Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 19/081,020

VEHICLE OCCUPANT RESTRAINT DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Mar 17, 2025
Examiner
VERLEY, NICOLE T
Art Unit
3614
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
762 granted / 910 resolved
+31.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
923
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
32.4%
-7.6% vs TC avg
§102
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 910 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nezaki (US 2009/322067). Nezaki discloses in figures 2-8 a vehicle occupant restraint device comprising: a seat belt (12) configured to restrain an occupant seated on a seat cushion of a vehicle seat to the vehicle seat; a belt support airbag (66) provided in a folded state in a lap belt (12B) or a shoulder belt (12A) of the seat belt and configured to be inflated and deployed by gas supplied in an event of a frontal collision of a vehicle; and a belt covering member (36) configured to cover at least a predetermined region of the lap belt on a belt anchor side and to urge the lap belt downward when the seat belt is released (claim 1). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 2 - 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nezaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al (JP 2009179115). Nezaki discloses the belt cover member made of resin and extending along the seatbelt (claim 2). the belt covering member is easily bent inward in a vehicle width direction and is difficult to be bent outward in the vehicle width direction (claim 3). the belt covering member is configured to urge the lap belt downward by a shaft portion spring member (via 38, force providing member) provided on a shaft portion of a belt anchor for the seat belt (claim 4). Nezaki does not disclose the resin plate having a c – shape cross section. However Fukawatase discloses in figures 5, 9, 12 and 14 a belt covering member (30) having a substantially "C"-shaped cross section and extending along the seat belt (claim 2). the belt covering member is easily bent inward in a vehicle width direction and is difficult to be bent outward in the vehicle width direction (claim 3). the belt covering member is configured to urge the lap belt downward by a shaft portion spring member provided on a shaft portion (33) of a belt anchor for the seat belt (claim 4). At the time of filing PHOSITA would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Nezaki and Hashimoto. The motivation would have been to provide an occupant constraint system capable of easily attaching a constraint implement, such as the airbag on the belt to the anchor of a lighter weight and using less material. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nezaki and Hashimoto as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fukawatase et al (JP 2009166774). Nezaki and Hashimoto disclose the anchor attached to the seat through a base, but does not disclose a fixed armrest. Fukawatase discloses an airbag in the lap belt of a restraint, which pivots into position from a fixed armrest (38). At the time of filing PHOSITA would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Nezaki and Hashimoto. The motivation would have been incorporating a holding structure that provides comfort ease of use and prevents rotation outside/beyond the non-use position. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Nezaki discloses that the lap webbing guides 36 are placed in a state in which the occupant is not seated (see FIG. 3B of Nezaki) or a worn state (see FIG. 4B of Nezaki) as motor actuators 32 rotate about their drive axes. Furthermore, when comparing a worn state (see FIG. 4B) with an unworn state (see FIG. 3B), the lap webbing guides 36 move upward from a position where the lap webbing guides 36 are worn to a position where the lap webbing guides 36 are not worn (see paragraphs [0045] to [0047], FIG. 3B and FIG. 44 of Nezaki). This is not persuasive since Nezaki discloses: [0064] Then, in the vehicle seat belt apparatus 10, in a state where the right and left shoulder webbing guides 20 and lap webbing guides 36 are placed at the retracted positions, as an occupant sits on the vehicle seat 11, the ECU 40 receives, from the seat sensor 42, a signal that indicates that the occupant is seated. As the ECU 40 receives the signal, the ECU 40 causes the motor actuators 32 and the motor actuators 38 to rotate in a forward direction by respective predetermined amounts. Then, the right and left shoulder webbing guides 20 and lap webbing guides 36 move to the respective ready-to-wear positions; the webbing is still “released” in this configuration released from the stowed position as well as unbuckled. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Nicole Verley whose telephone number is (571)270-3542. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM. 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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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. /NICOLE T VERLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 17, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 22, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595001
VEHICLE BODY STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594800
Suspension System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595991
GAS GENERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589650
UTILITY VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583257
AXLE BEAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+5.7%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 910 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month