension value of a seat belt, comparing the tension value of the seatbelt to a threshold, and determining if the seatbelt is being worn properly based on the comparison (see paragraph [0048]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Uszkur in view of Greene and Kinsman in further view of Hui to arrive at the claimed invention and to ensure that the seatbelt detector properly detects if a seatbelt is being worn. Such a modification would have been considered obvious because it is a simple substitution of one known element (the seatbelt detector disclosed by Uszkur) for another known element (the seatbelt detector disclosed by Hui) to achieve predictable results (a system that accurately detects if an occupant is wearing a seatbelt). Furthermore, such a person may have been motivated to use the seatbelt detecting means taught by Hui in combination with the seatbelt detecting means disclosed by Uszkur to provide redundant seatbelt detecting means in the event that one of the means fails to properly work.
Claims 19 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene (US 20070285219 A1) in view of Hui (CN 204196844 U).
With respect to claim 19, Greene discloses a method comprising:
Having one or more sensors (“magnetic switch”, paragraph [0022]) configured to facilitate detecting whether one or more seatbelt conditions are met (see “a buckled seatbelt signal (e.g., based on a magnetic switch in the female portion of the buckle”, paragraph [0014]),
Acquiring, from a seat sensor (“weight sensor unit”, paragraph [0014]), a position of the occupant in the seating area (see “generates an occupancy signal”, paragraph [0014])
Acquiring, from the seatbelt sensor, seatbelt data indicative of whether a seatbelt tongue is engaged with a seatbelt buckle ("a buckled seatbelt signal (based on a magnetic switch in the female portion of the buckle)", abstract),
Determining whether the seatbelt tongue is engaged with the seatbelt buckle (see “generates an unbuckled seatbelt alarm signal if the buckled seatbelt signal indicates that the buckle is not buckled”, paragraph [0014]);
Responsive to the determining that the seatbelt is not being worn or properly worn by the occupant, restricting operation of the off-road vehicle by:
reducing a speed of the off-road vehicle (see “speed limitation”, paragraph [0014]) from a current speed to a non-zero reduced speed (see “10 mph”, paragraph [0023]) based on the current speed of the off-road vehicle being greater than the non-zero reduced speed,
limiting the speed of the off-road vehicle to the non-zero reduced speed based on the current speed being less than the non-zero reduced speed, such that the speed does not exceed the non-zero reduced speed based on user inputs to increase the speed of the off-road vehicle relative to the current speed, and
inhibiting the off-road vehicle from moving (“prevent the ignition of the engine”, paragraph [0030]) based on the current speed indicating that the off-road vehicle is not moving.
Greene is silent in teaching: acquiring, from a first seatbelt sensor, first seatbelt data indicative of a tension of a seatbelt or a length of the seatbelt withdrawn from a seatbelt spool; comparing the tension or the length of the seatbelt to a threshold; determining, based on the tension or the length of the seatbelt, the seatbelt tongue engagement with the seatbelt buckle.
Hui discloses a method of determining if an occupant is wearing a seatbelt properly comprising: acquiring a tension value of a seat belt, comparing the tension value of the seatbelt to a threshold, and determining if the seatbelt is being worn properly based on the comparison (see paragraph [0050]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Greene in view of Hui to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide redundant means for determining if an occupant is wearing a seatbelt in the event that one means fails to work properly. Further, it would have been obvious to combine the results of the sensors in the vehicle to make determinations regarding the seatbelt being worn in order to improve the accuracy at which such determinations are made. For example, such a person would have been motivated to combine the tension sensing means with the second seatbelt sensor to ensure that the tension in the seatbelt is created as a result of the belt being buckled. As another example, when it is detected that a seatbelt is unbuckled, a person would be motivated to compare that detection to results from the occupancy sensors to determine if those seatbelts should be buckled.
With respect to claim 20, Greene in view of Hui as modified above teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising: operating a display device to display a notification (Greene; “lighting alert”, paragraph [0039]) regarding at least one of the one or more seatbelt conditions that is not met.
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 Matthew D Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6087. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (7:30 - 5:00 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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571) 272-2706. 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.
/MATTHEW D LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights