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 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, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20200119578A), henceforth referred to as Lee, in view of Waters (US20170006834A1), henceforth referred to as Waters.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a self-inflating harness comprising: a harness configured to be secured at least partially around an animal such that the animal is configured to move freely about a vehicle while wearing the harness (Figures 1-6: webbing 100 is secured around the neck and back of animal 10 such that it is not tethered to the vehicle), an airbag attached to the harness and configured to inflate outwardly from the harness to reduce an impact to the animal during a collision of the vehicle (Figure 2: cushion 400 is attached to webbing 100 and inflates outwardly from the harness to protect animal 10), a controller in communication with the airbag, the controller configured to: receive data from one or more sensors, and determine, based on the received data, whether the data is indicative of the collision of the vehicle (Paragraph [0032]: "The communication unit 200 is mounted inside the webbing unit 100, receives a signal when a vehicle crashes, and transmits an operation signal to the inflator unit 300. The communication unit 200 receives information such as a collision of a vehicle from an airbag control unit (ACU) (not shown) installed inside the vehicle"), and in response to determining that the data is indicative of the collision of the vehicle, output a control signal to the airbag to cause the airbag to inflate (Paragraph [0039]: "In the event of a vehicle collision, the communication unit 200 receives a signal from the airbag control unit and transmits it to the inflator unit 300. The inflator unit 300 ejects gas to the cushion unit 400"). However, Lee does not teach the harness being secured around the chest of the animal. Waters discloses the harness configured to be secured at least partially around a chest of the animal (Figure 10: inflatable bladder 28 is secured around the chest of the animal). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the harness of Lee with the chest attachment of Waters in order to further secure the inflatable harness to the animal.
Regarding claim 8, Lee as modified discloses the controller is configured to receive collision data indicative of a collision from a vehicle collision system and determine, based on the received collision data, whether the data is indicative of a collision (Paragraph [0032]: "The communication unit 200 is mounted inside the webbing unit 100, receives a signal when a vehicle crashes, and transmits an operation signal to the inflator unit 300. The communication unit 200 receives information such as a collision of a vehicle from an airbag control unit (ACU) (not shown) installed inside the vehicle").
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified discloses the airbag is configured to inflate outwardly from the harness beyond a head of the animal on two or more sides of the head (Figure 2: cushion 400 deploys beyond the head of animal 10 on all sides of the animal's head).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Waters as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Miller (US20130009391A1), henceforth referred to as Miller.
Regarding claim 2, Lee and Waters do not teach an accelerometer. Miller discloses the one or more sensors comprises an accelerometer configured to detect an acceleration and output acceleration data (Paragraph [0048]: "The sensor 813 can be an accelerometer or other differential motion detector for sensing, e.g., a rapid deceleration event"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the harness of Lee and Waters with the accelerometer of Miller in order to accurately trigger the airbag to deploy in the event of a vehicle collision (Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Miller further discloses the controller is further configured to: determine, based on the acceleration data, whether a detected acceleration exceeds a threshold acceleration, and in response to determining that the detected acceleration exceeds the threshold acceleration, output the control signal to the airbag to cause the airbag to inflate (Paragraph [0048]: "The electronics module 811 processes signals from the sensor 813. When a collision or other impact causes a force above a predetermined limit, the electronics module 811 receives the resultant signal from the sensor 813 and sends a corresponding signal to initiate the gas generator 809").
Regarding claim 4, Miller further discloses the accelerometer is integrated into the self- inflating harness (Paragraph [0049]: "Additionally, although the sensor 913 and the electronics module 911 are shown separate from the ELR 901, those skilled in the art will recognize that it is within the scope of the present disclosure for these components to alternatively be integral with the ELR 901", and the ELR is integrated with the restraint harness).
Regarding claim 5, Miller further discloses the accelerometer is remote from the self- inflating harness (Figure 8: sensor 813 is remote from the restrain system 800).
Regarding claim 6, Lee and Waters do not teach a gyrometer. Miller discloses the one or more sensors comprises a gyrometer configured to detect a change in orientation of the self-inflating harness and output gyrometer data (Paragraph [0060]: "As with the restraint systems described above that utilize sensors, the restraint system 1000 can utilize alternative or additional sensors to signal activation. Gyroscopes, accelerometers, or speed sensors, for example, can be used"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the harness of Lee and Waters with the accelerometer of Miller in order to accurately trigger the airbag to deploy in the event of a vehicle collision (Paragraph [0060]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Waters, and Miller as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of Katz (US20130179042A1), henceforth referred to as Katz.
Regarding claim 7, Lee and Waters do not teach the controller using the gyrometer to indicate a collision. Katz discloses the controller is further configured to receive the gyrometer data and determine whether the gyrometer data is indicative of a collision (Paragraph [0015]: "It is appreciated that the deployment module 204 may further receive signals from an accelerometer (not shown), a gyroscopic sensor (not shown) or any other sensor that assists the deployment module 204 classify a rollover event"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Lee and Waters with the gyrometer data of Katz in order to assist the safety system deployment in the event of a collision or rollover event (Paragraph [0015]: "a gyroscopic sensor (not shown) or any other sensor that assists the deployment module 204 classify a rollover event").
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Waters as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Cavell (DE102020133158A1), henceforth referred to as Cavell.
Regarding claim 9, Lee and Waters do not disclose collecting data indicative of a collision from a smart device. Cavell discloses "the controller is further configured to receive collision data indicative of a collision from a smart device and determine, based on the received collision data, whether the data is indicative of a collision (Paragraph [0027]: "It is proposed that in some embodiments, the personal impact protection system may be configured to be controlled by a computing device such as a smartphone or tablet or a smart watch. . . In such a proposal, it is envisaged that an accelerometer in the smartphone can represent the at least one of the aforementioned gyro sensors and the smartphone can be configured to generate the actuation signal"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Lee and Waters with the smart device of Cavell in order to simplify the sensor / control assembly by utilizing the sensors that a person is already likely to have (Paragraph [0053]: "It goes without saying that modern smartphones and smartwatches typically contain one or more accelerometers or gyro sensors. It is therefore proposed that in some embodiments, the integrated accelerometer or gyro sensor of the smart watch 18 and/or smartphone 19 could form part of the control system and could be used to generate the aforementioned actuation signal in response to detecting a linear or angular acceleration exceeding a predetermined threshold, indicating that the user is likely to experience an impact").
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Miller, in further view of Waters.
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses a controller that receives data from a sensor in a vehicle and determine, based on the received data, whether the received data is indicative of a collision (Paragraph [0032]: "The communication unit 200 is mounted inside the webbing unit 100, receives a signal when a vehicle crashes, and transmits an operation signal to the inflator unit 300. The communication unit 200 receives information such as a collision of a vehicle from an airbag control unit (ACU) (not shown) installed inside the vehicle"), and in response to determining that the received data is indicative of a collision of the vehicle, output a control signal to cause an airbag to inflate (Paragraph [0039]: "In the event of a vehicle collision, the communication unit 200 receives a signal from the airbag control unit and transmits it to the inflator unit 300. The inflator unit 300 ejects gas to the cushion unit 400"), the airbag being attached to a harness configured to be secured to an animal such that the animal is configured to move freely about a vehicle while wearing the harness (Figure 2: cushion 400 is attached to webbing 100 and inflates outwardly from the harness to protect animal 10), the airbag being configured extend outwardly from the harness to protect the animal during the collision (Figure 2: cushion 400 is attached to webbing 100 and inflates outwardly from the harness to protect animal 10). Lee does not teach the controller comprising a processor. Miller discloses the controller comprising: a processor; and a memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to: receive data from a sensor in a vehicle (Paragraph [0030]: "The sensor 250 is electrically connected to an electronics module 260, which includes a processor that executes computer readable instructions stored on memory (not shown)"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the harness of Lee with the controller of Miller in order to process signals received by the sensors (Paragraph [0048]). Neither Lee nor Miller teach the harness being secured around the chest of the animal. Waters discloses the harness configured to be secured at least partially around a chest of the animal (Figure 10: inflatable bladder 28 is secured around the chest of the animal). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the harness of Lee with the chest attachment of Waters in order to further secure the inflatable harness to the animal.
Regarding claim 14, Miller further discloses the sensor is remote from the harness (Figure 8: sensor 813 is remote from the restraint system 800). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
Regarding claim 16, Miller further discloses the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the controller to: receive accelerometer data from the sensor in the vehicle, determine, based on the accelerometer data, whether a detected acceleration exceeds a threshold acceleration, and in response to determining that the detected acceleration exceeds the threshold acceleration, determine that the received data is indicative of the collision of the vehicle (Paragraph [0048]: "The sensor 813 can be an accelerometer or other differential motion detector for sensing, e.g., a rapid deceleration event. The electronics module 811 processes signals from the sensor 813. When a collision or other impact causes a force above a predetermined limit, the electronics module 811 receives the resultant signal from the sensor 813 and sends a corresponding signal to initiate the gas generator 809").
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Waters as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lee (US-20150264548-A1), henceforth referred to as Lee 548.
Regarding claim 11, Lee and Waters do not teach outputting an emergency signal to a GPS system. Lee 548 discloses the controller is further configured to output an emergency signal to a global positioning system (GPS) communication system comprising position data corresponding to an approximate location of the collision (Abstract: "The applications processor is configured to receive current location data and vehicle crash data from sensors disposed in an automotive vehicle, and is configured to automatically establish a voice connection with an emergency services center, and is configured to transmit the location and vehicle crash data to the emergency services center within a prescribed time period"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the safety system of Lee and Waters with the emergency and location signal of Lee in order to notify emergency services of a vehicle collision in a timely manner (Paragraph [0016]: “The present invention provides a superior technique for automatically transmitting vehicle crash data to emergency services in a timely manner”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Miller, and Waters as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Lee 548.
Regarding claim 15, Lee, Miller, and Waters do not teach outputting an emergency signal to a GPS system. Lee 548 discloses the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the controller to: in response to determining that the received data is indicative of a collision, output an emergency signal along with position data to notify emergency personnel of the collision (Abstract: "The applications processor is configured to receive current location data and vehicle crash data from sensors disposed in an automotive vehicle, and is configured to automatically establish a voice connection with an emergency services center, and is configured to transmit the location and vehicle crash data to the emergency services center within a prescribed time period"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the safety system of Lee and Waters with the emergency and location signal of Lee in order to notify emergency services of a vehicle collision in a timely manner (Paragraph [0016]: “The present invention provides a superior technique for automatically transmitting vehicle crash data to emergency services in a timely manner”).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Lee 548, in further view of Waters.
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses a self-inflating harness for an animal, the self-inflating harness comprising: a harness configured to be secured around an animal (Figures 1-6: inflatable harness comprised of webbing 100 is secured around the neck and back of animal 10), an airbag attached to the harness and configured to inflate outwardly from the harness to protect the animal (Figure 2: cushion 400 is attached to webbing 100 and inflates outwardly from the harness to protect animal 10), a controller in communication with the airbag, the controller configured to: receive data from one or more sensors; determine, based on the received data, whether the data is indicative of a collision (Paragraph [0032]: "The communication unit 200 is mounted inside the webbing unit 100, receives a signal when a vehicle crashes, and transmits an operation signal to the inflator unit 300. The communication unit 200 receives information such as a collision of a vehicle from an airbag control unit (ACU) (not shown) installed inside the vehicle"), and in response to determining that the data is indicative of the collision, output a control signal to the airbag to cause the airbag to inflate (Paragraph [0039]: "In the event of a vehicle collision, the communication unit 200 receives a signal from the airbag control unit and transmits it to the inflator unit 300. The inflator unit 300 ejects gas to the cushion unit 400"). However, Lee does not teach outputting an emergency signal to a GPS system. Lee 548 discloses and an emergency signal to a global positioning system communication system comprising position data corresponding to an approximate location of the collision (Abstract: "The applications processor is configured to receive current location data and vehicle crash data from sensors disposed in an automotive vehicle, and is configured to automatically establish a voice connection with an emergency services center, and is configured to transmit the location and vehicle crash data to the emergency services center within a prescribed time period"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the safety system of Lee and Waters with the emergency and location signal of Lee in order to notify emergency services of a vehicle collision in a timely manner (Paragraph [0016]: “The present invention provides a superior technique for automatically transmitting vehicle crash data to emergency services in a timely manner”). Neither Lee nor Lee 548 disclose the harness being secured around the chest of the animal. Waters discloses the harness configured to be secured at least partially around a chest of the animal (Figure 10: inflatable bladder 28 is secured around the chest of the animal). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the harness of Lee with the chest attachment of Waters in order to further secure the inflatable harness to the animal.
Regarding claim 20, Lee as modified discloses the controller is configured to receive collision data indicative of a collision from a vehicle collision system and determine, based on the received collision data, whether the data is indicative of a collision (Paragraph [0032]: "The communication unit 200 is mounted inside the webbing unit 100, receives a signal when a vehicle crashes, and transmits an operation signal to the inflator unit 300. The communication unit 200 receives information such as a collision of a vehicle from an airbag control unit (ACU) (not shown) installed inside the vehicle").
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Lee 548, and Waters as applied to claim 17 above, in further view of Miller.
Regarding claim 18, Lee, Lee 548, and Waters do not teach an accelerometer. Miller discloses the one or more sensors comprises an accelerometer configured to detect an acceleration and output acceleration data (Paragraph [0048]: "The sensor 813 can be an accelerometer or other differential motion detector for sensing, e.g., a rapid deceleration event"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the harness of Lee, Lee 548, and Waters, with the accelerometer of Miller in order to accurately trigger the airbag to deploy in the event of a vehicle collision (Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 19, Miller further discloses the controller is further configured to: determine, based on the acceleration data, whether a detected acceleration exceeds a threshold acceleration, and in response to determining that the detected acceleration exceeds the threshold acceleration, output the control signal to the airbag to cause the airbag to inflate (Paragraph [0048]: "The electronics module 811 processes signals from the sensor 813. When a collision or other impact causes a force above a predetermined limit, the electronics module 811 receives the resultant signal from the sensor 813 and sends a corresponding signal to initiate the gas generator 809").
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the “the airbag is a first airbag and the self-inflating harness further comprises a second airbag configured to extend outwardly from the harness and toward a rear of the animal” as found in dependent claim 12, is not an obvious combination of prior art.
Cited Prior Art not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Brown (US-20060076761-A1), which discloses a controller and sensor suite to deploy a vehicle airbag.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J O'NEILL whose telephone number is (571)272-4752. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 7AM-4PM.
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.
/MATTHEW JAMES O'NEILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614