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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 11/14/2025.
Claims 1-18 are pending for examination.
Regarding the objection(s) to claims, the examiner finds applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) acceptable and withdraws objection(s) to the amended claim(s).
Regarding the Means plus function invocation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), the examiner has maintained the interpretation of the operator presence detection device of claim 1 as a sensor. Claim 5 further specifies a switch, a specific kind of sensor, however amending the interpretation to a switch based solely on claim 5 would result in the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), as the change to scope would be unclear. Therefore the examiner will maintain the original interpretation based on the specification, and treat claim as further narrowing the scope of the claim, and therefore definite.
Regarding the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C §112(b), applicant’s arguments are persuasive in view of applicant’s amendment to the claim(s) and the claim interpretation of the operator presence detection device as outlined above, therefore the rejections are now withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C §103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. In the remarks, applicant argued the following points. The examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons outlined below each point.
“The Examiner combines Frye with Pinckney, relying on Pinckney's motivation to "determines if anyone is in the car" for safety ([0005]) to trigger Frye's seat adjustment upon absence (OA, pp. 15-28).
The combination does not render the claims obvious. First, there is no teaching
or suggestion in the prior art to combine Frye's comfort-focused seat adjustment (during occupancy) with Pinckney's lockout prevention (upon absence). Frye's adjustments are explicitly for ergonomic optimization while the operator is present and seated, not for facilitating ingress when absent (Frye, [0049], [0051]; see also OA response to arguments, p. 5). Pinckney's absence detection triggers unrelated functions (door unlocking/alarm) to address lockout risks in passenger cars, not seat movement (Pinckney, [0004]-[0005]). The Examiner's motivation-"preventing keys from being locked in a car" and determining occupancy (OA, p. 18)-does not suggest modifying Frye's system to adjust the seat to a position facilitating ingress (e.g., fully aft, as in claim 4). Such a combination requires hindsight, using Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap to link disparate problems (comfort during use vs. lockout prevention). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).”, (Remarks, pages 12-13)
Regarding point a, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Frye with the features taught by Pinckney because “…Multiple systems for preventing keys from being locked in a car… do not, however, determine a number of things, such as whether the doors are locked, the occupant is in the car and the keys are anywhere in the car. Additional safety features, such as whether a driver is located in the automobile or if the transmission is out of park or neutral, are not included” (Pinckney, ¶[0004]-¶[0005]) and “It would be desirable to have a system that determines if anyone is in the car” (Pinckney, ¶[0005]). The motivation to combine the prior art may be the same or different from the applicant’s reasons for combining the features; there is no requirement that the motivations to combine such features be the same as applicant. Further applicant’s recitation of seat or suspension adjustment or movement to facilitate ingress/egress is merely intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim, as shown in the mapping for dependent claim 4.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As Frye discloses the functional elements of the seat adjustment and Pinckney teaches performing a vehicles function based on detecting an absence of a vehicle operator using a sensor in the vehicle seat, the invention as a whole is obvious. See rejection under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 for mapping details.
“Second, the claimed "desired value for facilitating operator ingress" distinguishes over Frye's "rearward-most location," which is part of an ergonomic comfort curve for seated operators (Frye, [0049], FIG. 9), not a non-ergonomic position for ingress when an operator is absent. The Examiner treats this as intended use (OA, p. 17), but the claims require structural and functional differences: adjustment triggered by absence to a position optimizing accessibility (spec., para. 31; FIG. 1). Frye's system is incapable of this, as it operates for comfort, not ingress preparation. Pinckney adds no seat adjustment teaching.”, (Remarks, page 13)
Regarding point b, in response to applicant's argument that the identified features above are not used for ingress/egress, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further, Frye discloses the elements in use of adjusting a vehicle seat. See rejection under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 for mapping details. Further see claim 4 where the positions are the same. Finally, optimizing accessibility is form of ergonomic comfort.
“Third, the claimed operator presence detection device (e.g., pressure sensor or switch integrated into the seat suspension, claim 5) is not taught. Pinckney's weight sensor is in the seat for lockout detection, not suspension-integrated for working vehicle seats (Pinckney, [0028]). The invention targets working vehicles (e.g., tractors, loaders) where high seats make ingress challenging, and suspension integration ensures reliable detection under vibration (spec., para. 0025). Neither reference addresses this context; Frye and Pinckney are for passenger vehicles.”, (Remarks, pages 13-14)
Regarding point c, Pinckney teaches a sensor for detecting an occupant’s presence, as recited in the claims. The claims do not require the sensor be integrated into a working vehicle and even if they specified a working vehicle, the broadest reasonable interpretation of such would include a passenger vehicle, as they perform work. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, the purpose of detecting the occupant is intended use; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
“Dependent claims further distinguish: e.g., timer delay/reset (claims 10-13, 16) in Pinckney is for lockout confirmation, not seat adjustment delay; input device for ingress positions (claims 6-9) differs from Frye's comfort settings.
The combination lacks motivation beyond hindsight and does not teach all elements. Withdrawal is requested.”, (Remarks, page 14)
Regarding point d, in response to applicant's argument that the timer is not for operator ingress/egress, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further, the claimed invention also performs the seat adjustment for comfort of the operator. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained, with any changes necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
The following limitations recite a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without a structural modifier:
“the operator presence detection device measures an absence of an operator” recited in claim(s) 1, 17, “the operator presence device measures the presence of an operator prior to expiration of the time value” recited in claim 13, and “the operator presence detection device communicates the measured value to the seat and component adjustment controller” in claim(s) 1.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take the operator presence detection device as a sensor on the vehicle seat based on FIG. 1, and page 3 of the specification.
“the seat and component detection device measures a current value of at least one of the fore-aft position of the seat or the height position of the seat” and “the seat and component detection device measures a value for the current position for at least one of the fore- aft position or height position of the seat” recited in claim(s) 1, 17.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take the seat and component detection device as a vehicle position sensor based on FIG. 1 and pages 3-4 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 17 should read —An operator presence detection device integrated into the vehicle seat ;—.
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, 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Frye et al. (US 20160280098 A1) in view of Pinckney, SR. (US 20060158322 A1), henceforth known as Frye and Pinckney, respectively.
Frye and Pinckney were first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, Frye discloses:
A system for controlling the position of a vehicle seat, comprising: a vehicle seat, […], a seat and component position detection device, a seat and component adjustment controller, and at least one controllable actuator, all constructed and configured in network communication;
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; ¶[0046]: vehicle seat 10, position-sensor unit 36, controller 42, actuators 44, 46, 78; ¶[0047]; ¶[0059];
Where the vehicle system includes vehicle seat 10 (A system for controlling the position of a vehicle seat, comprising: a vehicle seat), position sensor unit 36 (a seat and component position detection device), controller 42 (a seat and component adjustment controller), and actuators 44, 46, 78 (and at least one controllable actuator) wherein the position sensor unit and actuators on the vehicle seat are coupled to the controller (all constructed and configured in network communication))
[…]
wherein the seat and component position detection device measures a current position value of at least one of the fore-aft position of the vehicle seat or the height position of the vehicle seat;
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; ¶[0046];
Where the position-sensor unit 36 (wherein the seat and component position detection device) measures the longitudinal position of the vehicle seat (measures a current position value of at least one of the fore-aft position of the vehicle seat) and the vertical position of the vehicle seat (or the height position of the vehicle seat))
further wherein the seat and component position detection device communicates the current measured position value to the seat and component adjustment controller;
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; ¶[0046]; ¶[0059];
Where the position-sensor unit 36 (further wherein the seat and component position detection device) sends vehicle seat data to controller 42 (communicates the current measured position value to the seat and component adjustment controller))
[…]
[…,] the seat and component adjustment controller compares the current measured position value to a desired value for facilitating operator ingress and calculates a movement factor value;
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; FIG. 9; ¶0051]-¶[0054]; ¶[0049]: rearward-most location; ¶[0106]; ¶[0041];
Where controller 42 determines if the sensed vertical position matches the stored vertical position of the vehicle seat (the seat and component adjustment controller compares the current measured position value to a desired value for facilitating operator ingress) and calculates a predicted vertical position of the seat to a target zone (and calculates a movement factor value); regarding “facilitating operator ingress” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art- if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; see dependent claim 4 wherein the prior art teaches the required position for facilitating ingress)
wherein the seat and component adjustment controller and the at least one controllable actuator move the vehicle seat based on the movement factor to adjust the vehicle seat to the desired value for facilitating operator ingress.
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; FIG. 9; ¶0051]-¶[0054]; ¶[0049]: rearward-most location; ¶[0106]; ¶[0041];
Where controller 42 moves the vehicle seat using actuator 78 to the vertical seat target zone (the seat and component adjustment controller and the at least one controllable actuator move the vehicle seat based on the movement factor to adjust the vehicle seat to the desired value for facilitating operator ingress); regarding “facilitating operator ingress” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art- if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; see dependent claim 4 wherein the prior art teaches the required position for facilitating ingress).
Frye is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pinckney teaches:
A system for controlling… a vehicle…, comprising… an operator presence detection device… a seat and component adjustment controller… all constructed and configured in network communication;
(Pinckney, FIG. 1; ¶[0016]; ¶[0018]; ¶[0022];
Where vehicular system 10 (A system for controlling… a vehicle) includes occupant sensor 18 and driver detection sensor 20 (an operator presence detection device) and microprocessor 24 coupled to seat sensors (a seat and component adjustment controller) that receives signals from occupant sensor 18 ad driver detection sensor 20 (all constructed and configured in network communication))
wherein the operator presence detection device measures an absence value of an operator in the vehicle seat;
(Pinckney, FIG. 1; ¶[0016]; ¶[0018]; ¶[0022]; ¶[0028];
Where occupant sensor 18 and driver detection sensor 20 detect if there is a driver in the vehicle seat (wherein the operator presence detection device measures an absence value of an operator in the vehicle seat))
further wherein the operator presence detection device communicates the measured absence value to the seat and component adjustment controller;
(Pinckney, FIG. 1; ¶[0016]; ¶[0018]; ¶[0022]; ¶[0028];
Where occupant sensor 18 and driver detection sensor 20 detect if there is a driver in the vehicle seat and communicate the driver data to microprocessor 24 (further wherein the operator presence detection device communicates the measured absence value to the seat and component adjustment controller))
wherein the seat and component adjustment controller compares the measured absence value from the operator presence detection device to a set value to determine if an operator is present;
(Pinckney, FIG. 1; ¶[0016]; ¶[0018]; ¶[0022]; ¶[0028];
Where occupant sensor 18 and driver detection sensor 20 detect if there is a driver in the vehicle seat and communicate the driver data to microprocessor 24 wherein a driver is detected either by heat signature or weight (wherein the seat and component adjustment controller compares the measured absence value from the operator presence detection device to a set value to determine if an operator is present))
further wherein if the seat and component adjustment controller determines an operator is not present, the seat and component adjustment controller…;
(Pinckney, FIG. 1; ¶[0016]; ¶[0018]; ¶[0022]; ¶[0028]; ¶[0009];
Where microprocessor 24 determines an operator is absent from the vehicle (further wherein if the seat and component adjustment controller determines an operator is not present) and performs a vehicle function once a vehicle occupant is confirmed absent (the seat and component adjustment controller…)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Frye with the features taught by Pinckney because “…Multiple systems for preventing keys from being locked in a car… do not, however, determine a number of things, such as whether the doors are locked, the occupant is in the car and the keys are anywhere in the car. Additional safety features, such as whether a driver is located in the automobile or if the transmission is out of park or neutral, are not included” (Pinckney, ¶[0004]-¶[0005]) and “It would be desirable to have a system that determines if anyone is in the car” (Pinckney, ¶[0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Frye and Pinckney teach the system of claim 1. Frye further discloses:
further comprising a console.
(Frye, FIG. 2; ¶[0043];
Where remote interface 22, display 24, and release buttons 26, 30 constitute a console).
Regarding claim 3, Frye and Pinckney teach the system of claim 1. Frye further discloses:
wherein if the current measured position value is different than the desired value, the seat and component adjustment controller signals the at least one controllable actuator to adjust at least one of the fore-aft position or the height position of the vehicle seat to the desired value.
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; FIG. 9; ¶0051]-¶[0054];
Where if the sensed vertical position doesn’t match the stored vertical position of the vehicle seat (wherein if the current measured position value is different than the desired value) the controller 42 controls the actuator 78 (the seat and component adjustment controller signals the at least one controllable actuator) to adjust the seat height to the target zone (to adjust at least one of the fore-aft position or the height position of the vehicle seat to the desired value)).
Regarding claim 4, Frye and Pinckney teach the system of claim 3. Frye further discloses:
wherein the at least one controllable actuator moves the vehicle seat from a current position to a fully aft position.
(Frye, FIG. 1A; FIGs. 3-7; FIG. 9; ¶0051]-¶[0054]; ¶[0049]: rearward-most location; ¶[0106]; ¶[0041];
Where the controller uses actuators to return the vehicle seat to a rearward-most position (wherein the at least one controllable actuator moves the vehicle seat from a current position to a fully aft position)).
Regarding claim 6, Frye and Pinckney teach the system of claim 1. Frye further discloses:
further comprising: an input device.
(Frye, FIG. 2; ¶[0043];
Where remote interface 22, display 24, and release buttons 26, 30 are input devices).
Regarding claim 7, Frye and Pinckney teach the system of claim 6. Frye further discloses:
wherein the seat and component adjustment controller includes a memory operable to store a desired fore-aft seat position value or a seat height position value entered using the input device.
(Frye, FIG. 1; FIG. 1A; FIG. 2; ¶[0041]-¶[0043]; ¶[0051];
Where the user may use a touch screen or buttons connected to memory in the vehicle seat controller (wherein the seat and component adjustment controller includes a memory) to store various arrangements of the vehicle seat including a longitudinal position and a vertical position (operable to store a desired fore-aft seat position value or a seat height position value) where the positions may be user-set (entered using the input device)).
Regarding claim 8, Frye and Pinckney teach the system of claim 7. Frye further discloses:
wherein the desired fore-aft seat position value, or the desired seat height position value or both is preloaded into the memory.
(Frye, FIG. 1; FIG. 1A; FIG. 2; ¶[0041]: pre-stored seat positions; ¶[0051]:preset memory;
Where various arrangements of the vehicle seat including a longitudinal position and a vertical position are pre-stored in the memory (wherein the desired fore-aft seat position value, or the desired seat height position value or both is preloaded into the memory)).
Regarding claim 9, Frye and Pinckney teach the system of claim 7. Frye further discloses:
wherein the desired fore-aft seat position value or the desired seat height position value is set by the operator.
(Frye, FIG. 1; FIG. 1A; FIG. 2; ¶[0041]-¶[0043]; ¶[0051];
Where various arrangements of the vehicle seat including a longitudinal position and a vertical position are input by the user may use a touch screen or buttons connected to memory in the vehicle controller (wherein the desired fore-aft seat position value or the desired seat height position value is set by the operator)).
Regarding claim 10, Frye and Pinckney teach the system of claim 1. Pinckney further teaches:
further comprising: a timer.
(Pinckney, FIG. 3B; ¶[0023]-¶[0024]; ¶[0009];
Where vehicular system 10 includes timer 50 (further comprising: a timer)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Frye with the features taught by Pinckney for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Frye and Pinckney teach the system of claim 10. Pinckney further teaches:
wherein the timer has a time value of 0.1 to 10 seconds.
(Pinckney, FIG. 3B; ¶[0023]-¶[0024]; ¶[0009];
Where vehicular system 10 includes timer 50 that tracks two 5-second intervals, i.e. a total of ten seconds (wherein the timer has a time value of 0.1 to 10 seconds)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Frye with the features taught by Pinckney for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Frye and Pinckney teach the system of claim 11. Frye discloses wherein the seat and component adjustment controller only signals the at least one controllable actuator as outlined above in claim 1 (Frye, see at least FIGs. 3-7; FIG. 9; ¶0051]-¶[0054]). Pinckney further teaches:
wherein the seat and component adjustment controller only signals the at least one controllable actuator after expiration of the time value.
(Pinckney, FIG. 3B; ¶[0023]-¶[0024]; ¶[0009];
Where the microprocessor only send a signal to a door lock or an alarm or horn (wherein the seat and component adjustment controller only signals the at least one controllable actuator) after the occupant sensor determines that there are no occupants in the vehicle for 10 seconds (after expiration of the time value)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Frye with the features taught by Pinckney for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Frye and Pinckney teach the system of claim 12. Pinckney further teaches:
wherein the seat and component adjustment controller resets the timer if the operator presence detection device measures the presence of an operator prior to expiration of the time value.
(Pinckney, FIG. 3B; ¶[0023]-¶[0024]; ¶[0009];
Where the microprocessor resets the timer back to zero if the occupant detection sensor 18 detects the presence of an occupant (wherein the seat and component adjustment controller resets the timer if the operator presence detection device measures the presence of an operator) while timing the ten seconds (prior to expiration of the time value)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Frye with the features taught by Pinckney for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Frye discloses:
A method for adjusting a vehicle seat comprising the steps of:
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; ¶[0041]-¶[0043]; ¶[0093]: method;
Where the vehicle system adjusts the position of a vehicle seat 10)
[…]
determining a current vehicle seat position by determining at least one of the current fore-aft position or height position of the vehicle seat;
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; ¶[0046];
Where the position-sensor unit 36 measures the longitudinal position of the vehicle seat (determining a current vehicle seat position by determining at least one of the current fore-aft position) and the vertical position of the vehicle seat (or height position of the vehicle seat))
calculating a movement factor value […] based on a difference between the current vehicle seat position and a desired vehicle seat position for facilitating operator ingress;
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; FIG. 9; ¶0051]-¶[0054]; ¶[0049]: rearward-most location; ¶[0106]; ¶[0041];
Where controller 42 calculates a predicted vertical position of the seat to a target zone (calculating a movement factor value) if the sensed vertical position doesn’t match the stored vertical position of the vehicle seat (based on a difference between the current vehicle seat position and a desired vehicle seat position for facilitating operator ingress); regarding “facilitating operator ingress” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art- if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; see claim 4 wherein the prior art teaches the required position for facilitating ingress)
activating a controllable actuator to move the vehicle seat to the desired vehicle seat position facilitating operator ingress when the movement factor value indicates a difference between the current vehicle seat position and the desired seat position.
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; FIG. 9; ¶[0041]; ¶0051]-¶[0054]; ¶[0049]: rearward-most location; ¶[0106]; ¶[0041];
Where controller 42 controls the actuator 78 (activating a controllable actuator) to adjust the seat height to the target zone (to move the vehicle seat to the desired vehicle seat position facilitating operator ingress) if the sensed vertical position doesn’t match the stored vertical position of the vehicle seat (when the movement factor value indicates a difference between the current vehicle seat position and the desired seat position); regarding “facilitating operator ingress” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art- if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; see claim 4 wherein the prior art teaches the required position for facilitating ingress).
Frye is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pinckney teaches:
determining the absence of an operator in the vehicle seat;
(Pinckney, FIG. 1; ¶[0016]; ¶[0018]; ¶[0022]; ¶[0028];
Where occupant sensor 18 and driver detection sensor 20 detect if there is a driver in the vehicle seat (determining the absence of an operator in the vehicle seat))
calculating a… value when the operator is absent…;
(Pinckney, FIG. 3B; ¶[0023]-¶[0024]; ¶[0009];
Where vehicular system 10 starts a timer 50 when the sensor determines there is no occupant in the vehicle (calculating a… value when the operator is absent)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Frye with the features taught by Pinckney because “…Multiple systems for preventing keys from being locked in a car… do not, however, determine a number of things, such as whether the doors are locked, the occupant is in the car and the keys are anywhere in the car. Additional safety features, such as whether a driver is located in the automobile or if the transmission is out of park or neutral, are not included” (Pinckney, ¶[0004]-¶[0005]) and “It would be desirable to have a system that determines if anyone is in the car” (Pinckney, ¶[0005]).
Regarding claim 15, Frye and Pinckney teach the method of claim 14. Frye further discloses:
wherein the desired vehicle seat position is a full aft position.
(Frye, FIG. 1A; FIGs. 3-7; FIG. 9; ¶0051]-¶[0054]; ¶[0049]: rearward-most location; ¶[0106]; ¶[0041`];
Where the controller uses actuators to return the vehicle seat to a rearward-most position (wherein the desired vehicle seat position is a full aft position)).
Regarding claim 16, Frye and Pinckney teach the method of claim 14. Pinckney further teaches:
wherein the absence of the operator in the vehicle seat is determined after the expiration of a set timer value.
(Pinckney, FIG. 3B; ¶[0023]-¶[0024]; ¶[0009];
Where vehicular system 10 determines that there is no occupant in the vehicle (wherein the absence of the operator in the vehicle seat is determined) after detecting no occupant for a set timer 50 value of ten seconds (wherein the absence of the operator in the vehicle seat is determined after the expiration of a set timer value)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Frye with the features taught by Pinckney for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, Frye discloses:
A device for controlling the adjustment of a position of a vehicle seat comprising:
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; ¶[0041]-¶[0043]; ¶[0046]; ¶[0047]; ¶[0059];
Where the vehicle system adjusts the position of a vehicle seat 10)
a. […]
b. A seat and component position detection device; wherein the seat and component position detection device measures a current seat position value by measuring the current position of at least one of the fore-aft position or the height position of the vehicle seat;
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; ¶[0046];
Where the position-sensor unit 36 (A seat and component position detection device; wherein the seat and component position detection device) measures the longitudinal position of the vehicle seat (measures a current seat position value by measuring the current position of at least one of the fore-aft position) and the vertical position of the vehicle seat (or the height position of the vehicle seat))
c. A seat and component adjustment controller operably connected to […] the seat and component position detection device, wherein the seat and component adjustment controller is configured for receiving and processing information from […] the seat and component detection device; and
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; ¶[0046]: vehicle seat 10, position-sensor unit 36, controller 42; ¶[0046]; ¶[0047]; ¶[0059];
Where controller 42 is coupled to position-sensor unit 36 (A seat and component adjustment controller operably connected to […] the seat and component position detection device) wherein controller 42 receives vehicle seat data from position sensor unit 36 (wherein the seat and component adjustment controller is configured for receiving and processing information from […] the seat and component detection device))
wherein[…] the seat and component adjustment controller:
i. compares the current seat position value to a desired seat position value facilitating operator ingress;
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; FIG. 9; ¶0051]-¶[0054]; ¶[0049]: rearward-most location; ¶[0106]; ¶[0041];
Where controller 42 determines if the sensed vertical position matches the stored vertical position of the vehicle seat (wherein[…] the seat and component adjustment controller: i. compares the current seat position value to a desired seat position value facilitating operator ingress); regarding “facilitating operator ingress” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art- if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; see claim 4 wherein the prior art teaches the required position for facilitating ingress)
ii. calculates a movement factor based on the comparison; and
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; FIG. 9; ¶0051]-¶[0054];
Where controller 42 determines if the sensed vertical position matches the stored vertical position of the vehicle seat and calculates a predicted vertical position of the seat to a target zone (calculates a movement factor based on the comparison))
iii. automatically instructs a controllable actuator to move the vehicle seat to the desired seat position facilitating operator ingress when the movement factor indicates the current seat position value is different from the value of the desired seat position value.
(Frye, FIGs. 3-7; FIG. 9; ¶[0041]: automatically; ¶0051]-¶[0054]; ¶[0049]: rearward-most location; ¶[0106]; ¶[0041];
Where controller 42 automatically controls the actuator 78 (automatically instructs a controllable actuator) to adjust the seat height to the target zone (to move the vehicle seat to the desired seat position facilitating operator ingress) if the sensed vertical position doesn’t match the stored vertical position of the vehicle seat (when the movement factor indicates the current seat position value is different from the value of the desired seat position value); regarding “facilitating operator ingress” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art- if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; see claim 4 wherein the prior art teaches the required position for facilitating ingress).
Frye is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pinckney teaches:
a. An operator presence detection device integrated into the vehicle seat thereof; wherein the operator presence detection device measures the presence or absence of an operator;
(Pinckney, FIG. 1; ¶[0016]; ¶[0018]; ¶[0022]; ¶[0028];
Where driver detection sensor 20 is a weight sensor connected to the driver’s seat, configured to detect if there is a driver in the vehicle seat (An operator presence detection device integrated into the vehicle seat thereof; wherein the operator presence detection device measures the presence or absence of an operator))
c. A seat and component adjustment controller operably connected to the operator presence detection device… wherein the seat and component adjustment controller is configured for receiving and processing information from the operator presence detection device…;
(Pinckney, FIG. 1; ¶[0016]; ¶[0018]; ¶[0022]-¶[0024]; ¶[0028];
Where microprocessor 24 (A seat and component adjustment controller) is coupled to driver detection sensor 20 (operably connected to the operator presence detection device) and receives data regarding the absence of an occupant/driver (wherein the seat and component adjustment controller is configured for receiving and processing information from the operator presence detection device))
wherein, if an operator is not present, the seat and component adjustment controller:
(Pinckney, FIG. 1; ¶[0016]; ¶[0018]; ¶[0022]; ¶[0028]; ¶[0009];
Where microprocessor 24 determines an operator is absent from the vehicle (wherein, if an operator is not present,) and performs a vehicle function once a vehicle occupant is confirmed absent (the seat and component adjustment controller …)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Frye with the features taught by Pinckney because “…Multiple systems for preventing keys from being locked in a car… do not, however, determine a number of things, such as whether the doors are locked, the occupant is in the car and the keys are anywhere in the car. Additional safety features, such as whether a driver is located in the automobile or if the transmission is out of park or neutral, are not included” (Pinckney, ¶[0004]-¶[0005]) and “It would be desirable to have a system that determines if anyone is in the car” (Pinckney, ¶[0005]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Frye and Pinckney as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Brodersen et al. (US 20060107766 A1), henceforth known as Brodersen.
Regarding claim 5, Frye and Pinckney teach the system of claim 1. Frye and Pinckney are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor,
wherein the operator presence detection device is a switch integrated into a portion of the vehicle seat.
(Brodersen, FIGS. 1-3; ¶[0012]-¶[0016]; Claim 1;
Where the operator present switch, OP switch 20, is integrated into seat cushion 14, including seat cushion surface 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Frye and Pinckney with the features taught by Brodersen because “It is well known that a variety of different vehicle systems or functions should be operational when there is an operator or passenger occupying the vehicle seats… Many different so called "operator present switches" have been in use for these purposes and have proven to be quite effective. Nonetheless, the existing operator present switches ("OP switches") do suffer from some disadvantages… Therefore, a need exists for a small, mechanically simple and inexpensive OP switch that is integrated into the seat itself without any components extending beyond the seat cushion or support pan structures. In addition, it is desirable that such an integrated OP switch be designed to operated properly with the occupant of the seat positioned at any part of the seat and yet not be so intrusive so that the occupant can feel the presence of the switch or its related hardware.” (Brodersen, ¶[0002]-¶[0004]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Frye and Pinckney as applied to claim 17, above, and in further view of Geodert et al. (US 20150143927 A1), henceforth known as Geodert.
Regarding claim 18, Frye and Pinckney teach the device of claim 17. Frye and Pickney are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Geodert teaches:
wherein the operator presence detection device is integrated into a suspension of the vehicle seat.
(Geodert, FIGs. 1-3; ¶[0031]-¶[0033];
Where the vehicle seat 10 comprises seat suspension mat 12 that includes a pressure sensor module 18, implemented by pressure sensor 22, configured to detect the occupancy state of the vehicle seat).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Frye and Pinckney with the features taught by Geodert because “Seat occupancy sensors are nowadays widely used in automotive vehicles to provide a seat occupancy signal for various appliances, such as, e.g. a seat belt reminder, an auxiliary restraint system (airbag), etc. The possibility of customization and personalization of the vehicle by the customer is a key selling factor of modern cars. This leads to many different variants of car interiors being offered for one car model. With the increasing number of available options, severe constraints arise concerning the implementation of technical equipment in the vehicle. With the increasing number of available options, severe constraints arise concerning the implementation of technical equipment in the vehicle. With seat occupancy sensors arranged between the foam body of the seat cushion and the seat cover, every seat design (leather, cloth, sport, comfort, . . . ) requires specific development effort for the occupant detection system. That induces high development costs and is, therefore, an unattractive solution for the automotive industry. Hence, a problem to be solved is to find a sensor solution, which is less influenced by seat design and thus can be used for a greater variety of car seats or even car platforms.” (Geodert, ¶[0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tawri M McAndrews whose telephone number is (571)272-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (0800-1000).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an in