DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an amendment/arguments filed on 9/15/2025 which was in response to the office action mailed on 6/23/2025 (hereinafter the prior office action).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20-23 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are independent.
Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new Claim Objections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 9/15/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in Pg. 8 in “Remarks” that none of the prior arts of record teach the newly amended limitation of moving each seat using an electronically-controlled rail system capable of individually moving each seat in the seating arrangement in any direction.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Botea teaches moving each seat according to the movement differential. This is because Botea discloses in Para. 83, 86 that each seat is moved as per calculation. Breed further teaches using an electronically-controlled rail system capable of individually moving each seat in the seating arrangement in any direction. This is because Breed discloses in Para. 183 that seat moves on slide mechanism and moved by motor, i.e. electronically-controlled rail system; further, Breed discloses in Para. 183 that longitudinal, vertical and/or angular positions of seat can be controlled, where the rest of the directions have been taught by Botea as outlined above; further, Breed discloses in Para. 646 that seat is adjusted automatically, where base of seat is moved by motors.
Applicant further states in Pg. 9 in “Remarks” that none of the prior arts of record teach the newly amended limitation of generating a model of the seating arrangement that minimizes the identified obstruction by updating a placement one or more seats in the seating arrangement from an original position to a new position.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Botea teaches generating a model of the seating arrangement that minimizes the identified obstruction by updating a placement one or more seats in the seating arrangement from an original position to a new position. This is because Botea discloses in Para. 76 that modeling is used to optimize, i.e. minimize; further Botea discloses in Para. 87-90, Fig. 8 that optimizing includes updating placement of seats from an original position to a new position.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 now recite “by updating a placement one”, and it should be “by updating a placement of one”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botea et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0311311) (hereinafter “Botea”) in view of Zamer (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0193407) (hereinafter “Zamer”) and further in view of Breed et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0120347) (hereinafter “Breed”).
Regarding claim 1, Botea teaches a processor-implemented method, the method comprising: identifying a seating arrangement of a venue; (Para. 17 - - theater/cinema, i.e. venue; Para. 71 - - seating arrangement data is acquired using stored or real-time sources)
…generating a model of the seating arrangement that minimizes the identified obstruction by updating a placement one or more seats in the seating arrangement from an original position to a new position; (Para. 76 - - modeling is used to optimize, i.e. minimize; Para. 87-90, Fig. 8 - - optimizing includes updating placement of seats from an original position to a new position)
calculating a movement differential for the user seat and the one or more seats adjacent to the user seat in the identified seating arrangement to replicate the generated model; (Para. 60 - - movement required to optimize seating arrangement is calculated; Para. 83 - - seats can be moved forward, backward and laterally, i.e. axes except upward and downward; Fig. 7 - - seats are adjacent to each other)
and moving each seat,…according to the movement differential. (Para. 83, 86 - - each seat is moved as per calculation)
But Botea does not explicitly teach identifying an obstruction of a view of a user seated in a seat to a presentation area created by one or more viewers seated in one or more seats adjacent to the user’s seat within the venue, wherein the identifying is performed by one or more ultrasound scanning modules in the one or more seats and the user seat;
using an electronically-controlled rail system capable of individually moving each seat in the seating arrangement in any direction,
However, Zamer teaches identifying an obstruction of a view of a user seated in a seat to a presentation area created by one or more viewers seated in one or more seats adjacent to the user’s seat within the venue, (Para. 41, 48 - - obstruction are identified within seating arrangement; where adjacent seats has been taught by Botea above)
Botea and Zamer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain optimizing or improving seating arrangements.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Botea, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Zamer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide an unobstructed view of the viewing area, as suggested by Zamer (Para. 49).
