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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thomas (US 20250050836).
Regarding claim 1, A seatbelt sensor controller system for a material handling vehicle, the seatbelt sensor controller system comprising: a seatbelt component; and a seatbelt sensor module coupled to the seatbelt component, comprising: a processor designed to execute programmable instructions stored in a memory module; an electromechanical device for determining a length of a seatbelt strap; and a notification module for notifying an operator of the material handling vehicle if the length of the seatbelt strap is less than a setpoint threshold value. (“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)
Regarding claim 2, The seatbelt sensor controller system of claim 1, wherein the seatbelt component includes one or more of the seatbelt strap, a retractor, a latch plate, and a buckle. (“Referring to FIG. 2, a seat belt 38 including a lap belt portion 39 extends across seat base 32 when an occupant is in seat 22. Seat belt 38 also includes a shoulder belt portion 42. A retractor mechanism 44 including a pre-tensioner 46 supports seat belt 38” Thomas: paragraph 37)
Regarding claim 5, The seatbelt sensor controller system of claim 1, wherein the seatbelt sensor module further comprises a microcontroller, wherein the microcontroller is provided in a form of a single-board microcontroller. (“As used herein, the term module refers to processing circuitry that may include an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), an electronic circuit, a processor (shared, dedicated, or group) and memory that executes one or more software or firmware programs, a combinational logic circuit, and/or other suitable components that provide the described functionality.” Thomas: paragraph 35 & “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.” Thomas: paragraph 38)
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; 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; and monitoring the length of the seatbelt strap and the vehicle status. (“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”)
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)
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)
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) 3, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Lee (US 20100138113).
Regarding claim 3, The seatbelt sensor controller system of claim 1, wherein the notification module is configured to notify the operator of the material handling vehicle using tactile feedback, visual feedback, auditory feedback, or a combination thereof 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. 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.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 3 stated above. 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Turnwald (US 20180126949).
Regarding claim 4, The seatbelt sensor controller system of claim 1, wherein the electromechanical device is provided in a form of a rotary encoder or a potentiometer is not specifically disclosed by Thomas. Turnwald discloses a seatbelt monitoring system that teaches using a potentiometer to measure the length that the seatbelt has been retracted (“The determination of the withdrawal length or the measuring of the seat belt extraction can be carried out for example by means of a potentiometer that is connected directly or indirectly to the seat belt 4” Turnwald: paragraph 55). Modifying Thomas to include a potentiometer would increase the overall utility by providing a commonly used component to accomplish the sensing of how much seatbelt has been retracted. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Thomas according to Turnwald.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Lockwood (US 20020177926).
Regarding claim 6, The seatbelt sensor controller system of claim 1, wherein the seatbelt sensor module further comprises a power supply module, wherein the power supply module is a rechargeable power source is not specifically disclosed by Thomas. Lockwood discloses a vehicle with a computer monitor and various sensors that teaches using a rechargeable battery for powering the components (“An operator-activated device 240 may also be connected to the computer through cable and/or connectors and/or other sensors. The computer is powered through the vehicle battery 210 or other power source such as a conventional generator system (not displayed), rechargeable battery, etc.” Lockwood: paragraph 23). Modifying Thomas to include a rechargeable battery to power the electronic components would increase the overall flexibility of the system by allowing for easy replacement/recharging of the power supply means. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Thomas according to Lockwood.
Conclusion
Related Art:
3853284 – seatbelt length retraction detection system
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