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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 12/16/2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At 0042 line 1 “evaluation unit 21” should read --evaluation unit 23--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“evaluation unit” in claim 1. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “that is adapted and configured to” to the functional limitation “register the pressure signals in a spatially resolved manner and ascertain a pressure distribution that describes a spatial distribution of a force exerted on the seat belt by the person wearing the seat belt and provide the pressure distribution as an occupant-specific parameter to the control device for controlling the restraint device” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
an algorithm of a control unit (0033 lines 1-3)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 6 line 3 “abdomen” should read --an abdomen--.
At claim 6 line 3 “a user” should read --the person--.
At claim 9 line 2 “a change” should read --change--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “large number” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large number” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the person” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- a person--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the chest-specific and the abdomen-specific pressure load” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes claim 7 has been considered as dependent upon claim 6 and the limitation at claim 7 line 3 has been considered as --the chest-specific pressure load and the abdomen-specific pressure load--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “provide the pressure distribution as an occupant-specific parameter to the control device” in claim 1 lines 13-14 and “as a function of the occupant-specific parameter, and the pressure distribution” in claim 8 lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the occupant-specific parameter” at claim 8 lines 2-3 because the pressure distribution is introduced as the occupant-specific parameter at claim 1 line 13. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as best understood by the Examiner.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the claim limitations “provide the pressure distribution as an occupant-specific parameter to the control device for controlling the restraint device” and “the control device is adapted and configured to control the at least one restraint device at least in the event of an accident as a function of the occupant-specific parameter” integrate the recited mental processes into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SUZUKI `957 (JP 6,235,957).
Regarding claim 1, SUZUKI `957 discloses an occupant protection device for a motor vehicle, comprising:
at least one adaptive restraint system with at least one restraint device (pretensioner 40 operated by gas generator 45, i.a. 0063 lines 1-3) and with at least one sensor device (20 and 52 together) configured to acquire at least one occupant-specific parameter (load distribution, i.a. S101-102, 0057 lines 5-6, 0058 lines 1-3); and
at least one control device (0037 lines 3-4),
wherein the control device is adapted and configured to control the at least one restraint device (pretensioner 40) at least in the event of an accident as a function of the occupant-specific parameter (S105, S107, 0061 lines 1-3, 0063 line 1 - 0066 line end),
wherein the sensor device comprises at least one textile pressure sensor (20, 0026 lines 3-5, n.b. term “textile pressure sensor” is broad and 23 is a “textile pressure sensor” at least because it is flexible and integrated into webbing) that is integrated into a belt webbing of a seat belt (i.a. Fig. 2) and provides a large number of spatially distributed pressure signals (23, i.a. 0034 lines 1-3, Figs. 5-6), and
wherein the sensor device (20 and 52 together) comprises at least one evaluation unit (52; inasmuch as Applicant’s disclosed invention, 0033 lines 1-3) that is adapted and configured to register the pressure signals in a spatially resolved manner and ascertain a pressure distribution that describes a spatial distribution of a force exerted on the seat belt by the person wearing the seat belt (i.a. 0046 lines 1-3) and provide the pressure distribution as an occupant-specific parameter to the control device for controlling the restraint device (Fig. 4, 0059 lines 1-end).
Regarding claim 3, SUZUKI `957 discloses the occupant protection device according to claim 1.
SUZUKI `957 further discloses wherein the at least one restraint device (40) is configured as a belt tensioning device (0025 line 1).
Regarding claim 4, SUZUKI `957 discloses the occupant protection device according to claim 1.
SUZUKI `957 further discloses wherein the control device is adapted and configured to adjust a restraining force of the seat belt as a function of the occupant-specific parameter (0066 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, SUZUKI `957 discloses the occupant protection device according to claim 1.
SUZUKI `957 further discloses wherein the control device is adapted and configured to control the at least one restraint device as a function of the occupant-specific parameter, and the pressure distribution (inasmuch as Applicant’s disclosed invention, S105, S107, 0061 lines 1-3, 0063 line 1 - 0066 line end).
Regarding claim 9, SUZUKI `957 discloses the occupant protection device according to claim 8.
SUZUKI `957 further discloses wherein the control device is configured to relax the seat belt in a defined manner (0065 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, SUZUKI `957 further discloses a seat belt unit (15) comprising at least one seat belt (15) and at least one textile pressure sensor (20) integrated into the at least one seat belt (Fig. 2) for an occupant protection device according to claim 1.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SUZUKI `631 (JP 6,276,631).
Regarding claim 1, SUZUKI `631 discloses an occupant protection device for a motor vehicle, comprising:
at least one adaptive restraint system with at least one restraint device (front airbag 45) and with at least one sensor device (30 and 82 together) configured to acquire at least one occupant-specific parameter (load distribution, i.a. 0075 lines 1-3); and
at least one control device (80),
wherein the control device is adapted and configured to control the at least one restraint device at least in the event of an accident as a function of the occupant-specific parameter (S115, 0082 lines 2-6),
wherein the sensor device comprises at least one textile pressure sensor (30, n.b. term “textile pressure sensor” is broad and 23 is a “textile pressure sensor” at least because it is flexible and integrated into webbing) that is integrated into a belt webbing of a seat belt (i.a. Fig. 2) and provides a large number of spatially distributed pressure signals (Figs. 3-4), and
wherein the sensor device (30 and 82 taken together) comprises at least one evaluation unit (82; inasmuch as Applicant’s disclosed invention, 0033 lines 1-3) that is adapted and configured to register the pressure signals in a spatially resolved manner and ascertain a pressure distribution that describes a spatial distribution of a force exerted on the seat belt by the person wearing the seat belt (0063 lines 1-5) and provide the pressure distribution as an occupant-specific parameter to the control device for controlling the restraint device (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, SUZUKI `631 discloses the occupant protection device according to claim 1.
SUZUKI `631 further discloses wherein the control device is adapted and configured to adjust an airbag pressure as a function of the occupant-specific parameter (0082 lines 2-6; lower pressure implied/inherent in staggered stages and slower speed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747