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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on November 19th, 2025. Claims 1, and 3-6 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 19th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments filed on November 19th, 2025, Examiner maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 19th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US-20160082935 (hereinafter, “Kim”).
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.
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, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210114553 (hereinafter, “Awtar”) in view of US-20160082935 (hereinafter, “Kim”) and JP-2018118532A (hereinafter, “Kaneko”).
Regarding claim 1 Awtar discloses a seat control device that controls driving of an actuator for changing a posture of a seat on which an occupant of a vehicle is seated and that controls the posture of the seat in braking of the vehicle (see at least [0002]; “the present disclosure relates to a passenger state modulation system for passenger vehicles based on prediction and preemptive control” and [0031]; “Similarly, a vehicle braking is shown in FIGS. 2A-2C. In FIG. 2A, a vehicle is shown moving straight down a path at a continuous speed. In a vehicle without the PREACT System (shown in FIG. 2B), as the vehicle brakes the vehicle body and the passenger body (e.g. including head, torso, limbs, etc.) pitch forward, which can cause motion sickness, discomfort, and lack of productivity for the passenger. However, in a vehicle equipped with the PREACT system (shown in FIG. 2C), the Vehicle Route and Navigation Prediction Algorithm determines that the vehicle will be braking at some point in the future and the PREACT Prediction Algorithm predicts the impact this will have on passenger states (including body motion, motion sickness, comfort, productivity, etc.). This PREACT Prediction Algorithm provides the anticipation/prediction/forecast that the passenger is likely to experience body motion, motion sickness, discomfort, or lack of productivity due to the vehicle braking, before the vehicle has actually started to decelerate and the passenger has actually experienced any body motion or motion sickness or discomfort.”), wherein
in a case when determining that a sinking behavior, in which a front portion of the seat moves downward from a position before the braking, is generated at a start of the braking of the vehicle, the seat control device executes first control of causing the actuator to output force in a direction opposite to pitch angular velocity of the seat (see at least [0031-0032]; “Similarly, a vehicle braking is shown in FIGS. 2A-2C. In FIG. 2A, a vehicle is shown moving straight down a path at a continuous speed. In a vehicle without the PREACT System (shown in FIG. 2B), as the vehicle brakes the vehicle body and the passenger body (e.g. including head, torso, limbs, etc.) pitch forward, which can cause motion sickness, discomfort, and lack of productivity for the passenger. However, in a vehicle equipped with the PREACT system (shown in FIG. 2C), the Vehicle Route and Navigation Prediction Algorithm determines that the vehicle will be braking at some point in the future and the PREACT Prediction Algorithm predicts the impact this will have on passenger states (including body motion, motion sickness, comfort, productivity, etc.). This PREACT Prediction Algorithm provides the anticipation/prediction/forecast that the passenger is likely to experience body motion, motion sickness, discomfort, or lack of productivity due to the vehicle braking, before the vehicle has actually started to decelerate and the passenger has actually experienced any body motion or motion sickness or discomfort. Based on this prediction, the PREACT Preemption Algorithm (also referred to as a PREACT Command Generation Algorithm) generates preemptive commands and sends them to the Active Seat sub-system and an Active Restraint sub-system. As a result of these preemptive commands, before the vehicle actually starts decelerating, the active seat slowly begins to pitch (i.e. tilt) backward (i.e. opposite to the direction of deceleration, which is equivalent to saying in the direction of acceleration in the longitudinal direction), and the active restraint begins to slowly increase its tension in the backward direction. In this way, by the time the vehicle actually begins braking, the passenger body is orientated and/or restrained such that the motion of their body is minimized, thereby reducing motion sickness and enhancing productivity”).
Awtar, does not disclose wherein the case when determining that the sinking behavior is generated refers to a case when, by continuously monitoring an amount of brake pedal force, a change rate in brake pedal force is equal to or larger than a threshold is satisfied…
…in a case when determining that a rocking-back behavior, in which the front portion of the seat moves upward from the position before the braking, is generated after the execution of the first control until a stop of the vehicle, the seat control device executes second control of causing the actuator to output force in a same direction as the pitch angular velocity of the seat.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the case when determining that the sinking behavior is generated refers to a case when, by continuously monitoring an amount of brake pedal force, a change rate in brake pedal force is equal to or larger than a threshold is satisfied (see at least [0032-0033]; “the sensor control module 130 may include the condition determining unit 132 which compares the acceleration with a predetermined threshold acceleration to determine whether the vehicle is forwardly inclined…When the vehicle suddenly brakes while being driven, the vehicle is forwardly inclined due to inertia law. This case is represented that the pitching motion of the vehicle is generated,” in order to determine acceleration the brake pedal must be monitored. The brake pedal of the vehicle is monitored to determine if a vehicle suddenly brakes, the vehicle baking ‘suddenly’ corresponds to the brake pedal force exceeding a threshold, and this causes the forward pitching motion of the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the seat control system of Awtar with the brake monitoring of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of being able to adjust vehicle sensors if its determined the vehicle is pitching, allowing for safer driving (see at least Kim; [0008]).
Kaneko, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in a case when determining that a rocking-back behavior, in which the front portion of the seat moves upward from the position before the braking, is generated after the execution of the first control until a stop of the vehicle, the seat control device executes second control of causing the actuator to output force in a same direction as the pitch angular velocity of the seat (see at least [0056]; “In the example shown in FIG. 4 (A), the actuator 84 tilts the vehicle seat 82 to the rear side in the traveling direction of the own vehicle M. The control of the vehicle seat 82 shown in FIG. 4 (A), for example, is a case where an inertial force is generated in the traveling direction of the host vehicle M in the traveling direction backward (rightward in FIG. 4 (A)) as in the acceleration operation of the host vehicle M. Or when the gravitational acceleration acts rearward in the traveling direction of the own vehicle M, such as during uphill running. During the acceleration operation of the host vehicle M, the forward acceleration in the traveling direction of the own vehicle M acts on the own vehicle M, so that the driver experiences the inertial force toward the backward direction of the traveling direction of the vehicle M. Further, as shown in FIG. 4 (A), the vehicle seat 82 is tilted rearward in the traveling direction of the own vehicle M, so that the driver feels the acceleration feeling of the own vehicle M more largely by accelerating operation It will be. 4 (A), the vehicle seat 82 is tilted rearward in the traveling direction of the own vehicle M, so that the driver can tilt the vehicle M in the traveling direction of the own vehicle M Better experience the backward inertial force. As a result, the driver experiences acceleration greater than the acceleration acting on the host vehicle M due to uphill running,” when a vehicle has an inertial force toward the rear of the vehicle, this corresponds to Applicant’s rocking back motion, the vehicle seat is tilted towards the rear which is in the same direction as the pitch angular velocity, this would occur during braking as well as during acceleration as long as the inertial force is towards the rear, the same is applied to whether the rocking back behavior is generated after execution of the first control until stop, anytime the inertial force is toward the rear this force would be output regardless of when the first control was output).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the seat control system of Awtar, as modified by Kim, with the rocking behavior handling of Kaneko. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having the driver experience a greater acceleration than the acceleration acting on the host vehicle.
Regarding claim 4 Awtar in view of Kim and Kaneko renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Awtar discloses wherein in a case when determining that a behavior in which the front portion of the seat moves downward from the position before the braking is generated after the execution of the second control until the stop of the vehicle, the seat control device performs the first control (see at least [0031-0032]; “Similarly, a vehicle braking is shown in FIGS. 2A-2C. In FIG. 2A, a vehicle is shown moving straight down a path at a continuous speed. In a vehicle without the PREACT System (shown in FIG. 2B), as the vehicle brakes the vehicle body and the passenger body (e.g. including head, torso, limbs, etc.) pitch forward, which can cause motion sickness, discomfort, and lack of productivity for the passenger. However, in a vehicle equipped with the PREACT system (shown in FIG. 2C), the Vehicle Route and Navigation Prediction Algorithm determines that the vehicle will be braking at some point in the future and the PREACT Prediction Algorithm predicts the impact this will have on passenger states (including body motion, motion sickness, comfort, productivity, etc.). This PREACT Prediction Algorithm provides the anticipation/prediction/forecast that the passenger is likely to experience body motion, motion sickness, discomfort, or lack of productivity due to the vehicle braking, before the vehicle has actually started to decelerate and the passenger has actually experienced any body motion or motion sickness or discomfort. Based on this prediction, the PREACT Preemption Algorithm (also referred to as a PREACT Command Generation Algorithm) generates preemptive commands and sends them to the Active Seat sub-system and an Active Restraint sub-system. As a result of these preemptive commands, before the vehicle actually starts decelerating, the active seat slowly begins to pitch (i.e. tilt) backward (i.e. opposite to the direction of deceleration, which is equivalent to saying in the direction of acceleration in the longitudinal direction), and the active restraint begins to slowly increase its tension in the backward direction. In this way, by the time the vehicle actually begins braking, the passenger body is orientated and/or restrained such that the motion of their body is minimized, thereby reducing motion sickness and enhancing productivity,” the vehicle is controlled to perform output opposite the angular velocity when pitched forward regardless of if it Is after execution of the second control).
Regarding claim 5 Awtar in view of Kim and Kaneko renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Awtar discloses wherein a plurality of the seats is provided in the vehicle (see at least Figs. 1A-1C; vehicle includes at least two seats), and
the actuator is provided in each of the plurality of seats (see at least [0123] “the motion of the active seat can be controlled by actuators (e.g. motors, pneumatic, hydraulic etc.) and measured by sensors (e.g. encoders, IMUs, force and torque sensors, etc.)”), and
the seat control device executes the first control and the second control for each of the plurality of seats (see at least [0041]; “active subsystems are actively controlled via some computer (e.g. microprocessor) to ensure that their states (that are variables in time) follow some desired objective with time,” a controller is capable of activating the seats to perform movement in the desired directions).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awtar in view of Kim and Kaneko, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US-20210094570 (hereinafter, “Uchida”).
Regarding claim 3 Awtar in view of Kim and Kaneko renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Awtar does not disclose wherein the case when determining that the rocking-back behavior is generated refers to a case when the brake pedal force becomes smaller than that at the start of the braking and longitudinal acceleration acting on the seat is in a constant direction and decreased.
Uchida, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the case when determining that the rocking-back behavior is generated refers to a case when the brake pedal force becomes smaller than that at the start of the braking and longitudinal acceleration acting on the seat is in a constant direction and decreased (see at least Fig. 5 a rocking behavior is determined between t6 to t8 as this is when the deceleration begins to become smaller the deceleration is directly proportional to the brake pedal force, therefore if the deceleration is becoming smaller than the brake pedal force must also be becoming smaller, furthermore the longitudinal acceleration also decreases in a constant direction during this time, during this time period it can also be observed as shown in Fig. 6 that the seat angle is brought back to the base position which would be considered rocking back).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the seat control system of Awtar as modified by Kim and Kaneko with the rocking detection of Uchida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving a passenger’s sense of security (see at least Uchida; [0015]).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awtar in view of Kaneko, as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of JP-201000983A (hereinafter, “Kenji”).
Regarding claim 6 Awtar in view of Kim and Kaneko renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Awtar discloses wherein a plurality of the seats is provided on a floor of the vehicle (see at least Figs. 1A-1C; vehicle includes at least two seats), and
Awtar does not disclose the actuator is configured to move the entire floor in a pitch direction of the vehicle, and
the seat control device executes the first control and the second control in such a manner that the entire floor moves in the pitch direction of the vehicle.
Kenji, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the actuator is configured to move the entire floor in a pitch direction of the vehicle (see at least [0109]; “the floor drive unit 50 shown in FIG. 1 is interposed, for example, between the vehicle body and the movable floor panel 60, and performs control for moving the movable floor panel 60 in the left-right and front-rear direction of the vehicle. For example, the floor driving unit 50 may be configured to include actuators similar to the left-right direction actuator 21 and the front-rear direction actuator 22 that the seat driving unit 20 includes. Such actuators may be engaged, connected, or coupled to a predetermined position of the movable floor panel 60 via a predetermined link mechanism.,” and [0114]; “In contrast to this, the vehicle seat 10 and the movable floor panel 60 may be configured as one unit so that the movable floor panel 60 moves in conjunction with the movement of the vehicle seat 10. As an example, as shown in FIG. 18, a movable floor panel 60 is bent so as to have a footrest portion 60A and a seat fixing portion 60B. Alternatively, the footrest portion 60A may be fixed to the seat fixing portion 60B via a bolt, nut, shaft, or the like. Then, the upper surface of the seat fixing portion 60B is adhered and fixed to the bottom surface of the vehicle seat 10. In this way, the movable floor panel 60 is fixed to the vehicle seat 10 and moves integrally with the vehicle seat 10 as the vehicle seat 10 moves. As another example, the seat attachment portion 60B of the movable floor panel 60 may be formed seamlessly with the vehicle seat 10 using the same material as at least some of the constituent parts of the seat portion of the vehicle seat 10 (e.g., artificial resin or iron material forming the bottom surface of the seat portion), thereby fixing the movable floor panel 60 to the vehicle seat 10. By configuring the vehicle seat 10 and the movable floor panel 60 as an integrated unit in this manner, there is no need for configuration or processing for moving the movable floor panel 60 separately from the vehicle seat 10, such as the panel drive unit 50, and this makes it possible to control the posture, including the occupant's feet, while preventing an increase in the control burden with a simple configuration.”), and
the seat control device executes the first control and the second control in such a manner that the entire floor moves in the pitch direction of the vehicle (see at least [0109]; “the floor drive unit 50 shown in FIG. 1 is interposed, for example, between the vehicle body and the movable floor panel 60, and performs control for moving the movable floor panel 60 in the left-right and front-rear direction of the vehicle. For example, the floor driving unit 50 may be configured to include actuators similar to the left-right direction actuator 21 and the front-rear direction actuator 22 that the seat driving unit 20 includes. Such actuators may be engaged, connected, or coupled to a predetermined position of the movable floor panel 60 via a predetermined link mechanism,” and [0114]; “In contrast to this, the vehicle seat 10 and the movable floor panel 60 may be configured as one unit so that the movable floor panel 60 moves in conjunction with the movement of the vehicle seat 10. As an example, as shown in FIG. 18, a movable floor panel 60 is bent so as to have a footrest portion 60A and a seat fixing portion 60B. Alternatively, the footrest portion 60A may be fixed to the seat fixing portion 60B via a bolt, nut, shaft, or the like. Then, the upper surface of the seat fixing portion 60B is adhered and fixed to the bottom surface of the vehicle seat 10. In this way, the movable floor panel 60 is fixed to the vehicle seat 10 and moves integrally with the vehicle seat 10 as the vehicle seat 10 moves. As another example, the seat attachment portion 60B of the movable floor panel 60 may be formed seamlessly with the vehicle seat 10 using the same material as at least some of the constituent parts of the seat portion of the vehicle seat 10 (e.g., artificial resin or iron material forming the bottom surface of the seat portion), thereby fixing the movable floor panel 60 to the vehicle seat 10. By configuring the vehicle seat 10 and the movable floor panel 60 as an integrated unit in this manner, there is no need for configuration or processing for moving the movable floor panel 60 separately from the vehicle seat 10, such as the panel drive unit 50, and this makes it possible to control the posture, including the occupant's feet, while preventing an increase in the control burden with a simple configuration,” the drive unit is capable of pitching the entire floor when the seat and the floor is coupled as one entity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the seat control system of Awtar as modified by Kim and Kaneko with the movable floor panel of Kenji. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of controlling an occupants entire posture including feet with a simple configuration that does not increase the control burden (see at least Kenji; [0114])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666