But the combination of Botea and Zamer does not explicitly teach wherein the identifying is performed by one or more ultrasound scanning modules in the one or more seats and the user seat;
using an electronically-controlled rail system capable of individually moving each seat in the seating arrangement in any direction,
However, Breed teaches wherein the identifying is performed by one or more ultrasound scanning modules in the one or more seats and the user seat; (Para. 646 - - ultrasonic transmitters are in the seat)
using an electronically-controlled rail system capable of individually moving each seat in the seating arrangement in any direction, (Para. 183 - - seat moves on slide mechanism and moved by motor, i.e. electronically-controlled rail system; Para. 183 - - longitudinal, vertical and/or angular positions of seat can be controlled, where the rest of the directions have been taught by Botea as outlined above; Para. 646 - - seat is adjusted automatically, where base of seat is moved by motors)
Botea, Zamer and Breed are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They contain optimizing or improving seating arrangements.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by the combination of Botea and Zamer, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Breed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to adjust vehicular components based on morphological characteristics of the occupant of a seat, as suggested by Breed (Para. 36).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein the three-dimensional movement differential is a distance and direction by which each seat in the one or more seats is moved. (Para. 60 - - amount of movement, i.e. distance, is used; Para. 83, 86 - - direction of movement, such as forward, backward, lateral, is used)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein identifying a seating arrangement of the venue further comprises: identifying an origin point within the venue; and identifying each seat location in the seating arrangement as a distance and direction from the identified origin point. (Para. 70 - - location of seating is used in relation to a point of interest, i.e. distance and direction with respect to the origin point)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein the obstruction is further identified by one or more…devices embedded within each seat in the seating arrangement. (Para. 16 - - embedded sensors are used)
Zamer further teaches one or more photographic capture devices (Para. 16 - - camera can be used)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide an unobstructed view of the viewing area, as suggested by Zamer (Para. 49).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein each seat in the seating arrangement capable of lateral movement, longitudinal movement, axial movement, height adjustment, reclining, or a combination thereof. (Para. 83, 86 - - direction of movement, such as forward, backward, lateral, is used)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Zamer further teaches wherein the obstruction is identified by one or more wearable devices worn by a viewer in the venue. (Para. 15 - - wearable device is used)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide an unobstructed view of the viewing area, as suggested by Zamer (Para. 49).
Regarding claim 8, Botea teaches a computer system, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method (Fig. 1 - - computer system is used to perform method)
comprising: identifying a seating arrangement of a venue; (Para. 17 - - theater/cinema, i.e. venue; Para. 71 - - seating arrangement data is acquired using stored or real-time sources)
…generating a model of the seating arrangement that minimizes the identified obstruction by updating a placement one or more seats in the seating arrangement from an original position to a new position; (Para. 76 - - modeling is used to optimize, i.e. minimize; Para. 87-90, Fig. 8 - - optimizing includes updating placement of seats from an original position to a new position)
calculating a movement differential…for the user seat and the one or more seats adjacent to the user seat in the identified seating arrangement to replicate the generated model; (Para. 60 - - movement required to optimize seating arrangement is calculated; Para. 83 - - seats can be moved forward, backward and laterally, i.e. axes except upward and downward; Fig. 7 - - seats are adjacent to each other)
and moving each seat,…according to the movement differential. (Para. 83, 86 - - each seat is moved as per calculation)
But Botea does not explicitly teach identifying an obstruction of a view of a user seated in a seat to a presentation area created by one or more viewers seated in one or more seats adjacent to the user’s seat within the venue, wherein the identifying is performed by one or more ultrasound scanning modules in the one or more seats and the user seat;
using an electronically-controlled rail system capable of individually moving each seat in the seating arrangement in any direction,
However, Zamer teaches identifying an obstruction of a view of a user seated in a seat to a presentation area created by one or more viewers seated in one or more seats adjacent to the user’s seat within the venue, (Para. 41, 48 - - obstruction are identified within seating arrangement; where adjacent seats has been taught by Botea above)
Botea and Zamer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain optimizing or improving seating arrangements.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Botea, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Zamer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide an unobstructed view of the viewing area, as suggested by Zamer (Para. 49).
But the combination of Botea and Zamer does not explicitly teach wherein the identifying is performed by one or more ultrasound scanning modules in the one or more seats and the user seat;
using an electronically-controlled rail system capable of individually moving each seat in the seating arrangement in any direction,
However, Breed teaches wherein the identifying is performed by one or more ultrasound scanning modules in the one or more seats and the user seat; (Para. 646 - - ultrasonic transmitters are in the seat)
using an electronically-controlled rail system capable of individually moving each seat in the seating arrangement in any direction, (Para. 183 - - seat moves on slide mechanism and moved by motor, i.e. electronically-controlled rail system; Para. 183 - - longitudinal, vertical and/or angular positions of seat can be controlled, where the rest of the directions have been taught by Botea as outlined above; Para. 646 - - seat is adjusted automatically, where base of seat is moved by motors)
Botea, Zamer and Breed are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They contain optimizing or improving seating arrangements.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by the combination of Botea and Zamer, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Breed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to adjust vehicular components based on morphological characteristics of the occupant of a seat, as suggested by Breed (Para. 36).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein the movement differential is a distance and direction by which each seat in the one ore more seats is moved. (Para. 60 - - amount of movement, i.e. distance, is used; Para. 83, 86 - - direction of movement, such as forward, backward, lateral, is used)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein identifying a seating arrangement of the venue further comprises: identifying an origin point within the venue; and identifying each seat location in the seating arrangement as a distance and direction from the identified origin point. (Para. 70 - - location of seating is used in relation to a point of interest, i.e. distance and direction with respect to the origin point)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein the obstruction is further identified by one or more…devices embedded within each seat in the seating arrangement. (Para. 16 - - embedded sensors are used)
Zamer further teaches one or more photographic capture devices (Para. 16 - - camera can be used)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide an unobstructed view of the viewing area, as suggested by Zamer (Para. 49).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein each seat in the seating arrangement capable of lateral movement, longitudinal movement, axial movement, height adjustment, reclining, or a combination thereof. (Para. 83, 86 - - direction of movement, such as forward, backward, lateral, is used)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Zamer further teaches wherein the obstruction is identified by one or more wearable devices worn by a viewer in the venue. (Para. 15 - - wearable device is used)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide an unobstructed view of the viewing area, as suggested by Zamer (Para. 49).
Regarding claim 15, Botea teaches a computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor capable of performing a method, (Fig. 1 - - computer system used to perform method)
the method comprising: identifying a seating arrangement of a venue; (Para. 17 - - theater/cinema, i.e. venue; Para. 71 - - seating arrangement data is acquired using stored or real-time sources)
…generating a model of the seating arrangement that minimizes the identified obstruction by updating a placement one or more seats in the seating arrangement from an original position to a new position; (Para. 76 - - modeling is used to optimize, i.e. minimize; Para. 87-90, Fig. 8 - - optimizing includes updating placement of seats from an original position to a new position)
calculating a movement differential…for the user seat and the one or more seats adjacent to the user seat in the identified seating arrangement to replicate the generated model; (Para. 60 - - movement required to optimize seating arrangement is calculated; Para. 83 - - seats can be moved forward, backward and laterally, i.e. axes except upward and downward; Fig. 7 - - seats are adjacent to each other)
and moving each seat,…according to the movement differential. (Para. 83, 86 - - each seat is moved as per calculation)
But Botea does not explicitly teach identifying an obstruction of a view of a user seated in a seat to a presentation area created by one or more viewers seated in one or more seats adjacent to the user’s seat within the venue, wherein the identifying is performed by one or more ultrasound scanning modules in the one or more seats and the user seat;
using an electronically-controlled rail system capable of individually moving each seat in the seating arrangement in any direction,
However, Zamer teaches identifying an obstruction of a view of a user seated in a seat to a presentation area created by one or more viewers seated in one or more seats adjacent to the user’s seat within the venue; (Para. 41, 48 - - obstruction are identified within seating arrangement; where adjacent seats has been taught by Botea above)
Botea and Zamer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain optimizing or improving seating arrangements.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Botea, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Zamer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide an unobstructed view of the viewing area, as suggested by Zamer (Para. 49).
But the combination of Botea and Zamer does not explicitly teach wherein the identifying is performed by one or more ultrasound scanning modules in the one or more seats and the user seat;
using an electronically-controlled rail system capable of individually moving each seat in the seating arrangement in any direction,
However, Breed teaches wherein the identifying is performed by one or more ultrasound scanning modules in the one or more seats and the user seat; (Para. 646 - - ultrasonic transmitters are in the seat)
using an electronically-controlled rail system capable of individually moving each seat in the seating arrangement in any direction, (Para. 183 - - seat moves on slide mechanism and moved by motor, i.e. electronically-controlled rail system; Para. 183 - - longitudinal, vertical and/or angular positions of seat can be controlled, where the rest of the directions have been taught by Botea as outlined above; Para. 646 - - seat is adjusted automatically, where base of seat is moved by motors)
Botea, Zamer and Breed are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They contain optimizing or improving seating arrangements.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by the combination of Botea and Zamer, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Breed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to adjust vehicular components based on morphological characteristics of the occupant of a seat, as suggested by Breed (Para. 36).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein the movement differential is a distance and direction by which each seat in the one or more seats is moved. (Para. 60 - - amount of movement, i.e. distance, is used; Para. 83, 86 - - direction of movement, such as forward, backward, lateral, is used)
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein identifying a seating arrangement of the venue further comprises: identifying an origin point within the venue; and identifying each seat location in the seating arrangement as a distance and direction from the identified origin point. (Para. 70 - - location of seating is used in relation to a point of interest, i.e. distance and direction with respect to the origin point)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein the obstruction is further identified by one or more…devices embedded within each seat in the seating arrangement. (Para. 16 - - embedded sensors are used)
Zamer further teaches one or more photographic capture devices (Para. 16 - - camera can be used)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide an unobstructed view of the viewing area, as suggested by Zamer (Para. 49).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein each seat in the seating arrangement capable of lateral movement, longitudinal movement, axial movement, height adjustment, reclining, or a combination thereof. (Para. 83, 86 - - direction of movement, such as forward, backward, lateral, is used)
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein the model is a…model of the seating arrangement of the venue (Para. 76 - - modeling is used to optimize, i.e. minimize or eliminate)
Zamer teaches that replicates which viewers within the one or more viewers and/or the user have an obstacle impeding a line-of-sight to a portion of the presentation area. (Para. 41, 48 - - obstruction are identified within seating arrangement; where adjacent seats has been taught by Botea above)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide an unobstructed view of the viewing area, as suggested by Zamer (Para. 49).
Breed teaches three-dimensional (Para. 183 - - vertical position of seat can be controlled, i.e. upward and downward, where the other two axes has been taught by Botea as outlined above)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to adjust vehicular components based on morphological characteristics of the occupant of a seat, as suggested by Breed (Para. 36).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein the model is a…model of the seating arrangement of the venue (Para. 76 - - modeling is used to optimize, i.e. minimize or eliminate)
Zamer teaches that replicates which viewers within the one or more viewers and/or the user have an obstacle impeding a line-of-sight to a portion of the presentation area. (Para. 41, 48 - - obstruction are identified within seating arrangement; where adjacent seats has been taught by Botea above)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide an unobstructed view of the viewing area, as suggested by Zamer (Para. 49).
Breed teaches three-dimensional (Para. 183 - - vertical position of seat can be controlled, i.e. upward and downward, where the other two axes has been taught by Botea as outlined above)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to adjust vehicular components based on morphological characteristics of the occupant of a seat, as suggested by Breed (Para. 36).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Botea, Zamer and Breed teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Botea further teaches wherein the model is a…model of the seating arrangement of the venue (Para. 76 - - modeling is used to optimize, i.e. minimize or eliminate)
Zamer teaches that replicates which viewers within the one or more viewers and/or the user have an obstacle impeding a line-of-sight to a portion of the presentation area. (Para. 41, 48 - - obstruction are identified within seating arrangement; where adjacent seats has been taught by Botea above)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide an unobstructed view of the viewing area, as suggested by Zamer (Para. 49).
Breed teaches three-dimensional (Para. 183 - - vertical position of seat can be controlled, i.e. upward and downward, where the other two axes has been taught by Botea as outlined above)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to adjust vehicular components based on morphological characteristics of the occupant of a seat, as suggested by Breed (Para. 36).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights