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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed on 07/28/2026. Claims 2-3, 10-11, 16-17, and 19-20 are previously presented. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-15, and 25-26 are amended. Claims 6, 13, 18, and 21-24 are canceled. Claim 27 is new. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-17, 19-20, and 25-27 are pending, and rejected as detailed below.
Claim objection
Amendment to claims 7 and 8 are entered. Therefore, the claim objection for claims 7 and 8 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Preliminary Comments
The Applicant has reviewed the Examiner's response to the prior office action arguments and notes with appreciation that the Stanley '007 reference is no longer used in rejections of the newest office action. The Applicant reiterates herein that in-phase portions of the sensing calculations do not limit the claims as presented. The Examiner discusses other embodiments of the original specification in the comments as if the Applicant must recite both in-phase and quadrature components of the sensing signal. The Applicant, however, amends the claims to recite the patentability of the system using the quadrature component of the signal, as supported in the Applicant's specification at Pars. 32, 33, and 102 along with FIGS. 10-11. The Applicant reiterates that while it is appropriate to use the specification to determine what applicant intends a term to mean, a positive limitation from the specification cannot be read into a claim that does not itself impose that limitation. See MPEP § 2111.01, subsection II. The Applicant requests examination of the claims as presented herein.
Applicant explanation regarding the system usage of the quadrature component of the signal is taken into consideration and examiner thanks the applicant for the proper clarification.
Rejection under 35 USC 103
The Applicant addresses the Examiner's rejections of the independent claims 1 and 25 by incorporating the disclosure of the Applicant's published application at Par. 105 describing the use of a support structure (Ref. 830) centered laterally across the seat on which the occupant classification sensors are positioned. The amended claims remove the Applicant's recitations from the scope of the three cited references. None of the references have any kind of centered support structure as claimed (i.e., neither of the Stanley references shows a support structure at all). In fact, the Watts reference specifically requires its sensors, which are weight gauges, to be "positioned at various locations around the seat bottom." See Watts Par. 20. Being attached "around" a structure is actually the opposite of the Applicant's claim reciting a "centered" support structure. Furthermore, Watts (Par. 21) mentions how its weight sensor "attachment point locations" can be either above or below the sensor itself, which further removes the Applicant's recited sensors from the Watts disclosure, given that Watts teaches against the Applicant's sensors "on the support structure." With neither of the Stanley references showing or suggesting any support structure of the amended claims, and Watts positions weight gauges in positions that are opposite the Applicant's arrangement, the Applicant requests reconsideration of the claims as presented.
Applicant’s arguments, as amended herein, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and persuasive because the combination of Stanley 065, Watts, Stanley 795, and Wanami does not explicitly teach the support structure. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection for claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is made in view of Stanley 065, Watts, Stanley 795, Wanami, and Young (US 7138907 B2). In particular, the amendments to claim 1 are addressed in the instant office action.
The Applicant also requests reconsideration of independent claim 15, in which the Examiner adds the Wanami (US 20060075834) reference to show the recited sensor placement in a front region and a rear region of a vehicle seat. The Applicant respectfully submits, however, that Wanami has an arrangement that is outside the scope of the support structure as claimed. Wanami disposes its weight sensors at "four corners of a seat." Par. 11. Wanami actually centers the controller (ECU 3) in the middle of the seat as opposed to the sensors as claimed. This is absolutely non-analogous to the claims as amended herein.
Applicant’s arguments, as amended herein, with respect to the rejections of claims 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and persuasive because the combination of Stanley 065, Watts, Stanley 795, and Wanami does not explicitly teach the support structure. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection for claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is made in view of Stanley 065, Watts, Stanley 795, Wanami, and Young. In particular, the amendments to claim 15 are addressed in the instant office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26 is currently amended. Therefore, claim 26 should read as “(Currently Amended) The system of Claim 25, further…
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 10, 14, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley (US 20130027065 A1) in view of Watts (US 20060226641 A1), Stanley (US 20030083795 A1), and Young (US 7138907 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Stanley 065 discloses (Currently Amended) A system for classifying an occupant in a vehicle comprising (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0017; “Referring generally to the figures, an occupant classification system is described that uses a sensor (e.g., a capacitive vehicle sensor) to detect seat occupancy and to detect a weight on the seat.”):
a support structure positioned in a vehicle seat and centered laterally relative to the vehicle seat;
at least one pair of occupant classification sensors, (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0021; “According to one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 2A, a capacitive based occupant classification system 200 includes an upper electrode 202 and a lower planar electrode 204. In the embodiment of FIG. 2A, the upper planar electrode 202 is a sensing electrode 202 and the lower planar electrode 204 is a shield electrode”) each occupant classification sensor having a sensing electrode and a shield electrode located in the vehicle seat opposite the sensing electrode (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0021; “The shield electrode (the lower electrode 204) is located below the sensing electrode in a vehicle seat.”);
a respective sensing circuit operatively coupled to the respective sensing electrode and shield electrode for each occupant classification sensor in the at least one pair (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0031; “The occupant detection system 400 includes a sensing circuit 402 electrically connecting the sensing electrode 410, the shield electrode 412, switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, and electronics 420.”);
a controller comprising computer memory operatively coupled to the respective sensing circuits (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0033; “The controller 422 may be a microprocessor or electronic control unit (ECU) and controls the occupant detection system 400.”),
respective switches that electrically couple the sensing electrode and the shield electrode to the controller (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0026; “System 300 includes a switch 312 that electrically couples the upper electrode 302 to a sensing port 316 of the electronics 310 and includes a switch 314 that electrically couples the lower electrode 304 to a shield port 318 of the electronics 310. In the configuration of FIG. 3A, the upper electrode 302 is the sensing electrode and the lower electrode 304 is the shield electrode.”);
wherein the controller operates the switches to configure the respective sensing circuits (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0035; “The controller 422 determines when the signal conditioning device 424 produces an output signal, opens and closes the switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, and interprets the input signal received from signal conditioning device 424.”) into a plurality of circuit configurations (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0036; “By opening and closing the switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, the sensing circuit 402 of the occupant detection system 400 may be placed in four different configurations.”); and
wherein, within the circuit configurations, the sensing electrode and the shield electrode are electrically coupled to and decoupled from the sensing circuit (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0036; “By opening and closing the switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, the sensing circuit 402 of the occupant detection system 400 may be placed in four different configurations (i.e., switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, respectively, are closed/open, closed/closed, open/open, and open/closed).”),
wherein the controller sends a control signal to the sensing circuit (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0035; “The controller 422 determines when the signal conditioning device 424 produces an output signal, opens and closes the switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, and interprets the input signal received from signal conditioning device 424.”), measures a plurality of sensing current measurements, and each sensing current measurement corresponding to one of the circuit configurations (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0037; “In each of the four circuit configurations, current is measured by the signal conditioning device 424, thus providing four current measurements M.sub.1, M.sub.2, M.sub.3, and M.sub.1 is measured when SW.sub.DS is closed and SW.sub.load is open, M.sub.2 is measured when SW.sub.DS is closed and SW.sub.load is closed, M.sub.3 is measured when SW.sub.DS is open and SW.sub.load is open, and M.sub.4 is measured when SW.sub.DS is open and SW.sub.load is closed.”),
wherein the sensing circuit is further configured to detect a change in at least one current characteristic of sensing current due to the presence of an object located on the vehicle seat (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0030; “the system may use multiple measurements in multiple configurations to calculate a high frequency (e.g., about 100 kHz, greater than 100 kHz, etc.) AC current flowing only between the sensor and shield. A significant increase in that measured current indicates an increase in the sensor to shield capacitance, which indicates a change in relative position of the sensor and shield due to an increased force from the occupant. According to other examples, the capacitance between the sensor and shield electrodes may be measured by analyzing a change in an RC time constant, a change in a response of the system to a step voltage to the electrodes, a change in charge sharing between the electrodes, or any other method of measuring capacitance.”),
wherein the sensing circuits corresponding to the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors provide, to the controller, a respective output signal corresponding to a respective change in the sensing currents on the respective sensing electrodes,
wherein the controller calculates the sensing electrode measurements with a quadrature component (Q) of a respective sensing current (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0034; “As described further below, the system 400 may be operated to obtain certain measurements that may be used to obtain a representative indication of the force on the vehicle seat, such as when the occupant's weight forces the sensing electrode 410 toward the shield electrode 412. The electronics 420 are used to calculate the impedance between the sensing electrode 410 and shield electrode 412, which can be used to classify the occupant. The electronics 420 may also be used to calculate the impedance between the sensing electrode 410 and ground, which can be used to detect an occupant. The electronics 420 may also be used to calculate the impedances between the sensing electrode 410 and both the shield electrode 412 and ground to both detect and classify an occupant.”) and (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0047; “By measuring reference currents M.sub.refhi and M.sub.reflo with respect to impedance devices 442, 444 of known impedance and isolating the normalization circuit 404 from the sensing circuit 402, the microprocessor 422 may calculate system impedance independent of the sensing circuit 402. In this manner, the microprocessor 422 may account for changes in gain, offset shift and phase shift in the sensing circuit 402 more accurately detect and classify the occupant.”);
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair within a coordinate system established with axes corresponding to respective occupant classification sensors of the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors,
wherein respective axes of the coordinate system comprise quadrature component (Q) values for one of the respective occupant classification sensors in the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors; and
the controller stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications according to threshold boundaries calculated from tested quadrature component measurements (Q).
Even though Stanley 065 teaches about a single occupant classification sensor and the calculation of impedance with respect to I and Q, Stanley 065 does not explicitly teach
a support structure positioned in a vehicle seat and centered laterally relative to the vehicle seat;
occupant classification sensors positioned on the support structure in the vehicle seat with
wherein the sensing circuits corresponding to the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors provide, to the controller, a respective output signal corresponding to a respective change in the sensing currents on the respective sensing electrodes,
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair within a coordinate system established with axes corresponding to respective occupant classification sensors of the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors,
wherein respective axes of the coordinate system comprise quadrature component (Q) values for one of the respective occupant classification sensors in the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors; and
the controller stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications according to threshold boundaries calculated from tested quadrature component measurements (Q).
However, Young, in the same field of endeavor (Young, col. 1, lines 20-21; “Sensor apparatuses have been proposed for detecting whether or not a given seat is occupied.”), teaches a support structure positioned in a vehicle seat and centered laterally relative to the vehicle seat (Young, col. 3, lines 15-20; “the cushion 12 includes grooves or indentations (not shown) formed in the lower surface 16 for receiving the sensor assemblies 20. Thus, the mat assembly 14 can be simply positioned on the lower surface 16 with the sensor assemblies 20 extending upwardly into recesses of the cushion 12.”);
occupant classification sensors positioned on the support structure in the vehicle seat with (Young, col. 2, lines 47-52; “the mat 14 includes a plurality of sensor assemblies 20 (20a, 20b, 20c, and 20d) which detect the presence of an occupant seated on the seat. The sensor assemblies 20 include movably mounted members which detect displacement therebetween caused by the weight of occupant seated on the cushion 12.”)
wherein the sensing circuits corresponding to the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors provide, to the controller, a respective output signal corresponding to a respective change in the sensing currents on the respective sensing electrodes,
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair within a coordinate system established with axes corresponding to respective occupant classification sensors of the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors,
wherein respective axes of the coordinate system comprise quadrature component (Q) values for one of the respective occupant classification sensors in the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors; and
the controller stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications according to threshold boundaries calculated from tested quadrature component measurements (Q).
The combination of Stanley 065 and Young are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sensor mounting of Stanley 065 with the teaching of Young. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the sensors can be securely and removably mounted to the mat thus providing a rigid surface (Young; col. 3 para. 2-3). Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying a known technique (sensor mounting process of Young to the mat) to a known device (sensor mounting process of Stanley 065) that was ready for improvement, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Stanley 065 and Young does not explicitly teach wherein the sensing circuits corresponding to the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors provide, to the controller, a respective output signal corresponding to a respective change in the sensing currents on the respective sensing electrodes,
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair within a coordinate system established with axes corresponding to respective occupant classification sensors of the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors,
wherein respective axes of the coordinate system comprise quadrature component (Q) values for one of the respective occupant classification sensors in the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors; and
the controller stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications according to threshold boundaries calculated from tested quadrature component measurements (Q).
However, Watts, in the same field of endeavor (Watts, at least one para. 0007; “One embodiment of the invention generally includes an occupant classification system for a vehicle.”), teaches wherein the sensing circuits corresponding to the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors provide, to the controller, a respective output signal corresponding to a respective change in the sensing currents on the respective sensing electrodes (Watts, at least one para. 0028; “Each of the variables can represent data that has been stored in, or passed to the controller 100. In the equation shown, the R represents values from the weight sensor outputs. In the exemplary embodiment, R represents the weight related output signals corresponding to the four output sensors 18-24”),
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals (Watts, at least one para. 0008; “In another form, the controller can be configured to organize the output of each sensor relating to the occupant into a data set. Data sets related to the response of the sensors in a plurality of test cases to make a classification decision can also be formed and stored within controller memory”) and (Watts, at least one para. 0029; “The information obtained from the plurality of sensors is indicative of the weight of an object (generally presumed to be an occupant) in the seat 12. The weight information from the sensors is passed to the controller 100 as sensor data to be used in subsequent operation steps. The controller 100 can be configured to utilize a threshold”),
wherein respective axes of the coordinate system comprise quadrature component (Q) values for one of the respective occupant classification sensors in the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors; and
the controller stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications (Watts, at least one para. 0024; “In the exemplary embodiment illustrated, the controller 100 has data sets within a memory 102 including covariance matrices 104, mean matrices 108, inverse covariance matrices 112, senor data matrices 116, and a decision point threshold 120.”)
The combination of Stanley 065, Young, and Watts are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the output signal of the sensing circuits of the Stanley 065 with the teaching of Watts. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the seat occupants can be classified by age groups (Watts; 0025) in order to selectively activate or control specific vehicle systems (Watts; 0032)
Even though the combination of Stanley 065, Young, and Watts teach about “the memory stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications”, The combination of Stanley 065, Young, and Watts does not explicitly teach
as a coordinate pair within a coordinate system established with axes
wherein respective axes of the coordinate system comprise quadrature component (Q) values for one of the respective occupant classification sensors in the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors; and
according to threshold boundaries calculated from tested quadrature component measurements (Q).
However, Stanley 795, in the same field of endeavor (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0015; “Referring to FIG. 1, an occupant detection system 10.”), teaches as a coordinate pair within a coordinate system established with axes (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0022; “the first electric field sensor 12 provides a measure of the central/inboard capacitance C 1”, wherein C1 is one of the coordinate from the coordinate pair) and (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0024; “the second electric field sensor 14 provides a measure of the outboard capacitance C2”, wherein C2 is one of the coordinate from the coordinate pair)
wherein respective axes of the coordinate system comprise quadrature component (Q) values for one of the respective occupant classification sensors in the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0023; “Then, in step (506), if the central/inboard capacitance C 1 is less than an associated central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr; and, in step (508), if the measure of seat weight W is less than an associated weight threshold W.sup.Thr, then, in step (510), the side air bag inflator 26 is disabled. For example, the weight threshold W.sup.Thr corresponds to a measure of seat weight W from the seat weight sensor 22 corresponding to an occupant weighing about 55 pounds upon the seat 18; and the central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr is set to provide for a capacitance change--relative to that of an empty seat--of approximately 1 picofarad for a first electrode 38 having a minimum dimension of about 1-2 inches (25-50 millimeters). The particular value of the central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr is dependent upon the particular geometry of the first electrode 38, but the threshold is adapted so that the measure of the central/inboard capacitance C 1 is greater than the central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr when the head of a child is proximate to the first electrode 38.”) and (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0024; “Otherwise, from step (506), or otherwise, from step (508), in step (510), the second electric field sensor 14 provides a measure of the outboard capacitance C2 of the second electrode 48 relative to ground, i.e. to the surroundings. Then, in step (512), if the outboard capacitance C2 is greater than an associated outboard capacitance threshold C2.sup.Thr, then, in step (514), a side ratio SR (or generally, a control measure) is calculated as follows: 1 S R = ( W M ) n ( C1 C2 )”) and (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0029; “Referring to FIG. 6, the decision logic associated with FIG. 5 is dependent upon four (4) binary-valued factors indicated in FIG. 6 by columns labeled A, B, C and D corresponding respectively to steps (516), (512), (506) and (508) in FIG. 5, wherein the side air bag inflator 26 is disabled if the logical expression (A AND B) OR (C AND D) evaluates as TRUE, as is indicated by the state of DISABLE in the column entitled Side Air Bag Inflator Control; and the side air bag inflator 26 is enabled if the logical expression (A AND B) OR (C AND D) evaluates as FALSE, as is indicated by the state of ENABLE in the same column. The sixteen (16) possible combinations of four (4) independent binary-valued factors A, B, C and D are tabulated along with the associated outcome in FIG. 6. Several of the combinations are illustrated by FIGS. 2a-d and FIGS. 3a-c, as indicated in the column entitled illustration.”, even though the corresponding plotting and axes were not explicitly stated within Stanley 795, it is obvious that the aforementioned method of Stanley 795 is able yield predictable results from applying known technique to known method) ; and
according to threshold boundaries calculated from tested quadrature component measurements (Q) (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0022; “Then, in step (506), if the central/inboard capacitance C 1 is less than an associated central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr”, wherein threshold C 1.sup.Thr is one of threshold boundaries) and (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0024; “an associated outboard capacitance threshold C2.sup.Thr”, wherein threshold C2.sup.Thr is one of threshold boundaries).
The combination of Stanley 065, Young, Watts, and Stanley 795 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the output signal of Watts with the teaching of Stanley 795. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the classification system can accurately distinguish occupant on the seat and the associated outcome (Stanley 795; 0029). Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying a known technique (occupant calculating process of Stanley 795) to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Watts teaches (Previously Presented) The system of Claim 1, wherein the controller utilizes the threshold boundaries stored in the memory (Watts, at least one para. 0008; “In another form, the controller can be configured to organize the output of each sensor relating to the occupant into a data set. Data sets related to the response of the sensors in a plurality of test cases to make a classification decision can also be formed and stored within controller memory” and Watts, at least one para. 0029; “The information obtained from the plurality of sensors is indicative of the weight of an object (generally presumed to be an occupant) in the seat 12. The weight information from the sensors is passed to the controller 100 as sensor data to be used in subsequent operation steps. The controller 100 can be configured to utilize a threshold”) and evaluates the coordinate pair relative to the threshold boundaries to identify the respective occupant classification for the coordinate pair.
Watts does not explicitly teach evaluates the coordinate pair relative to the threshold boundaries to identify the respective occupant classification for the coordinate pair.
However, Stanley 795, in the same field of endeavor (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0015 and FIG. 1; “an occupant detection system 10”), teaches evaluates the coordinate pair relative to the threshold boundaries to identify the respective occupant classification for the coordinate pair (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0029 and FIG. 6; “the decision logic associated with FIG. 5 is dependent upon four (4) binary-valued factors indicated in FIG. 6 by columns labeled A, B, C and D corresponding respectively to steps (516), (512), (506) and (508) in FIG. 5”).
Watts and Stanley 795 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the respective occupant classification identification of Watts with the teaching of Stanley 795. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to illustrate the evaluating process of the coordinate pair (Stanley 795, FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Stanley 065 teaches (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller operates (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0035; “The controller 422 determines when the signal conditioning device 424 produces an output signal, opens and closes the switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, and interprets the input signal received from signal conditioning device 424.”) to configure the respective sensing circuits into four circuit configurations for each occupant classification sensor (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0036; “By opening and closing the switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, the sensing circuit 402 of the occupant detection system 400 may be placed in four different configurations (i.e., switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, respectively, are closed/open, closed/closed, open/open, and open/closed).”).
Regarding claim 7, Stanley 065 teaches (Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller determines whether to activate a seat belt indicator or an air bag (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0014; “A capacitive sensing occupant classification system may the measurements obtained from a sensing electrode to classify the occupant of a vehicle seat, and to determine whether to remind the occupant to buckle their seat belt.”) and (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0025; “The occupant classification and detection systems disclosed herein may include a controller, processor or electronic control unit (ECU) that controls the system and receives various measurements from the system components (e.g., the sensing electrodes). The controller is configured to interact with other vehicle systems such as, for example, vehicle safety systems (e.g., airbag and seat belt systems).”).
Regarding claim 8, Stanley 065 teaches (Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein a compressible material is disposed between the sensing electrode and the shield electrode (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0051; “The system 500 includes a sensing mat 530 that a sensing electrode and a shield electrode separated by a compressible material.”).
Regarding claim 10, Watts teaches (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, wherein the threshold data establishes a first threshold boundary between a 6 year old child classification and a 5th percentile female classification such that the controller compares the coordinate pair of the output signals to the first threshold boundary to identify the occupant classification for the coordinate pair (Watts, at least one para. 0033 and FIG. 5; “an exemplary embodiment of a plot 200 of two groups of test cases. In the embodiment shown, a first natural distribution plot 205 of the weights of for typical 6 year old children is displayed on the left, and a second natural distribution plot 210 of fifth percentile females is displayed on the right”).
Regarding claim 14, Stanley 795 teaches (Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller overlays multiple sets of coordinate pairs (Stanley 795; FIG. 6) onto a coordinate system that establishes the threshold boundaries (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0023-24; “capacitance threshold C1.sup.Thr and capacitance threshold C2.sup.Thr”) such that output signals for multiple pairs of occupant classification sensors are compared by the controller and assigned occupant classifications relative to the threshold data (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0023-24; “capacitance threshold C1.sup.Thr and capacitance threshold C2.sup.Thr.”, wherein it is inherence that impedance of a capacitor is directly related to its capacitance and the frequency of the applied voltage).
Regarding claim 25, Stanley 065 teaches (Currently Amended) A system for classifying an occupant in a vehicle comprising (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0017; “Referring generally to the figures, an occupant classification system is described that uses a sensor (e.g., a capacitive vehicle sensor) to detect seat occupancy and to detect a weight on the seat.”):
a support structure positioned in a vehicle seat and centered laterally relative to the vehicle seat;
at least one pair of occupant classification sensors, (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0021; “According to one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 2A, a capacitive based occupant classification system 200 includes an upper electrode 202 and a lower planar electrode 204. In the embodiment of FIG. 2A, the upper planar electrode 202 is a sensing electrode 202 and the lower planar electrode 204 is a shield electrode”) each occupant classification sensor has a sensing electrode the vehicle seat and a shield electrode located in the vehicle seat opposite the sensing electrode (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0021; “The shield electrode (the lower electrode 204) is located below the sensing electrode in a vehicle seat.”);
a respective sensing circuit operatively coupled to the respective sensing electrode and shield electrode for each occupant classification sensor in the at least one pair (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0031; “The occupant detection system 400 includes a sensing circuit 402 electrically connecting the sensing electrode 410, the shield electrode 412, switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, and electronics 420.”);
a controller comprising computer memory operatively coupled to the respective sensing circuits (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0033; “The controller 422 may be a microprocessor or electronic control unit (ECU) and controls the occupant detection system 400.”),
wherein the controller operates to configure the respective sensing circuits (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0035; “The controller 422 determines when the signal conditioning device 424 produces an output signal, opens and closes the switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, and interprets the input signal received from signal conditioning device 424.”) into a plurality of circuit configurations (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0036; “By opening and closing the switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, the sensing circuit 402 of the occupant detection system 400 may be placed in four different configurations.”); and
wherein in the circuit configurations the sensing electrode and the shield electrode are electrically coupled to the sensing circuit (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0036; “By opening and closing the switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, the sensing circuit 402 of the occupant detection system 400 may be placed in four different configurations (i.e., switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, respectively, are closed/open, closed/closed, open/open, and open/closed).”),
wherein the controller sends a control signal to the sensing circuit (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0035; “The controller 422 determines when the signal conditioning device 424 produces an output signal, opens and closes the switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, and interprets the input signal received from signal conditioning device 424.”), measures a plurality of sensing current measurements, and each sensing current measurement corresponding to one of the circuit configurations (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0037; “In each of the four circuit configurations, current is measured by the signal conditioning device 424, thus providing four current measurements M.sub.1, M.sub.2, M.sub.3, and M.sub.1 is measured when SW.sub.DS is closed and SW.sub.load is open, M.sub.2 is measured when SW.sub.DS is closed and SW.sub.load is closed, M.sub.3 is measured when SW.sub.DS is open and SW.sub.load is open, and M.sub.4 is measured when SW.sub.DS is open and SW.sub.load is closed.”),
wherein the sensing circuit is further configured to detect a change in at least one current characteristic of sensing current due to the presence of the object located on the vehicle seat (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0030; “the system may use multiple measurements in multiple configurations to calculate a high frequency (e.g., about 100 kHz, greater than 100 kHz, etc.) AC current flowing only between the sensor and shield. A significant increase in that measured current indicates an increase in the sensor to shield capacitance, which indicates a change in relative position of the sensor and shield due to an increased force from the occupant. According to other examples, the capacitance between the sensor and shield electrodes may be measured by analyzing a change in an RC time constant, a change in a response of the system to a step voltage to the electrodes, a change in charge sharing between the electrodes, or any other method of measuring capacitance.”),
wherein the controller calculates a quadrature component (Q) of the sensing current (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0047; “By measuring reference currents M.sub.refhi and M.sub.reflo with respect to impedance devices 442, 444 of known impedance and isolating the normalization circuit 404 from the sensing circuit 402, the microprocessor 422 may calculate system impedance independent of the sensing circuit 402. In this manner, the microprocessor 422 may account for changes in gain, offset shift and phase shift in the sensing circuit 402 more accurately detect and classify the occupant.”);
wherein the memory stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications according to threshold boundaries calculated from tested quadrature component measurements (Q); and
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair to identify a respective occupant classification for the coordinate pair relative to the threshold boundaries.
Even though Stanley 065 teaches about a single occupant classification sensor and the calculation of impedance, Stanley 065 does not explicitly teach
a support structure positioned in a vehicle seat and centered laterally relative to the vehicle seat;
occupant classification sensors, positioned on the support structure
wherein the memory stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications according to threshold boundaries calculated from tested quadrature component measurements (Q); and
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair to identify a respective occupant classification for the coordinate pair relative to the threshold boundaries.
However, Young, in the same field of endeavor (Young, col. 1, lines 20-21; “Sensor apparatuses have been proposed for detecting whether or not a given seat is occupied.”), teaches a support structure positioned in a vehicle seat and centered laterally relative to the vehicle seat (Young, col. 3, lines 15-20; “the cushion 12 includes grooves or indentations (not shown) formed in the lower surface 16 for receiving the sensor assemblies 20. Thus, the mat assembly 14 can be simply positioned on the lower surface 16 with the sensor assemblies 20 extending upwardly into recesses of the cushion 12.”);
occupant classification sensors, positioned on the support structure (Young, col. 2, lines 47-52; “the mat 14 includes a plurality of sensor assemblies 20 (20a, 20b, 20c, and 20d) which detect the presence of an occupant seated on the seat. The sensor assemblies 20 include movably mounted members which detect displacement therebetween caused by the weight of occupant seated on the cushion 12.”)
wherein the memory stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications according to threshold boundaries calculated from tested quadrature component measurements (Q); and
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair to identify a respective occupant classification for the coordinate pair relative to the threshold boundaries.
The combination of Stanley 065 and Young are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sensor mounting of Stanley 065 with the teaching of Young. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the sensors can be securely and removably mounted to the mat thus providing a rigid surface (Young; col. 3 para. 2-3). Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying a known technique (sensor mounting process of Young to the mat) to a known device (sensor mounting process of Stanley 065) that was ready for improvement, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Stanley 065 and Young does not explicitly teach wherein the memory stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications according to threshold boundaries calculated from tested quadrature component measurements (Q); and
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair to identify a respective occupant classification for the coordinate pair relative to the threshold boundaries.
However, Watts, in the same field of endeavor (Watts, at least one para. 0007; “One embodiment of the invention generally includes an occupant classification system for a vehicle.”), teaches
wherein the memory stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications (Watts, at least one para. 0024; “In the exemplary embodiment illustrated, the controller 100 has data sets within a memory 102 including covariance matrices 104, mean matrices 108, inverse covariance matrices 112, senor data matrices 116, and a decision point threshold 120”); and
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair to identify a respective occupant classification for the coordinate pair relative to the threshold boundaries (Watts, at least one para. 0008; “In another form, the controller can be configured to organize the output of each sensor relating to the occupant into a data set. Data sets related to the response of the sensors in a plurality of test cases to make a classification decision can also be formed and stored within controller memory”) and (Watts, at least one para. 0029; “The information obtained from the plurality of sensors is indicative of the weight of an object (generally presumed to be an occupant) in the seat 12. The weight information from the sensors is passed to the controller 100 as sensor data to be used in subsequent operation steps. The controller 100 can be configured to utilize a threshold”).
The combination of Stanley 065, Young, and Watts are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the output signal of the sensing circuits of the Stanley 065 with the teaching of Watts. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to so that the seat occupants can be classified by age groups (Watts; 0025) in order to selectively activate or control specific vehicle systems (Watts; 0032)
Even though the combination of Stanley 065, Young, and Watts teach about “the memory stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications”, the combination of Stanley 065, Young, and Watts does not explicitly teach
according to threshold boundaries calculated from tested quadrature component measurements (Q); and
However, Stanley 795, in the same field of endeavor (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0015; “Referring to FIG. 1, an occupant detection system 10.”), teaches according to threshold boundaries calculated from tested quadrature component measurements (Q) (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0022; “Then, in step (506), if the central/inboard capacitance C 1 is less than an associated central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr”, wherein threshold C 1.sup.Thr is one of threshold boundaries) and (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0024; “an associated outboard capacitance threshold C2.sup.Thr”, wherein threshold C2.sup.Thr is one of threshold boundaries); and
The combination of Stanley 065, Young, Watts, and Stanley 795 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the output signal of Watts with the teaching of Stanley 795. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the classification system can accurately distinguish occupant on the seat and the associated outcome (Stanley 795; 0029). Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying a known technique (occupant calculating process of Stanley 795) to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 26, Watts discloses (Previously Presented) The system of Claim 25, further comprising wherein the controller uses the plurality of sensing current measurements from the at least one pair of occupant classification and determines a threshold by midpoint measurement analysis (Watts, at least one para. 0024; “FIG. 3 shows one embodiment of a configuration of a controller 100. The controller 100 can be configured differently depending on system memory, processor capabilities, and input/output devices. In the exemplary embodiment illustrated, the controller 100 has data sets within a memory 102 including covariance matrices 104, mean matrices 108, inverse covariance matrices 112, senor data matrices 116, and a decision point threshold 120.”) and (Watts, at least one para. 0008; “A person skilled in the art could perform operations on the matrix data to create mean matrices, covariance matrices, and inverse covariance matrices. In the exemplary embodiment shown, a mean matrix is a four element by one element matrix that corresponds to the average of n test cases for each weight sensor 18-24. Covariance and inverse covariance matrices are evaluated to matrices 4 elements by 4 elements in size by utilizing processes commonly known in the art. The covariance matrices 104, mean matrices 108, and inverse covariance matrices 112 can be used by the controller 100 in conjunction with processing carried out by the MLRT module 124 to help determine a classification in circumstances where data initially falls within a window or area where classes overlap.”) or statistical mean analysis of the Q values (Watts, at least one para. 0020; “the controller is also pre-programmed or loaded with certain information including statistical data of occupants compiled from various test cases. The statistical data can be used with a controller program (the features of which are discussed in greater detail) to monitor the occupant in the seat 12.”).
Regarding claim 27, Young discloses (New) The system of Claim 1, wherein the support structure is positioned in a base of the vehicle seat (Young, col. 3, lines 15-20; “the cushion 12 includes grooves or indentations (not shown) formed in the lower surface 16 for receiving the sensor assemblies 20. Thus, the mat assembly 14 can be simply positioned on the lower surface 16 with the sensor assemblies 20 extending upwardly into recesses of the cushion 12.”) and ((Young, col. 2, lines 45-46; “The seat cushion 12 can have any desired contoured shape and is adapted to be mounted on a vehicle seat frame (not shown)”).
Claim(s) 4-5, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley (US 20130027065 A1) in view of Watts (US 20060226641 A1), Stanley (US 20030083795 A1), and Young (US 7138907 B2), and in further view of Wanami (US20060075834 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wanami teaches (Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors further comprise a left side occupant classification sensor and a right side occupant classification sensor (Wanami, at least one para. 0020; “The occupant detecting system 1 includes four weight sensors--a front right sensor 20FR, a front left sensor 20FL, a rear right sensor 20RR and a rear left sensor 20RL--and an occupant detecting ECU 3, which are electrically connected by wire harness”), wherein the coordinate system comprises x-axis values and y-axis values, and wherein the x-axis values are Q values representing magnitudes of quadrature components of left side sensing current on a left side sensing electrode and the y-axis values represent additional magnitudes of quadrature components of right side sensing currents on a right side sensing electrode.
Even though Wanami teaches about teaches the left side occupant classification sensors (a front left sensor 20FL and a rear left sensor 20RL), the right side occupant classification sensors (a front right sensor 20FR and a rear right sensor 20RR), and how the outcome of the four occupant classification sensors are plotted with respect to the temperature and the time in order to classify the respective occupants. Wanami does not explicitly teach wherein the coordinate system comprises x-axis values and y-axis values, and wherein the x-axis values are Q values representing magnitudes of quadrature components of left side sensing current on a left side sensing electrode and the y-axis values represent additional magnitudes of quadrature components of right side sensing currents on a right side sensing electrode.
However, Stanley 795, in the same field of endeavor (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0015; “Referring to FIG. 1, an occupant detection system 10.”), teaches wherein the coordinate system comprises x-axis values and y-axis values, and wherein the x-axis values are Q values representing magnitudes of quadrature components of left side sensing current on a left side sensing electrode and the y-axis values represent additional magnitudes of quadrature components of right side sensing currents on a right side sensing electrode (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0023; “Then, in step (506), if the central/inboard capacitance C 1 is less than an associated central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr; and, in step (508), if the measure of seat weight W is less than an associated weight threshold W.sup.Thr, then, in step (510), the side air bag inflator 26 is disabled. For example, the weight threshold W.sup.Thr corresponds to a measure of seat weight W from the seat weight sensor 22 corresponding to an occupant weighing about 55 pounds upon the seat 18; and the central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr is set to provide for a capacitance change--relative to that of an empty seat--of approximately 1 picofarad for a first electrode 38 having a minimum dimension of about 1-2 inches (25-50 millimeters). The particular value of the central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr is dependent upon the particular geometry of the first electrode 38, but the threshold is adapted so that the measure of the central/inboard capacitance C 1 is greater than the central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr when the head of a child is proximate to the first electrode 38.”) and (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0024; “Otherwise, from step (506), or otherwise, from step (508), in step (510), the second electric field sensor 14 provides a measure of the outboard capacitance C2 of the second electrode 48 relative to ground, i.e. to the surroundings. Then, in step (512), if the outboard capacitance C2 is greater than an associated outboard capacitance threshold C2.sup.Thr, then, in step (514), a side ratio SR (or generally, a control measure) is calculated as follows: 1 S R = ( W M ) n ( C1 C2 )”) and (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0029; “Referring to FIG. 6, the decision logic associated with FIG. 5 is dependent upon four (4) binary-valued factors indicated in FIG. 6 by columns labeled A, B, C and D corresponding respectively to steps (516), (512), (506) and (508) in FIG. 5, wherein the side air bag inflator 26 is disabled if the logical expression (A AND B) OR (C AND D) evaluates as TRUE, as is indicated by the state of DISABLE in the column entitled Side Air Bag Inflator Control; and the side air bag inflator 26 is enabled if the logical expression (A AND B) OR (C AND D) evaluates as FALSE, as is indicated by the state of ENABLE in the same column. The sixteen (16) possible combinations of four (4) independent binary-valued factors A, B, C and D are tabulated along with the associated outcome in FIG. 6. Several of the combinations are illustrated by FIGS. 2a-d and FIGS. 3a-c, as indicated in the column entitled illustration.”, even though the corresponding plotting and axes were not explicitly stated within Stanley 795, it is obvious that the aforementioned method of Stanley 795 is able yield predictable results from applying known technique to known method).
The combination Watts and Stanley 795 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the output signal of Watts with the teaching of Stanley 795. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the classification system can accurately distinguish occupant on the seat and the associated outcome (Stanley 795; 0029). Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying a known technique (occupant calculating process of Stanley 795) to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Wanami teaches (Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one pair of occupant classification sensors further comprise a front occupant classification sensor and a rear occupant classification sensor (Wanami, at least one para. 0020; “The occupant detecting system 1 includes four weight sensors--a front right sensor 20FR, a front left sensor 20FL, a rear right sensor 20RR and a rear left sensor 20RL--and an occupant detecting ECU 3, which are electrically connected by wire harness”), wherein the coordinate system comprises x-axis values and y-axis values, and wherein the x-axis values are Q values representing magnitudes of the quadrature components of front sensing current on a front sensing electrode and the y-axis values represent additional magnitudes of quadrature components of rear sensing current on a rear sensing electrode.
Even though Wanami teaches the front occupant classification sensors (a front left sensor 20FL and a front right sensor 20FR), the rear occupant classification sensors (a rear left sensor 20RL and a rear right sensor 20RR), and how the outcome of the four occupant classification sensors are plotted with respect to the temperature and the time in order to classify the respective occupants. Wanami does not explicitly teach wherein the coordinate system comprises x-axis values and y-axis values, and wherein the x-axis values are Q values representing magnitudes of the quadrature components of front sensing current on a front sensing electrode and the y-axis values represent additional magnitudes of quadrature components of rear sensing current on a rear sensing electrode.
However, Stanley 795, in the same field of endeavor (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0015; “Referring to FIG. 1, an occupant detection system 10.”), teaches wherein the coordinate system comprises x-axis values and y-axis values, and wherein the x-axis values are Q values representing magnitudes of the quadrature components of front sensing current on a front sensing electrode and the y-axis values represent additional magnitudes of quadrature components of rear sensing current on a rear sensing electrode (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0023; “Then, in step (506), if the central/inboard capacitance C 1 is less than an associated central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr; and, in step (508), if the measure of seat weight W is less than an associated weight threshold W.sup.Thr, then, in step (510), the side air bag inflator 26 is disabled. For example, the weight threshold W.sup.Thr corresponds to a measure of seat weight W from the seat weight sensor 22 corresponding to an occupant weighing about 55 pounds upon the seat 18; and the central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr is set to provide for a capacitance change--relative to that of an empty seat--of approximately 1 picofarad for a first electrode 38 having a minimum dimension of about 1-2 inches (25-50 millimeters). The particular value of the central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr is dependent upon the particular geometry of the first electrode 38, but the threshold is adapted so that the measure of the central/inboard capacitance C 1 is greater than the central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr when the head of a child is proximate to the first electrode 38.”) and (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0024; “Otherwise, from step (506), or otherwise, from step (508), in step (510), the second electric field sensor 14 provides a measure of the outboard capacitance C2 of the second electrode 48 relative to ground, i.e. to the surroundings. Then, in step (512), if the outboard capacitance C2 is greater than an associated outboard capacitance threshold C2.sup.Thr, then, in step (514), a side ratio SR (or generally, a control measure) is calculated as follows: 1 S R = ( W M ) n ( C1 C2 )”) and (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0029; “Referring to FIG. 6, the decision logic associated with FIG. 5 is dependent upon four (4) binary-valued factors indicated in FIG. 6 by columns labeled A, B, C and D corresponding respectively to steps (516), (512), (506) and (508) in FIG. 5, wherein the side air bag inflator 26 is disabled if the logical expression (A AND B) OR (C AND D) evaluates as TRUE, as is indicated by the state of DISABLE in the column entitled Side Air Bag Inflator Control; and the side air bag inflator 26 is enabled if the logical expression (A AND B) OR (C AND D) evaluates as FALSE, as is indicated by the state of ENABLE in the same column. The sixteen (16) possible combinations of four (4) independent binary-valued factors A, B, C and D are tabulated along with the associated outcome in FIG. 6. Several of the combinations are illustrated by FIGS. 2a-d and FIGS. 3a-c, as indicated in the column entitled illustration.”, even though the corresponding plotting and axes were not explicitly stated within Stanley 795, it is obvious that the aforementioned method of Stanley 795 is able yield predictable results from applying known technique to known method).
The combination Watts and Stanley 795 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the output signal of Watts with the teaching of Stanley 795. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the classification system can accurately distinguish occupant on the seat and the associated outcome (Stanley 795; 0029). Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying a known technique (occupant calculating process of Stanley 795) to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Stanley 065 discloses (Currently Amended) A system for classifying objects positioned on a vehicle seat within a vehicle (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0017; “Referring generally to the figures, an occupant classification system is described that uses a sensor (e.g., a capacitive vehicle sensor) to detect seat occupancy and to detect a weight on the seat.”), the system comprising:
a support structure positioned in a vehicle seat and centered laterally relative to the vehicle seat;
a first occupant classification sensor secured to the support structure a front region of the vehicle seat;
a second occupant classification sensor secured the support structure to a rear region of the vehicle seat;
wherein each occupant classification sensor has a sensing electrode positioned oppositely a shield electrode (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0021; “According to one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 2A, a capacitive based occupant classification system 200 includes an upper electrode 202 and a lower planar electrode 204. In the embodiment of FIG. 2A, the upper planar electrode 202 is a sensing electrode 202 and the lower planar electrode 204 is a shield electrode”);
a respective sensing circuit operatively coupled to the respective sensing electrode and shield electrode for each occupant classification sensor (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0031; “The occupant detection system 400 includes a sensing circuit 402 electrically connecting the sensing electrode 410, the shield electrode 412, switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, and electronics 420.”);
a controller comprising computer memory operatively coupled to the respective sensing circuits (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0035; “The controller 422 determines when the signal conditioning device 424 produces an output signal, opens and closes the switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, and interprets the input signal received from signal conditioning device 424..”),
wherein the controller operates to configure the respective sensing circuits into a plurality of circuit configurations (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0036; “By opening and closing the switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, the sensing circuit 402 of the occupant detection system 400 may be placed in four different configurations.”); and
wherein in the circuit configurations, the sensing electrode and the shield electrode are electrically coupled to the sensing circuit (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0035; “The controller 422 determines when the signal conditioning device 424 produces an output signal, opens and closes the switches SW.sub.DS and SW.sub.load, and interprets the input signal received from signal conditioning device 424.”),
wherein the controller is configured to send a control signal to the sensing circuit and measure a plurality of sensing current measurements, each sensing current measurement corresponding to one of the circuit configurations (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0037; “In each of the four circuit configurations, current is measured by the signal conditioning device 424, thus providing four current measurements M.sub.1, M.sub.2, M.sub.3, and M.sub.1 is measured when SW.sub.DS is closed and SW.sub.load is open, M.sub.2 is measured when SW.sub.DS is closed and SW.sub.load is closed, M.sub.3 is measured when SW.sub.DS is open and SW.sub.load is open, and M.sub.4 is measured when SW.sub.DS is open and SW.sub.load is closed.”),
wherein the sensing circuit is further configured to detect a change in at least one current characteristic of sensing current due to the presence of the object located on the vehicle seat (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0030; “the system may use multiple measurements in multiple configurations to calculate a high frequency (e.g., about 100 kHz, greater than 100 kHz, etc.) AC current flowing only between the sensor and shield. A significant increase in that measured current indicates an increase in the sensor to shield capacitance, which indicates a change in relative position of the sensor and shield due to an increased force from the occupant. According to other examples, the capacitance between the sensor and shield electrodes may be measured by analyzing a change in an RC time constant, a change in a response of the system to a step voltage to the electrodes, a change in charge sharing between the electrodes, or any other method of measuring capacitance.”),
wherein the sensing circuits corresponding the first occupant classification sensor and the second occupant classification sensor provide, to the controller, a respective output signal corresponding to a respective change in sensing currents on respective sensing electrodes,
wherein the controller calculates sensing electrode measurements comprising a quadrature component (Q) of a respective sensing current (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0034; “As described further below, the system 400 may be operated to obtain certain measurements that may be used to obtain a representative indication of the force on the vehicle seat, such as when the occupant's weight forces the sensing electrode 410 toward the shield electrode 412. The electronics 420 are used to calculate the impedance between the sensing electrode 410 and shield electrode 412, which can be used to classify the occupant. The electronics 420 may also be used to calculate the impedance between the sensing electrode 410 and ground, which can be used to detect an occupant. The electronics 420 may also be used to calculate the impedances between the sensing electrode 410 and both the shield electrode 412 and ground to both detect and classify an occupant.”) and (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0047; “By measuring reference currents M.sub.refhi and M.sub.reflo with respect to impedance devices 442, 444 of known impedance and isolating the normalization circuit 404 from the sensing circuit 402, the microprocessor 422 may calculate system impedance independent of the sensing circuit 402. In this manner, the microprocessor 422 may account for changes in gain, offset shift and phase shift in the sensing circuit 402 more accurately detect and classify the occupant.”);
wherein the memory stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications according to threshold boundaries in a coordinate system comprising Q values of the first occupant classification sensor on an x-axis and additional Q values of the second occupant classification sensor on the y-axis, wherein Q values represent magnitudes of the quadrature components of sensing current signals on respective sensing electrodes of each occupant classification sensor;
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair to place within the coordinate system and identify a respective occupant classification for the coordinate pair.
Even though Stanley 065 talk about a single occupant classification sensor and the calculation of impedance, Stanley 065 does not explicitly teach
a support structure positioned in a vehicle seat and centered laterally relative to the vehicle seat;
a first occupant classification sensor secured to the support structure a front region of the vehicle seat;
a second occupant classification sensor secured the support structure to a rear region of the vehicle seat;
wherein the sensing circuits corresponding the first occupant classification sensor and the second occupant classification sensor provide, to the controller, a respective output signal corresponding to a respective change in sensing currents on respective sensing electrodes,
wherein the memory stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications according to threshold boundaries in a coordinate system comprising Q values of the first occupant classification sensor on an x-axis and additional Q values of the second occupant classification sensor on the y-axis, wherein Q values represent magnitudes of the quadrature components of sensing current signals on respective sensing electrodes of each occupant classification sensor;
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair to place within the coordinate system and identify a respective occupant classification for the coordinate pair.
However, Young, in the same field of endeavor (Young, col. 1, lines 20-21; “Sensor apparatuses have been proposed for detecting whether or not a given seat is occupied.”), teaches a support structure positioned in a vehicle seat and centered laterally relative to the vehicle seat (Young, col. 3, lines 15-20; “the cushion 12 includes grooves or indentations (not shown) formed in the lower surface 16 for receiving the sensor assemblies 20. Thus, the mat assembly 14 can be simply positioned on the lower surface 16 with the sensor assemblies 20 extending upwardly into recesses of the cushion 12.”);
a first occupant classification sensor secured to the support structure a front region of the vehicle seat;
a second occupant classification sensor secured the support structure to a rear region of the vehicle seat;
wherein the sensing circuits corresponding the first occupant classification sensor and the second occupant classification sensor provide, to the controller, a respective output signal corresponding to a respective change in sensing currents on respective sensing electrodes,
wherein the memory stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications according to threshold boundaries in a coordinate system comprising Q values of the first occupant classification sensor on an x-axis and additional Q values of the second occupant classification sensor on the y-axis, wherein Q values represent magnitudes of the quadrature components of sensing current signals on respective sensing electrodes of each occupant classification sensor;
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair to place within the coordinate system and identify a respective occupant classification for the coordinate pair.
The combination of Stanley 065 and Young are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sensor mounting of Stanley 065 with the teaching of Young. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the sensors can be securely and removably mounted to the mat thus providing a rigid surface (Young; col. 3 para. 2-3). Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying a known technique (sensor mounting process of Young to the mat) to a known device (sensor mounting process of Stanley 065) that was ready for improvement, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Stanley 065 and Young does not explicitly teach
a first occupant classification sensor secured to the support structure a front region of the vehicle seat;
a second occupant classification sensor secured the support structure to a rear region of the vehicle seat;
wherein the sensing circuits corresponding the first occupant classification sensor and the second occupant classification sensor provide, to the controller, a respective output signal corresponding to a respective change in sensing currents on respective sensing electrodes,
wherein the memory stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications according to threshold boundaries in a coordinate system comprising Q values of the first occupant classification sensor on an x-axis and additional Q values of the second occupant classification sensor on the y-axis, wherein Q values represent magnitudes of the quadrature components of sensing current signals on respective sensing electrodes of each occupant classification sensor;
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair to place within the coordinate system and identify a respective occupant classification for the coordinate pair.
However, Watts, in the same field of endeavor (Watts, at least one para. 0007; “One embodiment of the invention generally includes an occupant classification system for a vehicle.”) teaches
a first occupant classification sensor secured to the support structure a front region of the vehicle seat;
a second occupant classification sensor secured the support structure to a rear region of the vehicle seat;
wherein the sensing circuits corresponding the first occupant classification sensor and the second occupant classification sensor provide, to the controller, a respective output signal corresponding to a respective change in sensing currents on respective sensing electrodes (Watts, at least one para. 0028; “Each of the variables can represent data that has been stored in, or passed to the controller 100. In the equation shown, the R represents values from the weight sensor outputs. In the exemplary embodiment, R represents the weight related output signals corresponding to the four output sensors 18-24”),
wherein the memory stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications according to threshold boundaries (Watts, at least one para. 0024; “In the exemplary embodiment illustrated, the controller 100 has data sets within a memory 102 including covariance matrices 104, mean matrices 108, inverse covariance matrices 112, senor data matrices 116, and a decision point threshold 120”)
wherein the controller uses the respective output signals as a coordinate pair to place within the coordinate system and identify a respective occupant classification for the coordinate pair (Watts, at least one para. 0008; “In another form, the controller can be configured to organize the output of each sensor relating to the occupant into a data set. Data sets related to the response of the sensors in a plurality of test cases to make a classification decision can also be formed and stored within controller memory) and (Watts, at least one para. 0029; The information obtained from the plurality of sensors is indicative of the weight of an object (generally presumed to be an occupant) in the seat 12. The weight information from the sensors is passed to the controller 100 as sensor data to be used in subsequent operation steps. The controller 100 can be configured to utilize a threshold”).
The combination of Stanley 065, Young, and Watts are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the output signal of the sensing circuits of the Stanley 065 with the teaching of Watts. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to so that the seat occupants can be classified by age groups (Watts; 0025) in order to selectively activate or control specific vehicle systems (Watts; 0032)
Even though the combination of Stanley 065, Young, and Watts teach about “the memory stores threshold data establishing occupant classifications”, The combination of Stanley 065, Young, and Watts does not explicitly teach
a first occupant classification sensor secured to the support structure a front region of the vehicle seat;
a second occupant classification sensor secured the support structure to a rear region of the vehicle seat;
in a coordinate system comprising Q values of the first occupant classification sensor on an x-axis and additional Q values of the second occupant classification sensor on the y-axis, wherein Q values represent magnitudes of the quadrature components of sensing current signals on respective sensing electrodes of each occupant classification sensor;
However, Stanley 795, in the same field of endeavor (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0015; “Referring to FIG. 1, an occupant detection system 10.”), teaches a first occupant classification sensor secured to the support structure a front region of the vehicle seat;
a second occupant classification sensor secured the support structure to a rear region of the vehicle seat;
in a coordinate system comprising Q values of the first occupant classification sensor on an x-axis and additional Q values of the second occupant classification sensor on the y-axis, wherein Q values represent magnitudes of the quadrature components of sensing current signals on respective sensing electrodes of each occupant classification sensor (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0023; “Then, in step (506), if the central/inboard capacitance C 1 is less than an associated central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr; and, in step (508), if the measure of seat weight W is less than an associated weight threshold W.sup.Thr, then, in step (510), the side air bag inflator 26 is disabled. For example, the weight threshold W.sup.Thr corresponds to a measure of seat weight W from the seat weight sensor 22 corresponding to an occupant weighing about 55 pounds upon the seat 18; and the central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr is set to provide for a capacitance change--relative to that of an empty seat--of approximately 1 picofarad for a first electrode 38 having a minimum dimension of about 1-2 inches (25-50 millimeters). The particular value of the central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr is dependent upon the particular geometry of the first electrode 38, but the threshold is adapted so that the measure of the central/inboard capacitance C 1 is greater than the central/inboard capacitance threshold C 1.sup.Thr when the head of a child is proximate to the first electrode 38.”) and (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0024; “Otherwise, from step (506), or otherwise, from step (508), in step (510), the second electric field sensor 14 provides a measure of the outboard capacitance C2 of the second electrode 48 relative to ground, i.e. to the surroundings. Then, in step (512), if the outboard capacitance C2 is greater than an associated outboard capacitance threshold C2.sup.Thr, then, in step (514), a side ratio SR (or generally, a control measure) is calculated as follows: 1 S R = ( W M ) n ( C1 C2 )”) and (Stanley 795, at least one para. 0029; “Referring to FIG. 6, the decision logic associated with FIG. 5 is dependent upon four (4) binary-valued factors indicated in FIG. 6 by columns labeled A, B, C and D corresponding respectively to steps (516), (512), (506) and (508) in FIG. 5, wherein the side air bag inflator 26 is disabled if the logical expression (A AND B) OR (C AND D) evaluates as TRUE, as is indicated by the state of DISABLE in the column entitled Side Air Bag Inflator Control; and the side air bag inflator 26 is enabled if the logical expression (A AND B) OR (C AND D) evaluates as FALSE, as is indicated by the state of ENABLE in the same column. The sixteen (16) possible combinations of four (4) independent binary-valued factors A, B, C and D are tabulated along with the associated outcome in FIG. 6. Several of the combinations are illustrated by FIGS. 2a-d and FIGS. 3a-c, as indicated in the column entitled illustration.”, even though the corresponding plotting and axes were not explicitly stated within Stanley 795, it is obvious that the aforementioned method of Stanley 795 is able yield predictable results from applying known technique to known method);
The combination of Stanley 065, Young, Watts, and Stanley 795 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the output signal of Watts with the teaching of Stanley 795. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the classification system can accurately distinguish occupant on the seat and the associated outcome (Stanley 795; 0029). Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying a known technique (occupant calculating process of Stanley 795) to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Stanley 065, Young, Watts, and Stanley 795 does not explicitly teach
a first occupant classification sensor secured to the support structure a front region of the vehicle seat;
a second occupant classification sensor secured the support structure to a rear region of the vehicle seat;
However, Wanami, in the same field of endeavor (Wanami, at least one para. 0019; “An occupant detecting system 1 and a method for detecting an occupant according to a preferred embodiment of the invention will be described with reference to the appended drawings”) teaches a first occupant classification sensor secured to the support structure a front region of the vehicle seat (Wanami, at least one para. 0020 and FIG. 1; “The occupant detecting system 1 includes four weight sensors--a front right sensor 20FR, a front left sensor 20FL, a rear right sensor 20RR and a rear left sensor 20RL--and an occupant detecting ECU 3, which are electrically connected by wire harness.”);
a second occupant classification sensor secured the support structure to a rear region of the vehicle seat (Wanami, at least one para. 0020 and FIG. 1; “The occupant detecting system 1 includes four weight sensors--a front right sensor 20FR, a front left sensor 20FL, a rear right sensor 20RR and a rear left sensor 20RL--and an occupant detecting ECU 3, which are electrically connected by wire harness.”);
The combination of Stanley 065, Young, Watts, and Stanley 795 along with Wanami are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sensor of Stanley 065 with the teaching of Wanami. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify a prior art reference or combine prior art teachings to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success so that the occupants can be classified with respect to the front occupant classification sensor outcomes and the rear occupant classification sensor outcomes.
Regarding claim 19, Stanley 065 teaches (Previously Presented) The system according to claim 15, wherein the sensing electrode and the shield electrode (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0021; “The shield electrode (the lower electrode 204) is located below the sensing electrode in a vehicle seat.”) comprise copper tape plates separated by elastomeric spacers (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0016; “ According to various exemplary embodiments, a sensing system may use electronic methods for making capacitive measurements (e.g., using high frequency current measurements or other methods). The sensor assembly materials may include any type of conductive material for the electrodes (e.g., copper, conductive inks, conductive fabrics, etc.) and any compressible material for the spacer between the sensor and the shield (e.g., non-woven felts, woven materials, foams, materials used to allow air flow for forced air climate control seats, or any other material that will significantly compress at pressures under 1 psi).”).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley (US 20130027065 A1) in view of Watts (US 20060226641 A1), Stanley (US 20030083795 A1), and Young (US 7138907 B2), and in further view of Basir (US20050080533 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Stanley 065 teaches (Currently Amended) The system of claim 1 (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0050; “FIG. 5 discloses an occupant sensing and classification system 500.”), further comprising additional pairs of occupant classification sensors positioned on the support structure in respective zones of a vehicle seat.
Stanley 065 does not explicitly teach additional pairs of occupant classification sensors positioned on the support structure in respective zones of a vehicle seat.
However, Basir, in the same field of endeavor (Basir, at least one para. 0009; “A seat sensor system 10 for vehicle passenger sensing is shown in FIG. 1 installed in a vehicle and is shown schematically in FIG. 2.”) teaches additional pairs of occupant classification sensors positioned on the support structure in respective zones of a vehicle seat (Basir, at least one para. 0010; “Additional sensors may be included to sense parameters such as amount of passenger movement, passenger position, passenger posture, seat position and the position of seat peripherals”).
Stanley 065 and Basir are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the occupant classification sensor of Stanley 065 with the additional sensors of Basir. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to so that processor is able to provide multiple outputs based on the normal seating position (Basir; 0014)
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley (US 20130027065 A1) in view of Watts (US 20060226641 A1), Stanley (US 20030083795 A1), and Young (US 7138907 B2), and in further view of Breed (US20060208169 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Watts teaches (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, wherein the threshold data establishes a second threshold boundary between a 5th percentile female classification and a 50th percentile male classification such that the controller compares the coordinate pair of the output signals to the second threshold boundary to identify the occupant classification for the coordinate pair (Watts, at least one para. 0033 and FIG. 5; “an exemplary embodiment of a plot 200 of two groups of test cases. In the embodiment shown, a first natural distribution plot 205 of the weights of for typical 6 year old children is displayed on the left, and a second natural distribution plot 210 of fifth percentile females is displayed on the right”).
Even though Watts teaches 6 year old children is displayed on the left, and a second natural distribution plot 210 of fifth percentile females, Watts does not explicitly teach wherein the threshold data establishes a second threshold boundary between a 5th percentile female classification and a 50th percentile male classification such that the controller compares the coordinate pair of the output signals to the second threshold boundary to identify the occupant classification for the coordinate pair.
Breed, in the same field of endeavor (Breed, at least one para. 0009; “The present invention also relates to an apparatus and method for measuring the seat weight including the weight of an occupying item of the vehicle seat”) teaches wherein the threshold data establishes a second threshold boundary between a 5th percentile female classification and a 50th percentile male classification such that the controller compares the coordinate pair of the output signals to the second threshold boundary to identify the occupant classification for the coordinate pair (Breed, at least one para. 1012; “In one preferred embodiment of the invention the space in front of the airbag that can be occupied by an occupant is divided into three zones. The deployment decision is based on taking into account the estimated severity of the crash, the identified size and or weight of the occupant, and the position of occupant or forecasted position of the occupant at the time of airbag deployment. For example, in a high severity crash, a 5% female located in the zone furthest away from the airbag, zone 3, would receive the depowered airbag deployment. On the other hand, a large heavy occupant in a similar crash and at a similar position would receive the high-powered airbag. As a further example a 50% male occupant located in the mid zone, or zone 2, would receive a depowered deployment. For the majority of the cases the zone 3 would call for a high-powered deployment, zone 2 or a depowered deployment and zone 1 for suppression or no deployment”).
Watts and Breed are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the threshold data of Watts with the teaching of Breed. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for accurately actuate an airbag deployment system depending on the classification of an occupant (Breed; 1012).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley (US 20130027065 A1) in view of Watts (US 20060226641 A1), Stanley (US 20030083795 A1), and Young (US 7138907 B2), and in further view of Kaku (US20140183918 A1) and Wanami (US20060075834 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Young teaches (Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein one of the at least one occupant classification sensors is positioned on the support structure (Young, col. 2, lines 47-52; “the mat 14 includes a plurality of sensor assemblies 20 (20a, 20b, 20c, and 20d) which detect the presence of an occupant seated on the seat. The sensor assemblies 20 include movably mounted members which detect displacement therebetween caused by the weight of occupant seated on the cushion 12.”) proximately to a pan region of a base portion of the vehicle seat, and wherein at least one other of the at least one occupant classification sensors is positioned (Young, col. 2, lines 47-52; “the mat 14 includes a plurality of sensor assemblies 20 (20a, 20b, 20c, and 20d) which detect the presence of an occupant seated on the seat. The sensor assemblies 20 include movably mounted members which detect displacement therebetween caused by the weight of occupant seated on the cushion 12.”) proximately to a spring region of the base portion of the vehicle seat.
Young does not explicitly teach proximately to a pan region of a base portion of the vehicle seat, and
proximately to a spring region of the base portion of the vehicle seat.
However, Kaku, in the same field of endeavor (Kaku, at least one para. 0118 and FIG. 1; “a car seat 1 as an example of a vehicle seat is configured such that a height of a seat bottom for an occupant to sit thereon is adjustable”) teaches proximately to a pan region of a base portion of the vehicle seat (Kaku, at least one para. 0120 and FIG. 1; “The seat bottom frame 3 mainly includes substantially sheet-like left and right side frames 30 which constitute left and right frames of the seat bottom, and a pan frame 39 which connects the front portions of the left and right side frames 30”) and (Kaku, at least one para. 0140 and FIG. 1; “the seat springs 4 are members configured to support an occupant sitting on the seat bottom, and disposed between the left and right side frames 30”), and
proximately to a spring region of the base portion of the vehicle seat (Kaku, at least one para. 0120 and FIG. 1; “The seat bottom frame 3 mainly includes substantially sheet-like left and right side frames 30 which constitute left and right frames of the seat bottom, and a pan frame 39 which connects the front portions of the left and right side frames 30”) and (Kaku, at least one para. 0140 and FIG. 1; “the seat springs 4 are members configured to support an occupant sitting on the seat bottom, and disposed between the left and right side frames 30”).
Young and Kaku are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of vehicular seat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the vehicular seat of Kaku with the teaching of Young. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 16-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley (US 20130027065 A1) in view of Watts (US 20060226641 A1), Stanley (US 20030083795 A1), and Wanami (US20060075834 A1), and in further view of Kaku (US20140183918 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Watts teaches (Previously Presented) The system according to claim 15, wherein the front region corresponds to a pan region of a vehicle seat base (Watts, at least one para. 0020 and FIG. 1; “The system 10 includes a seat 12 having a seat bottom 14 and a seat back 16”).
Watts does not explicitly teach wherein the front region corresponds to a pan region of a vehicle seat base.
However, Kaku, in the same field of endeavor (Kaku, at least one para. 0118 and FIG. 1; “a car seat 1 as an example of a vehicle seat is configured such that a height of a seat bottom for an occupant to sit thereon is adjustable”) teaches wherein the front region corresponds to a pan region of a vehicle seat base (Kaku, at least one para. 0120 and FIG. 1; “The seat bottom frame 3 mainly includes substantially sheet-like left and right side frames 30 which constitute left and right frames of the seat bottom, and a pan frame 39 which connects the front portions of the left and right side frames 30”).
Watts and Kaku are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of vehicular seat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicular seat base of Watts with the teaching of Kaku. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to connect the front portion of the left and right side frame. (Kaku, at least one para. 120). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
Regarding claim 17, Watts teaches (Previously Presented) The system according to claim 15, wherein the rear region corresponds to a springs region of a vehicle seat base (at least one para. 0020 and FIG. 1; “The system 10 includes a seat 12 having a seat bottom 14 and a seat back 16”).
Watts does not explicitly teach wherein the rear region corresponds to a springs region of a vehicle seat base.
Kaku, in the same field of endeavor (Kaku, at least one para. 0118 and FIG. 1; “a car seat 1 as an example of a vehicle seat is configured such that a height of a seat bottom for an occupant to sit thereon is adjustable”) teaches wherein the rear region corresponds to a springs region of a vehicle seat base (Kaku, at least one para. 0140 and FIG. 1; “the seat springs 4 are members configured to support an occupant sitting on the seat bottom, and disposed between the left and right side frames 30 (main body portions 30A thereof)”).
Watts and Kaku are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of vehicular seat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicular seat base of Watts with the teaching of Kaku. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the comfort of the occupant sitting on the seat. (Kaku, at least one para. 186). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley (US 20130027065 A1) in view of Watts (US 20060226641 A1), Stanley (US 20030083795 A1), and Wanami (US20060075834 A1), and in further view of Kaneko (US10365171 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Stanley 065 teaches (Previously Presented) The system according to Claim 15, wherein the elastomeric spacers (Stanley 065, at least one para. 0016 and FIG. 3; “any compressible material for the spacer between the sensor and the shield (e.g., non-woven felts, woven materials, foams, materials used to allow air flow for forced air climate control seats, or any other material that will significantly compress at pressures under 1 psi)”) have a hardness measurement in the range of 35 durometers to 45 durometers.
Stanley 065 does not explicitly teach a hardness measurement in the range of 35 durometers to 45 durometers.
However, Kaneko, in the same field of endeavor (Kanko, col. 1, line 5-12; “The present invention relates to a capacitive sensor sheet, and particularly to a capacitive sensor sheet which is used for measuring at least one of an amount of strain due to elastic deformation and a distribution of strain due to elastic deformation, and a capacitive sensor using the capacitive sensor sheet”) teaches a hardness measurement in the range of 35 durometers to 45 durometers (Kanko, col 8, line 36-40; “Hardness of the dielectric layer is preferably 0 to 30° in terms of the hardness (JIS A hardness) using a type A durometer according to JIS K 6253, or 10 to 55° in terms of the hardness (JIS C hardness) using a type C durometer according to JIS K 7321”).
Stanley 065 and Kaneko are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of classifying an occupant in a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the elastomeric spacers of Stanley 065 with the teaching of Kaneko. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the elastomeric spacers do not interfere with the deformation of the electrodes (Kanko, col 8, line 25-35).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UPUL P CHANDRASIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-5823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30 am to 5pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/U.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights