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 Interpretation
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111. The following terms are construed in light of the definitions set forth in the specification:
"Deviation." The specification defines a deviation as a variation in setup that differs from the current setup of the seat belt, and states that it may comprise a recline deviation, a seat height deviation, or a seat belt outlet deviation.
"Critical features." The specification defines critical features as features or parameters essential for calculating the deviation, which may be specific to the occupant and serve to ensure appropriate seat belt positioning. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, any occupant or environmental parameter used to calculate a change in the seat belt setup is a critical feature.
"External environmental conditions." The specification defines an external environmental condition as a condition external to the vehicle that may impact the mobility of the vehicle and lists a traffic condition and a road surface condition among the examples. Unless expressly limited in the claim, the term encompasses detection of obstacles, other vehicles, and an imminent or actual collision, each of which is a condition external to the vehicle that impacts its mobility.
Alternative limitations. Limitations recited in the alternative (e.g., "and/or" "at least one of") are met when the prior art discloses any one of the recited alternatives. See Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
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 11 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “measure a distance between a reference point on the seat belt” and names only one point. The specification describes measuring between multiple reference points.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the position of the seat belt" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 10-14, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,466,354. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader recitation of the subject matter of the respective claims in the ‘354 patent. Thus, the invention of the claims in the '354 Patent is in effect a "species" of the invention of the claims in the instant application. Since it has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species these claims are not patentably distinct. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir.1993.) See claim chart below.
19/371151 Claims
U.S. Patent No. 12466354
Claim 1.A system comprising:
a sensor module configured to detect a vehicle compartment features, an occupant features, and/or an external environmental conditions;
a seat belt adjustment unit;
a memory; and
a processor storing instructions in the memory that, wherein the system is configured to, when executing the stored instructions, cause causing the processor to:
receive data from the one or more sensor modules;
determine a seat belt configuration and an occupant posture based on the data;
analyze the data to identify a critical feature associated with an occupant or environment;
determine a deviation from the seat belt configuration based on the critical feature; and
generate and transmit a control signal to the seat belt adjustment unit to automatically adjust at least one parameter of the seat belt configuration in accordance with the deviation.
Claim 1.A system comprising:
one or more sensor modules;
…configured to receive data… wherein the data comprises vehicle compartment features, occupant features and external environmental conditions (col. 37 line 1-4)
a seat belt adjustment unit;
a memory; and
a processor storing instructions in the memory that, when executed, causes the processor to:
receive data from the one or more sensor modules,
…
determine a current setup of a seat belt and a current posture of an occupant based on the vehicle compartment features and the occupant features, respectively, wherein the seat belt comprises one or more reference points;
determine one or more critical features of the occupant based on at least one of the current posture of the occupant, the current setup of the seat belt, and the external environmental conditions;
determine a deviation of the seat belt from the current setup of the seat belt based on at least one of the one or more critical features of the occupant and the external environmental conditions; and
communicate a command to the seat belt adjustment unit for changing a current height of the seat belt to an optimal height according to the deviation, wherein the current height of the seat belt is adjusted to the optimal height using the one or more reference points.
Claim 2 The system of claim 1, wherein the seat belt configuration comprises at least one of a belt height, a belt tautness, a belt routing position, a reclining angle, and a belt outlet orientation.
Claim 5 The system of claim 1, wherein the current setup of the seat belt comprises current seat belt routing position, current seat belt height position, and current seat belt routing location.
Claim 3 The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor module comprises at least one of a camera, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR), an infrared sensor, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, and a proximity sensor.
Claim 13 wherein the one or more sensor modules comprises one or more cameras, one or more infrared sensors, one or more proximity sensors, …, one or more light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors, …
Claim 4 The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the deviation in response to changes in the occupant posture or the external environmental condition.
Claim 1 … determine the deviation from the current set up of the seat belt based on at least one or more critical features of the occupant and the external environmental conditions…
Deviation from the current set up is understood as changes in the occupant posture or external environmental condition thereby claiming the same thing
Claim 5 The system of claim 1, wherein the deviation comprises at least one of a seat position deviation, a recline deviation, a seat belt height deviation, and a seat belt position deviation.
Claim 11 The system of claim 1, wherein the deviation comprises at least one of a seat position deviation, a recline deviation, a seat belt height deviation, and a seat belt position deviation.
Claim 6 The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor module is configured to capture a facial expression of the occupant indicative of a change in the seat belt configuration.
claim 1. Data from the one or more sensor modules wherein the data comprises… occupant features… determine one or more critical features based on the current posture…
Claim 3 … wherein the occupant features comprises at least one of one or more facial expressions,
Claim 10 The system of claim 1, wherein the occupant posture comprises at least one of a facial expression, a gesture, and an activity of the occupant.
Claim 6 The system of claim 5, wherein the current posture of the occupant comprises a current facial expression, a current gesture, and a current activity of the occupant.
Claim 11 The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor module is configured to measure a distance between a reference point on the seat belt to determine the deviation.
Claim 9 The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensor modules determine a distance between the one or more reference points and communicate the command in accordance with the distance between the one or more reference points.
Claim 12 The system of claim 7, wherein the seat belt adjustment unit adjusts a height of a seat of the occupant to an optimal height to adjust the seat belt configuration based on the control signal.
13 The method of claim 12, further comprising: adjusting height of an occupant seat, via the seat belt adjustment unit, to adjust the current height of the seat belt to the optimal height based on the command.
Claim 13 The system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle compartment feature comprises at least one of seat dimensions, seat shape, seat position, seat location, seat operating type, seat reclination positions, seat reclination angles, seat belt routing positions, seat belt routing locations, seat belt dimensions, seat belt buckles, and seat belt latch plate.
Claim 2 The system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle compartment features comprise at least one of seat dimensions, seat shape, seat position, seat location, seat operating type, seat reclination positions, seat reclination angles, seat belt routing positions, seat belt routing locations, seat belt dimensions, seat belt buckles, and seat belt latch plate.
Claim 14 The system of claim 1, wherein the occupant feature comprises at least one of facial expressions, occupant size, occupant shape, occupant seating postures, occupant dimensions, and occupant weight.
Claim 3 The system of claim 1, wherein the occupant features comprises at least one of one or more facial expressions, occupant size, occupant shape, occupant seating postures, occupant dimensions, and occupant weight.
Claim 19 A method comprising:
receive data from a sensor module;
determine a seat belt configuration and an occupant posture based on the data;
analyze the data to identify a critical feature associated with an occupant or environment;
determine a deviation from the seat belt configuration based on the critical feature; and
generate a control signal to a seat belt adjustment unit to automatically adjust at least one parameter of the seat belt configuration in accordance with the deviation.
Claim 12 A method comprising:
receiving data from one or more sensor modules, …
determining a current setup of a seat belt and a current posture of an occupant based on the vehicle compartment features and the occupant features …
determining one or more critical features of the occupant based on at least one of the current posture of the occupant, the current setup of the seat belt, and the external environmental conditions;
determining a deviation of the seat belt from the current setup of the seat belt based on at least one of the one or more critical features
…
communicating a command to a seat belt adjustment unit for changing a current height of the seat belt to an optimal height according to the deviation, wherein the current height of the seat belt is adjusted to the optimal height using the one or more reference points.
Claim 20 A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a sequence of instructions, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to:
receive data from a sensor module;
determine a seat belt configuration and an occupant posture based on the data;
analyze the data to identify a critical feature associated with an occupant or environment;
determine a deviation from the seat belt configuration based on the critical feature; and
generate a control signal to a seat belt adjustment unit to automatically adjust at least one parameter of the seat belt configuration in accordance with the deviation.
Claim 15 A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a sequence of instructions, which when executed by a processor, causes:
receiving data from one or more sensor modules,
determining a current setup of a seat belt and a current posture of an occupant based on the vehicle compartment features and the occupant features, respectively,
determining one or more critical features of the occupant based on at least one of the current posture of the occupant, the current setup of the seat belt, and the external environmental conditions;
determining a deviation of the seat belt from the current setup of the seat belt based on at least one of the one or more critical features of the occupant and the external environmental conditions; and
communicating a command to a seat belt adjustment unit for changing a current height of the seat belt to an optimal height according to the deviation, wherein the current height of the seat belt is adjusted to the optimal height using the one or more reference points.
Claims 7-9, and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,466,354 in view of Lin (US 2018/0361984).
19/371151 Claims
U.S. Pat. No. 12,466,354
Lin (US 2018/0361984)
Explanation of obviousness analysis
Claim 7 The system of claim 1, wherein the control signal is transmitted to the seat belt adjustment unit, the seat belt adjustment unit comprising at least one actuator configured to modify a height or a position of a belt outlet.
Claim 1… command communicated to the seat belt adjustment unit for changing a current height of the seat belt to an optimal height… does not recite the seat belt adjustment unit comprising at least one actuator.
See para. 0047, 0048 seat belt adjuster 68 with actuator 94 in electrical communication with the controller 47 for driving the D-ring 86 generally in the up-down direction 98 see fig. 1 for height adjustment
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized an actuator in ‘354 for modifying a height or a position of a belt outlet, since an actuator is a known method for receiving commands and modifying height of seat belts, as Lin teaches, in order to best protect variously sized occupants.
Claim 8 The system of claim 7, wherein the seat belt adjustment unit comprises an electric reversible retractor.
Claim 1 … …adjustment with the seat belt adjustment unit…
no retractor
Seat belt adjustor with retractor 64
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the seat belt adjustment unit of ‘354 with the inclusion of a retractor similar to that claimed in order to lock or adjust movement as Lin teaches.
Claim 9 The system of claim 8, wherein the electric reversible retractor is adapted to adjust the at least one parameter of the seat belt configuration according to the control signal.
Claim 1 …adjustment with the seat belt adjustment unit…
no retractor
Retractor 64 is adapted to adjust the at least one parameter of the seat belt configuration (see para. 0057, the parameter of the seat belt being the locking of the retractor and adjustment of height, fig. 8) according to the control signal 124.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system ‘354 claims with the retractor adapted to adjust at least one parameter in order to implement the safety system, method and process to best equip the occupant as Lin teaches with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 17 The system of claim 1, wherein the adjustment of the seat belt configuration is performed autonomously without user intervention
Claim 1 …processor communicates a command to the seat belt adjustment unit for changing a current height of the seat belt…
See para. 0046, adjustments are made automatically by the controller
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system ‘354 claims to be autonomously adjusted as Lin teaches since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Claim 18 The system of claim 1, wherein the seat belt adjustment unit is further configured to adjust a seat belt height to pass over the center of a shoulder of the occupant.
Claim 1 communicate a command to the seat belt adjustment unit for changing a current height of the seat belt to an optimal height according to the deviation… silent on passing over the center of a shoulder.
See para. 2, the belt is routed over the occupants shoulder,
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the height to be adjusted to pass over the center of a shoulder of the occupant as Lin teaches since positioning of the seat bent contributes to competing performance requirements, the comfort level of the occupant and the effectiveness of the safety.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,466,354 in view of Rosenberg (US 20190308534).
19/371151
U.S. Pat. No. 12,466,354
Rosenberg (US 20190308534)
Explanation of obviousness analysis
Claim 15 The system of claim 7, wherein the seat belt adjustment unit is further configured to adjust a reclining angle of a seat of the occupant to adjust the position of the seat belt over the occupant.
Claims 3 and 8 disclose the reclining angle as a critical feature to determine deviation but doesn’t claim adjusting the reclining angle of a seat of the occupant to adjust the position of the seat belt over the occupant
See abstract Para. 0021, 0029, A method for adjusting a position of a vehicle seat from a reclined position to a predeterminable safety position with an electromechanical solenoid actuator. [‘151 claim 7]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the seat belt adjustment unit to adjust the angle of the seat as Rosenberg teaches for the advantage of placing the occupant in a more desirable position of safety to utilize all safety systems, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,466,354 in view of Baudu (US 20240217433).
19/371151
U.S. Pat. No. 12,466,354
Baudu (US 20240217433)
Explanation of obviousness analysis
Claim 16 The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to generate an alert via a user interface when the deviation exceeds a predefined safety threshold.
Claim 1 [processor… determined deviation]
Does not recite generating an alert via a user interface when determined deviation exceeds a predefined safety threshold
See para. 0004-0008 step d of the mutli-alert posture assisting system in a vehicle seat, generating as output at least one signal intended for a user interface when one of the reference value is reached or exceeded
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the processor of the system in ‘354 to include the improvement technique Baudu teaches generating an alert or signal to a user interface indicating a comfort value has been reached or is exceeded in order change the position of a parameter on the seat similar to that claimed, placing the occupant in the proper posture for increased protection.
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.
(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 1–6, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by XU (US 20230131504).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a system (Abstract; Fig. 1; ¶ [0068]) comprising:
a sensor module configured to detect a vehicle compartment features, an occupant features, and/or an external environmental conditions (in-vehicle observation system 1 including image acquisition unit 11, a 3D and/or 2D camera, and state capture unit 12, ¶[0034]–[0036], [0080], which acquire occupant posture data, occupant body shape data, and seat posture data, ¶[0010], [0069]; and vehicle external information monitoring module 41, comprising a millimeter wave radar, an ultrasonic radar, a laser radar, and an external camera, which monitors obstacles around the vehicle body, ¶[0018], [0027], [0094], [0096]. Xu further discloses a module 43 providing distance information between the vehicle and other traveling vehicles, ¶ [0108]. Obstacles, surrounding traffic, and an impending collision are external environmental conditions as interpreted);
a seat belt adjustment unit (active seat belt system 2 comprising active retractor 21 and active lift buckle 22, ¶ [0011], [0070]– [0072]);
a memory (storage medium, e.g., RAM, coupled to the processor such that the processor can read information from it, ¶ [0135]– [0136]); and
a processor (integrated safety domain control unit 3 comprising one or more hardware processors, ¶ [0079], executing computer instructions stored on a computer-readable medium, ¶ [0057], [0135]) storing instructions in the memory to:
receive data from the sensor module (control unit 3 receives the data acquired by in-vehicle observation system 1, ¶ [0012], [0073], and from the collision prediction system, ¶ [0097]);
determine a seat belt configuration and an occupant posture based on the data (control unit 3 continuously monitors the slack state of active retractor 21 and the positional state of active lift buckle 22, i.e., the seat belt configuration, ¶ [0073]; step S103, ¶[0086]. The occupant's posture is determined by comparing the distance between the occupant and the seat back against first, second, and third thresholds, and by detecting left or right leaning, ¶ [0075]–[0078], where the posture data includes torso position and other position data, ¶[0037], [0081]);
analyze the data to identify a critical feature associated with an occupant or environment (an occupant-to-seat-back distance exceeding a threshold and a lean exceeding a certain angle, ¶ [0075]–[0078]; and a high collision probability calculated from external monitoring, ¶[0097], [0104]. Each is a parameter used to calculate the adjustment of the seat belt and is therefore a critical feature as interpreted above);
determine a deviation from the seat belt configuration based on the one or more critical features (control unit 3 formulates a seat belt protection based on the posture data, the slack state, and the positional state, ¶ [0074], [0088]; step S104, retraction of the webbing by L1 or L3 centimeters and/or lowering of the buckle by L2 or L4, ¶ [0075]– [0077]. Each is a variation from the current setup of the seat belt and is therefore a deviation as interpreted above); and
generate and transmit a control signal to the seat belt adjustment unit to automatically adjust at least one parameter of the seat belt configuration in accordance with the deviation (control unit 3 enables the motor of active retractor 21 to rotate by N1 or N3 turns and/or the motor of active lift buckle 22 to rotate by N2 or N3 turns, ¶ [0075]– [0077]; step S105, ¶ [0089]).
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses wherein the seat belt configuration comprises a belt tautness (the slack state of active retractor 21, adjusted by tightening or loosening the webbing, ¶ [0071], [0073]).
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses wherein the sensor module comprises a camera (¶ [0035], [0080]), a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor (millimeter wave radar, ¶ [0027], [0096]), and a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor (laser radar, ¶ [0027], [0096]).
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine the deviation in response to changes in the occupant posture (the strategy responds to posture changes, including leaning, ¶ [0078], [0090]) or the external environmental condition (the strategy is formulated prior to the calculated collision moment when the collision probability is high, ¶ [0097], [0104]– [0105]).
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses wherein the deviation comprises a seat belt position deviation (retraction of the webbing, ¶ [0075], [0077]) and a seat belt height deviation (lowering of the active lift buckle by L2 or L4 centimeters, ¶ [0076]– [0077]).
Regarding claim 6, Xu discloses wherein the sensor module is configured to capture a facial expression of the occupant (state capture unit 12 is a camera capturing occupant facial data, ¶ [0036], [0039], including facial emotional state information such as excitement or rage, ¶ [0112]). The recitation that the facial expression is "indicative of a change in the seat belt configuration" describes the significance of the captured data rather than any structural distinction of the sensor module. Thereby this limitation is an instance of intended use and functional language. A recitation of the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114(II). The camera of Xu is capable of capturing any facial expression of the occupant, including one reflecting a response to the seat belt configuration.
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses wherein the occupant posture comprises a gesture and an activity of the occupant (the camera captures the occupant extending an arm at an angle above a fourth angle value and turning the body backward at an angle above a fifth angle value, from which control unit 3 determines that the occupant intends to grasp an item in the rear and loosens the webbing, ¶ [0041], [0128]–[0129]; steps S201–S202, ¶ [0131]–[0132]).
Regarding claim 13, Xu discloses wherein the vehicle compartment feature comprises seat position and seat reclination angle (seat position data and seat back angle data, ¶ [0038], [0082]), a seat belt buckle (the buckle body of active lift buckle 22, ¶ [0072]), and a seat belt latch plate (the buckle tongue provided on the free end of the webbing, ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 14, Xu discloses wherein the occupant feature comprises occupant size and occupant shape (occupant body shape data, ¶ [0010], [0080]), occupant seating postures (torso and joint position data, ¶ [0037], [0081]), and facial expressions (facial emotional state information, ¶ [0112]).
Regarding claim 17, Xu discloses wherein the adjustment of the seat belt configuration is performed autonomously without user intervention (control unit 3 formulates and implements the protection strategy by driving the retractor and buckle motors based solely on the acquired sensor data, ¶ [0074]– [0077], [0090]).
In regards to claim 19, Xu discloses a method (Abstract; Fig. 2; ¶[0042-0048], [0083]) comprising:
receive data from a sensor module (control unit 3 receives data acquired with system 1, image unit 11 and capture unit 12, ¶ [0012], [0073], [0080], step S102);
determine a seat belt configuration and an occupant posture based on the data (S102-103, monitor ethe slake of retractor 21 and positional state of lift buckle 22, and posture by comparing first, second and third thresholds detecting left and right leaning; ¶ [0073, 0075-0078, and 86]);
analyze the data to identify a critical feature associated with an occupant or environment ( ¶ [0075-78, 0097, 101-104], identifies an occupant to seat back distance exceeding a threshold and a lean exceeding a set angle, and calculates a collision probability from monitoring of obstacles around the body of vehicle, see S1001, S1003);
determine a deviation from the seat belt configuration based on a critical feature of the occupant (formulating a vehicle seat belt protection strategy specifying retraction of the webbing by L1 or L3 centimeters and /or lowering of the buck L2 or L4 centimeters, Step S104, ¶ [0074-007, 0088])); and
communicate a command to the seat belt adjustment unit (2) for changing a current height of the seat belt to an optimal height according to the deviation (enabling the motor of active retractor 21 to rotate, see step S105; ¶ [0075-0077, 0089]).
In regards to claim 20, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a sequence of instructions (a computer readable medium having computer instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, implement the method, ¶ [0057, 0135-136]), which when executed by a processor (3), causes the processor to:
receive data from a sensor module (control unit 3 receives data acquired with system 1, image unit 11 and capture unit 12, ¶ [0012], [0073], [0080], step S102);
determine a seat belt configuration and an occupant posture based on the data (S102-103, monitor ethe slake of retractor 21 and positional state of lift buckle 22, and posture by comparing first, second and third thresholds detecting left and right leaning; ¶ [0073, 0075-0078, and 86]);
analyze the data to identify a critical feature associated with an occupant or environment ( ¶ [0075-78, 0097, 101-104], identifies an occupant to seat back distance exceeding a threshold and a lean exceeding a set angle, and calculates a collision probability from monitoring of obstacles around the body of vehicle, see S1001, S1003);
determine a deviation from the seat belt configuration based on a critical feature of the occupant (formulating a vehicle seat belt protection strategy specifying retraction of the webbing by L1 or L3 centimeters and /or lowering of the buck L2 or L4 centimeters, Step S104, ¶ [0074-007, 0088])); and
communicate a command to the seat belt adjustment unit (2) for changing a current height of the seat belt to an optimal height according to the deviation (enabling the motor of active retractor 21 to rotate, see step S105; ¶ [0075-0077, 0089]).
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.
Claims 7-9, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2023/0131504 A1), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2018/0361984).
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the control signal is transmitted to the seat belt adjustment unit (¶[0075]–[0077]), the seat belt adjustment unit comprising at least one actuator (the driving motors of active retractor 21 and active lift buckle 22, ¶[0071]–[0072]). Xu does not explicitly disclose that the actuator is configured to modify a height or a position of a belt outlet. Xu's active lift buckle 22 raises and lowers the buckle body and buckle tongue at the lower anchorage (¶[0072]). However, Lin teaches an adaptive seat belt system in which a seatbelt height adjuster 68 includes an actuator 94, connected through a linkage 96, to a D-ring 86 through which the belt slides, the actuator driving the D-ring in the up-down direction in response to signals from controller 47 (Lin, Figs. 2, 5, 7; 68, 86, 94, 96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the active seat belt system of Xu to include the motorized upper-anchor height adjuster of Lin. Both references are directed to adapting seat belt geometry to the individual occupant. Xu provides that the position of the occupant cannot be determined only by the position of the seat and that the belt must be adapted to the occupant's actual posture (¶[0090]), and Lin teaches that adjusting the height of the upper anchor extends the duration over which the belt maintains restraining force on the occupant (Lin, Fig. 9). The modification applies a known technique to a known system ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Xu, in view of Lin, teaches the system of claim 7. Xu further discloses wherein the seat belt adjustment unit comprises an electric reversible retractor (active retractor 21 includes a driving motor that drives the webbing winding shaft through a transmission mechanism to either tighten or loosen the webbing, ¶[0071]).
Regarding claim 9, Xu, in view of Lin teaches the system of claim 8. Xu further discloses wherein the electric reversible retractor is adapted to adjust the at least one parameter of the seat belt configuration according to the control signal (active retractor 21 is selectively tightened or loosened by a predetermined number of motor turns in accordance with the formulated protection strategy, ¶[0074]–[0077]).
Regarding claim 12, Xu, in view of Lin, teaches the system of claim 7. Neither Xu nor Lin explicitly discloses that the seat belt adjustment unit adjusts a height of a seat of the occupant to adjust the seat belt configuration based on the control signal. However, Lin teaches a seat height adjuster 74 that may be adjusted automatically by controller 47 and further teaches that the height of the seat bottom changes the effective height of the occupant and is taken into consideration in calculating the height at which the belt crosses the occupant (Lin, Figs. 2, 5; 60, 74, 81). Lin thus establishes seat height and upper anchor height as t variables of the same belt crossing geometry.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the seat belt adjustment unit of Xu in view of Lin to adjust the seat height as an alternative or supplemental means of achieving the target belt crossing position. Substituting one known means for another to achieve the same result is obvious (MPEP 2144.06), and making separately controlled elements integral with a single adjustment unit is likewise obvious. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965 (CCPA 1965); MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Regarding claim 18, Xu discloses the system of claim 1. Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein the seat belt adjustment unit is further configured to adjust a seat belt height to pass over the center of a shoulder of the occupant. However, Lin teaches adjusting the height of D-ring 86 via actuator 94 to an optimal comfort height, calculated so that the belt crosses the occupant at a height that does not rub the occupant's neck, and to an optimal restraint height at which the belt crosses higher and closer to the neck to increase restraint (Lin, 97, 101, 105, 107, Figs. 5, 7;). Lin thereby recognizes the height at which the belt crosses the occupant's shoulder as a result-effective variable affecting both comfort and restraint.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the upper-anchor height adjuster of Lin into the system of Xu for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 7, and to optimize the belt crossing height so that the belt passes over the center of the occupant's shoulder. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Xu in view of Lin, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Rosenberg (US 2019/0308534 A).
Regarding claim 15, Xu, in view of Lin teaches the system of claim 7. Xu monitors seat back angle data (¶ [0038], [0082]), and Lin teaches a recline adjuster 76 that may be adjusted automatically by controller 47, with the recline angle taken into consideration in calculating the belt crossing height (Lin, Fig. 2; 62, 76). Neither Xu nor Lin explicitly discloses wherein the seat belt adjustment unit is further configured to adjust a reclining angle of the seat of the occupant to adjust the position of the seat belt over the occupant. However, Rosenberg teaches that a reclined seat back places the occupant's upper body far from the position desired for effective interaction with the seat belt and increases the risk of the occupant submarining under the belt and teaches returning the backrest from the reclined position to an upright safety position (Rosenberg, Figs. 1a–1b, 2a–2d).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Xu in view of Lin to drive the controllable recline adjuster of Lin, based on the posture-dependent strategy of Xu, to reduce the reclining angle of the seat and thereby improve the position of the seat belt over the occupant for improved belt restraint and reduced risk of submarining.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Xu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Baudu (US 20240217433).
Regarding claim 16, Xu discloses claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to generate an alert via a user interface when the deviation exceeds a predefined safety threshold. However, Baudu teaches a processor of a similar safety system further configured to generate an alert via a user interface when the deviation exceeds a predefined safety threshold. See para. 0004-0008 step d of the mutli-alert posture assisting system in a vehicle seat, generating as output at least one signal intended for a user interface when one of the reference values is reached or exceeded. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified Xu to include the improvement technique Baudu teaches generating an alert or signal to a user interface indicating a comfort value has been reached or is exceeded in order change the position of a parameter on the seat similar to that claimed, placing the occupant in the proper posture for increased protection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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, and double patent rejections set forth in this Office action and to include 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: regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious a sensor module configured to measure a distance with respect to a reference point on the seat belt to determine the deviation, in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 1. Xu measures the distance between the occupant and the seat back (¶[0075]–[0077]), not a distance defined by a reference point on the seat belt. Lin calculates belt geometry from fixed vehicle dimensions and sensed seat height and recline, without measuring any reference point on the belt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for a list of relevant prior art that teach similar methods, processors, and automatic seat belt heigh adjustment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
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.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights