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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20250050836).
Regarding claim 7, A method for determining proper engagement of a seatbelt component of a material handling vehicle, the method comprising: determining a vehicle status based on whether the material handling vehicle is ready for operation; determining that the material handling vehicle is ready for operation; in response to determining that the material handling vehicle is ready for operation, calculating a length of a seatbelt strap; comparing the length of the seatbelt strap to a setpoint threshold value to determine whether the seatbelt strap is properly harnessed; monitoring the length of the seatbelt strap and the vehicle status; and in response to determining that the seatbelt strap is improperly harnessed. (“Referring to FIG. 3, seat belt monitoring system 60 includes a controller 64 having a central processing unit (CPU) 66, a non-volatile memory 68 that stores control logic for monitoring seat belt 38, and a seat belt monitoring module 70. Seat belt monitoring system 60 is connected to a vehicle sensor 72 that indicates a status of vehicle 10 (power on/off, door open/closed, vehicle in drive mode), a seat presence sensor 74 that detects occupant presence in seat 22, a buckle sensor 76 that checks whether seat belt 38 is buckled, and a seat belt payout sensor 78 that measures a length of seat belt 38 un-spooled from retractor mechanism 44. The number and location of the sensors may vary. For instance, seat presence sensor 74 may be located within seat 22 or be located remotely. Seat belt monitoring system 60 may also be connected to a warning output 80 that signals to the occupant that seat belt 38 is improperly routed and a vehicle output 82 that is configured to prevent or inhibit operation of vehicle 10 until the signal from warning output 80 has been resolved.” Thomas: paragraph 38; the specific claim language of a “material handling vehicle” is merely intended use as to the specific type of vehicle that such a device would be used in as the device of Thomas is capable of being used in any type of vehicle including a “material handling vehicle”)
While Thomas doesn’t specifically disclose the enabling limited speed operation of the material handling vehicle, Thomas does disclose “vehicle output that is configured to prevent or inhibit operation of the vehicle” (emphasis added). The addition of the ‘or’ is important to distinguish the use of ‘inhibit’ to mean something different from ‘prevent.’ Specifically that prevent would be the stopping of operation of the vehicle while inhibit would mean a restraining or hindering of the operation of the vehicle and one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to ‘hinder’ the operation of a vehicle by hindering the speed output available.
Regarding claim 8, The method of claim 7, wherein determining that the vehicle is ready for operation is based on a detection of an operator being present in a driver’s seat of the material handling vehicle. (“a seat presence sensor 74 that detects occupant presence in seat 22,” Thomas: paragraph 38)
Regarding claim 9, The method of claim 8, further comprising sending a first signal if the operator is present and sending a second signal if a determination is made that the seatbelt strap is properly harnessed. (“a seat presence sensor 74 that detects occupant presence in seat 22, a buckle sensor 76 that checks whether seat belt 38 is buckled, and a seat belt payout sensor 78 that measures a length of seat belt 38 un-spooled from retractor mechanism 44. The number and location of the sensors may vary.” Thomas: paragraph 38)
Regarding claim 10, The method of claim 9, further comprising sending a third signal if the seatbelt strap is secured in a buckle. (“a seat presence sensor 74 that detects occupant presence in seat 22, a buckle sensor 76 that checks whether seat belt 38 is buckled, and a seat belt payout sensor 78 that measures a length of seat belt 38 un-spooled from retractor mechanism 44. The number and location of the sensors may vary.” Thomas: paragraph 38)
Regarding claim 11, The method of claim 7, wherein calculating the length of the seatbelt strap is performed using a sensor, an image processing technique, an electromechanical device, or a combination thereof. (“a seat belt payout sensor 78 that measures a length of seat belt 38 un-spooled from retractor mechanism 44” Thomas: paragraph 38)
Regarding claim 12, The method of claim 7, wherein a determination that the seatbelt strap is properly harnessed occurs if the length of the seatbelt strap is greater than the setpoint threshold value. (“The routing length check determines whether a length of seat belt 38 unspooled from retractor mechanism 44 is greater than or equal to a minimum seat belt length threshold stored in non-volatile memory 68” Thomas: paragraph 40)
Regarding claim 13, The method of claim 7, wherein a determination that the seatbelt strap is improperly harnessed occurs if the length of the seatbelt strap is less than the setpoint threshold value. (“The routing length check determines whether a length of seat belt 38 unspooled from retractor mechanism 44 is greater than or equal to a minimum seat belt length threshold stored in non-volatile memory 68” Thomas: paragraph 40)
Regarding claim 14, The method of claim 13, further comprising limiting movement of the material handling vehicle after determining the seatbelt strap is improperly harnessed. (“Seat belt monitoring system 60 may also be connected to a warning output 80 that signals to the occupant that seat belt 38 is improperly routed and a vehicle output 82 that is configured to prevent or inhibit operation of vehicle 10 until the signal from warning output 80 has been resolved.” Thomas: paragraph 38)
Regarding claim 15, The method of claim 13, further comprising sending a notification that the seatbelt strap is improperly harnessed. (“Seat belt monitoring system 60 may also be connected to a warning output 80 that signals to the occupant that seat belt 38 is improperly routed and a vehicle output 82 that is configured to prevent or inhibit operation of vehicle 10 until the signal from warning output 80 has been resolved.” Thomas: paragraph 38)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Lee (US 20100138113).
Regarding claim 16, The method of claim 15, wherein the notification instructs an operator to pull the seatbelt strap an additional length so that a total length of the seatbelt strap is greater than the setpoint threshold value is not specifically disclosed by Thomas. Lee discloses a seatbelt monitoring system that teaches providing the user with audible feedback when their seatbelt has not been retracted a sufficient amount (“When the occupant does not fasten a seat belt, i.e., when the weight of the occupant is detected by the weight sensor, but the deployed length of the seat belt is detected as zero by the seat belt length sensor, a "fasten seat belt" voice message may be provided or a "fasten seat belt" visual message may be displayed on a dashboard.” Lee: paragraph 60). Modifying Thomas to include an audible message to remind the user to buckle their seatbelt correctly would increase the overall safety of the system. The audible reminder of telling a user to buckle their seatbelt would inherently cause the user to pull out an additional length of the seatbelt strap to be greater than the setpoint as it would be buckled. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Thomas according to Lee.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 7 stated above.
Regarding claim 18, The material handling vehicle of claim 17, wherein the shifter module limits the speed of the material handling vehicle based on the length of the seatbelt strap. (“Seat belt monitoring system 60 may also be connected to a warning output 80 that signals to the occupant that seat belt 38 is improperly routed and a vehicle output 82 that is configured to prevent or inhibit operation of vehicle 10 until the signal from warning output 80 has been resolved.” Thomas: paragraph 38; preventing/inhibiting the operation of the vehicle would be limiting the speed of the vehicle)
Regarding claim 19, The material handling vehicle of claim 18, wherein the seatbelt sensor module includes a notification module. (“Seat belt monitoring system 60 may also be connected to a warning output 80 that signals to the occupant that seat belt 38 is improperly routed and a vehicle output 82 that is configured to prevent or inhibit operation of vehicle 10 until the signal from warning output 80 has been resolved.” Thomas: paragraph 38)
Regarding claim 20, The material handling vehicle of claim 19, wherein the notification module sends a notification if the length of the seatbelt strap is less than a setpoint threshold value. (“The routing length check determines whether a length of seat belt 38 unspooled from retractor mechanism 44 is greater than or equal to a minimum seat belt length threshold stored in non-volatile memory 68” Thomas: paragraph 40 & “Seat belt monitoring system 60 may also be connected to a warning output 80 that signals to the occupant that seat belt 38 is improperly routed and a vehicle output 82 that is configured to prevent or inhibit operation of vehicle 10 until the signal from warning output 80 has been resolved.” Thomas: paragraph 38)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amended claim language, see amendment, filed 8/13/2026, with respect to claims 1-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/13/2026 with respect to claim(s) 7-16 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 with respect to claims 17-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the following:
Argument A: Thomas fails to disclose “a shifter module coupled to the body for controlling the material handling vehicle.”
Examiner’s Response: Thomas clearly discloses an element “for controlling the material handling vehicle” (“A steering wheel 30 is arranged between seat 22 and instrument panel 26” Thomas: paragraph 26). The modification of the word ‘shifter’ with language describing how the shifter operates changes the ordinary understanding of the term in the context of a vehicle and one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a steering wheel to clearly control the vehicle. Additionally one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a vehicle such as the one described in the Thomas reference to obviously include a ‘shifter’ as it would be normally understood in the context of a vehicle even if the claim language did not modify the element in such a way as to change that understanding. If applicant is intending to mean something different than what is written in the claim language, examiner suggests altering it to specifically describe the operation desired by the term ‘shifter.’
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose nor suggest a seatbelt sensor controller that notifies an operator of a material handling vehicle when the length of the seatbelt strap is less than a desired length prior to the seatbelt being latched into place.
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 TRAVIS R HUNNINGS whose telephone number is (571)272-3118. The examiner can normally be reached M: 6-7:30a, 9:30a-4:45p, 8:30-10p; T: 6-7:30a, 12-4p, 7:30p-12a; W: 6-7:30a, 9:30a-4:45p; H: 6-7:30a, 8:15a-4:45p; F: 12:00-4:45p.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/TRAVIS R HUNNINGS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights