DETAILED ACTION
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1,3,7,8,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghandi et al. U.S. 2020/0247274 in view of Gao 10,576,859.
Regarding claims 1 and 8 Ghandi ‘274 shows in figures 1,4,6,7 one of applicant’s prior seat vibration isolation systems (with which they are well familiar) including a system for adjusting vibration isolation for a vehicle seat including:
A seat cushion 174,175 and a shape memory material member180; the seat cushion being capable of directly supported on the shape memory material member 180 (see paras 0038-0040) and figures 1-4; a first sensor (any of sensors 130) configured to acquire sensor data about at least one of a weight of an occupant of the vehicle seat, road vibration, and seat base vibration; a processor 110 operatively connected to the first sensor; the processor being configured to selectively vary a stiffness of the shape memory material member by controlling a temperature of the shape memory material member (see para 0070) based on a weight of an occupant of the vehicle seat, road vibration, or seat base vibration.
Lacking in Gandhi is a specific description of using a temperature sensor to sense the temperature of the shape memory material members 180.
However such a sensor is believed to be inherent in the system from the discussion in para 0070.
Nevertheless the reference to Gao shows a similar vibration isolation system for a seat cushion using shape memory material actuators 130,138 (see col 7 lines 39-44) that uses temperature sensors to sense the temperature of the actuators (see col 41 lines 40-65 and claim 7).
Also Gao shows in figures 2 and 3 that the seat cushion 150,152 can be directly supported on the shape memory material members 130. This is also alluded to in Ghandi in paras 0038-0040, as discussed above.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would realize that the seat vibration isolation system of Ghandi inherently has some type of temperature sensor(s) to sense the temperature of the shape memory material actuators 180, as taught by Gao, for the purpose of changing the temperature and therefore the shape of the actuators and consequently portions of the seat 174,175 for improvements of driver comfort as the vehicle changes orientations, for instance when navigating a curve at high speed.
Regarding claim 3 note the power source 140 and processors 110 in figure 1 of Ghandi ‘274.
Regarding claims 7,10 see the discussion throughout the document, specifically para 0069.
Claim(s) 4,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghandi/Gao as applied to claim 1,8 above, and further in view of Shaffer 10,299,520.
Regarding claims 4,11 Ghandi, as modified above by Gao, includes using a temperature sensor to acquire the temperature of the SMA members.
However lacking in Ghandi is a specific description of comparing the current temperature of the shape memory material member to a target temperature for the shape memory material member to achieve a target stiffness profile for the shape memory material member; and when the current temperature of the shape memory material member is different than the target temperature for the shape memory material member, causing the supply of electrical energy to the shape memory material member to be adjusted.
The reference to Shaffer discloses a fabric-based item that may adapt to and adjust the biometric state of an individual that is wearing or touching the fabric-based item. The fabric-based item may be a cover for a seat in a vehicle (see the abstract). As stated in col 10:
Fabric 10 may be used to form a cushion that can be moved between one or more pieces of furniture, a cushion that is formed as part of a chair, sofa, or other seating, a cushion that is built into a seat in a car The fabric at 10 incorporates a wire mesh which incorporates SMA elements. See col 5 lines 10- 12 and col 6 lines 40-58.
Shaffer therefore indicates that the shape memory material members may come into direct contact with the fabric (or other) material of the seat cushion.
Also Note however the sensors at 14 in Shaffer may be temperature sensors (col 4 lines 10+. )Note the control circuitry at 12. As stated in col 8 lines 35-40 of Shaffer:
"..In another embodiment, control circuitry 12 may heat, cool, vibrate, or otherwise activate certain nodes when sensors or other devices gather input indicating that those particular nodes should be activated. As an example, a cushion may be heated, cooled, or vibrated only where sensors 12 detect the presence of a user's body or detect the presence of a temperature rise change that exceeds a predetermined threshold.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have further modified Ghandi, as taught by Shaffer, to include a temperature sensor that can sense the body temperature of the vehicle driver (i.e. real-time condition) change the stiffness of the SMA wires based upon a temperature of the occupant exceeding a predetermined threshold/target value simply to improve the comfort of the occupant
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghandi U.S. 2020/0307416 in view of Citro 10,724,595.
Regarding claim 14 it is believed that Ghandi meets the claimed limitations. For instance in para 0058 Ghandi states:
[0058] The wire(s) can be made of any suitable shape memory material, now known or later developed. Different materials can be used to achieve various balances, characteristics, properties, and/or qualities. As an example, an SMA wire can include nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti, or nitinol).
One example of a nickel-titanium shape memory alloy is FLEXINOL, which is available from Dynaolloy, Inc., irvine, Calif.
Since this material is the same as applicant's, as per their discussion in para 0065 of their specification (see the U.S. Pub 20230136197), the limitation of " one or more super elastic wires exhibiting superelasticity and quasi- zero stiffness.." is capable of being met by Ghandi since essentially the same material is used/can be used for the SMA wires.
Nevertheless the reference to Citro shows a shock absorbing device that can be used in vehicle seats (col 5 lines 54-58). As shown in figures 1,1A,2,3 this device can use super-elastic wires 11,12 made of Nitinol (col 5 lines 27-36).
Based upon the disclosure in Ghandi one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used super-elastic wires for the SMA'S, as taught by Cltro, simply as the obvious choice of using one well known type of SMA over another based upon such well known design/engineering factors as performance, costs, and availability etc.
Regarding claim 15, as broadly claimed, these limitations are capable of being met.
Regarding claim 16 it would have been obvious to have operatively connected the superelastic wires of Ghandi, as modified above, in tension to one or more structures simply as a matter of desired comfort characteristics for the vehicle driver.
Regarding claim 17 to have arranged the wires of Ghandi, as modified above by Citro at 11,12, in a plurality of rows would have been obvious as an obvious duplication of parts but also to meet the requirements as discussed above.
Regarding claims 18,19 as previously explained and as readily apparent from the drawings, these limitations are met, as broadly claimed.
Regarding claim 20 in view of figures 2-4B of Ghandi these limitations are capable of being met. Note the seat pan at 220.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,3,4,7,8,10,11,14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
8/30/26
Prosecution Insights