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 the Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on September 18, 2025. Applicant has elected claims 5-12 with traverse. Claims 1-19 are pending and examined below, in light of withdrawing the previous restriction requirement as discussed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to Korean Patent Application No. KR10-2022-0169981, filed December 7, 2022.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 5-12 in the reply filed on September 18, 2025 is acknowledged. Upon further consideration of the prior art cited below, the previous restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 17, the recitation “determining whether a second value of the support angle of the seatback is less than a third set allowable value” is vague and indefinite. The claim does not introduce a first value of the support angle nor first and second set allowable values rendering it unclear what the metes and bounds of a second value and third set allowable value are. Therefore, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 17.
Additionally, as to claim 19, the recitation “setting the third set allowable value” is vague and indefinite for similar reasons set forth above with respect to claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ohtsubo et al., US 20230166637 A1.
As to claim 17, Ohtsubo discloses a method for controlling a seat, the method comprising:
receiving input indicating operating of a switch module (Input unit in communication with control processing unit – See at least Fig. 1);
determining whether the input indicates a rear reclining control of a seatback (Control processing unit issues various commands based on inputs to move posture of seat – See at least ¶22 and Fig. 1);
based on determining that that the input indicates the rear reclining control of the seatback, receiving information on a support angle of the seatback and information on a position of the seat (Seat posture information – See at least ¶45);
determining whether the seat is within an interference range relative to a reference position (Interference determination – See at least Abstract);
based on determining that the seat is within the interference range relative to the reference position, determining whether a second value of the support angle of the seatback is less than a third set allowable value (Determination of interval – See at least ¶64); and
based on the second value being determined to be less than the third set allowable value, performing a rear reclining operation of the seatback (Determination of seatback angle with respect to allowable range and subsequent recline control – See at least ¶66 and Fig. 3); or
based on the second value being determined to be greater than or equal to the third set allowable value, performing a front sliding operation of the seat along with the rear reclining operation of the seatback (Determination of seatback angle with respect to allowable range and subsequent slide control – See at least ¶66 and Fig. 3).
As to claim 18, Ohtsubo discloses based on determining that the seat deviates from the interference range relative to the reference position, receiving information on the support angle of the seatback (Interference calculation includes determination of seat information including angle – See at least ¶64); and
performing the rear reclining operation of the seatback (Determination of seatback angle with respect to allowable range and subsequent recline control – See at least ¶66 and Fig. 3).
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al., US 20170158087 A1, in view of Ohtsubo et al., US 20230166637 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kwon and Ohtsubo, respectively.
As to claim 1, Kwon discloses a seat for a vehicle comprising:
a reclining unit comprising:
a reclining adjustment motor configured to provide driving force for adjusting a support angle of a seatback (Recline – See at least ¶15); and
a first sensor configured to sense the support angle of the seatback (Recline sensor – See at least ¶15);
a sliding unit comprising:
a sliding adjustment motor configured to provide driving force for adjusting a position of the seat in a front to rear direction (Slide – See at least ¶16), and
a third sensor configured to sense the position of the seat (Slide sensor – See at least ¶16); and
a control unit configured to control operations of at least one of the reclining unit, the tilting unit, or the sliding unit, by either limiting or enforcing at least one of an angle adjustment amount of the tilting unit or an angle adjustment amount of the reclining unit based on a relation between the support angle of the seatback and at least one of the tilting angle of the seat cushion or the position of the seat (Limit recline based on interval between front and rear seats, i.e., “position of seat,” and recline angle – See at least Abstract and Steps 3 and 4 in Fig. 3).
Kwon fails to explicitly disclose a tilting unit comprising a tilting adjustment motor configured to provide driving force for adjusting a tilting angle of a seat cushion and
a second sensor configured to sense the tilting angle of the seat cushion. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kwon and include the feature of a tilting unit comprising a tilting adjustment motor configured to provide driving force for adjusting a tilting angle of a seat cushion and a second sensor configured to sense the tilting angle of the seat cushion, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ohtsubo teaches tilting a seat cushion is a well-known and routine feature of vehicle seats (See at least ¶2 of Ohtsubo).
As to claim 2, Kwon discloses: a switch module configured to enable a passenger to control an operation of at least one of the reclining unit, the tilting unit, or the sliding unit, wherein the switch module is communicatively connected to the control unit (Operation unit – See at least ¶43 and Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, Kwon discloses wherein the first sensor comprises a hall sensor associated with the reclining adjustment motor (Hall sensor – See at least ¶46), and
the third sensor comprises a hall sensor associated with the sliding adjustment motor (Hall sensor – See at least ¶49). Kwon fails to explicitly disclose the claimed second sensor. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kwon and include the feature of the claimed second sensor, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kwon discloses Hall sensors are well-known and routine elements of a vehicle seat and the second sensor is taught by Ohtsubo as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As to claim 4, Kwon discloses set a maximum support angle for rear reclining of the seatback based on at least one of the tilting angle of the seat cushion or the position of the seat (Limit recline – See at least ¶67 and Fig. 3; Examiner notes a limit is a maximum.).
Claims 5-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtsubo et al., US 20230166637 A1, in view of Kwon et al., US 20170158087 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ohtsubo and Kwon, respectively.
As to claim 5, Ohtsubo discloses a method for controlling a seat, the method comprising:
receiving input indicating a control operation of a switch module (Input unit in communication with control processing unit – See at least Fig. 1);
determining whether the control operation is an upward tilting control operation of a front portion of a seat cushion or a rear reclining control operation of a seatback (Control processing unit issues various commands based on inputs to move posture of seat – See at least ¶22 and Fig. 1); and
receiving information indicating a tilting angle of the seat cushion and information indicating a support angle of the seatback (Seat posture information – See at least ¶45).
Ohtsubo fails to explicitly disclose:
determining whether a first value obtained by adding the tilting angle of the seat cushion and the support angle of the seatback is less than a first set allowable value; and
if the first value is less than the first set allowable value, allowing the control operation to be performed; or
if the first value is greater than or equal to the first set allowable value, terminating the upward tilting control operation of the front portion of the seat cushion or the rear reclining control operation of the seatback.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ohtsubo and include the feature of imposing the above limits on vehicle seat control, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ohtsubo is directed to limiting vehicle movement including recline, tilt, and slide to corresponding allowable ranges (See at least ¶44 and Fig.4 of Ohtsubo) and Kwon teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle seat control arts to stop vehicle seat movement as needed (See at least ¶67 and Fig.3 of Kwon).
As to claims 6, and 14, Ohtsubo fails to explicitly disclose based on determining the seatback is tilted from a reference angle to a rearmost side, not allowing the upward tilting control operation of the front portion of the seat cushion. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ohtsubo and include the feature of imposing the above limit on vehicle seat control, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ohtsubo is directed to limiting vehicle movement including recline, tilt, and slide to corresponding allowable ranges (See at least ¶44 and Fig.4 of Ohtsubo) and Kwon teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle seat control arts to stop vehicle seat movement as needed (See at least ¶67 and Fig.3 of Kwon).
As to claims 7, and 15, Ohtsubo fails to explicitly disclose based on determining the seatback is tilted from a reference angle to a rearmost side, not allowing the rear reclining control operation of the seatback. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ohtsubo and include the feature of imposing the above limit on vehicle seat control, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ohtsubo is directed to limiting vehicle movement including recline, tilt, and slide to corresponding allowable ranges (See at least ¶44 and Fig.4 of Ohtsubo) and Kwon teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle seat control arts to stop vehicle seat movement as needed (See at least ¶67 and Fig.3 of Kwon).
As to claim 8, Ohtsubo fails to explicitly disclose:
based on determining that the seat is within an interference range relative to a reference position, receiving information indicating the tilting angle of the seat cushion and information indicating the support angle of the seatback;
determining whether the first value obtained by adding the tilting angle of the seat cushion and the support angle of the seatback is less than a second set allowable value; and
based on the first value being determined to be less than the second set allowable value, performing the upward tilting control operation of the front portion of the seat cushion; or
based on the first value being determined to be greater than or equal to the second set allowable value, terminating the upward tilting control operation of the front portion of the seat cushion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ohtsubo and include the feature of imposing the above limits on vehicle seat control, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ohtsubo is directed to limiting vehicle movement including recline, tilt, and slide to corresponding allowable ranges (See at least ¶44 and Fig.4 of Ohtsubo) and Kwon teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle seat control arts to stop vehicle seat movement as needed inconsideration of interference ranges (See at least Abstract, ¶67 and Fig.3 of Kwon).
As to claim 9, Ohtsubo fails to explicitly disclose:
based on determining that the seat is within an interference range relative to a reference position, receiving the information indicating the tilting angle of the seat cushion and the information indicating the support angle of the seatback;
determining whether the first value obtained by adding the tilting angle of the seat cushion and the support angle of the seatback is less than a second set allowable value; and
based on the first value being determined to be less than the second set allowable value, performing the rear reclining control operation of the seatback; or
based on the first value being determined to be greater than or equal to the second set allowable value, terminating the rear reclining control operation of the seatback.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ohtsubo and include the feature of imposing the above limits on vehicle seat control, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ohtsubo is directed to limiting vehicle movement including recline, tilt, and slide to corresponding allowable ranges (See at least ¶44 and Fig.4 of Ohtsubo) and Kwon teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle seat control arts to stop vehicle seat movement as needed inconsideration of interference ranges (See at least Abstract, ¶67 and Fig.3 of Kwon).
As to claim 10, Ohtsubo fails to explicitly disclose before the receiving the input:
setting the first set allowable value based on a maximum support angle for rear reclining of the seatback corresponding to the tilting angle of the seat cushion; and
setting the second set allowable value based on a maximum support angle for rear reclining of the seatback corresponding to the tilting angle of the seat cushion and a position of the seat. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ohtsubo and include the feature of imposing the above limits on vehicle seat control, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ohtsubo is directed to defining various combinations of allowable recline, slide, and tilt ranges (See at least ¶44 and Fig.4 of Ohtsubo).
As to claim 11, Ohtsubo fails to explicitly disclose before the receiving the input:
setting the first set allowable value based on a maximum support angle for rear reclining of the seatback corresponding to the tilting angle of the seat cushion; and
setting the second set allowable value based on a maximum support angle for rear reclining of the seatback corresponding to the tilting angle of the seat cushion and a position of the seat. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ohtsubo and include the feature of imposing the above limits on vehicle seat control, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ohtsubo is directed to defining various combinations of allowable recline, slide, and tilt ranges which are set prior to an automatic seat adjustment in concordance with allowable ranges (See at least ¶44, 56 and Figs.4 and 7 of Ohtsubo).
As to claim 12, Ohtsubo fails to explicitly disclose before the receiving the input, setting the first set allowable value based on a maximum support angle for rear reclining of the seatback corresponding to the tilting angle of the seat cushion. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ohtsubo and include the feature of imposing the above limits on vehicle seat control, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ohtsubo is directed to defining various combinations of allowable recline, slide, and tilt ranges which are set prior to an automatic seat adjustment in concordance with allowable ranges (See at least ¶44, 56 and Figs.4 and 7 of Ohtsubo).
As to claim 13, Ohtsubo discloses a method for controlling a seat, the method comprising:
receiving input indicating a control operation of a switch module (Input unit in communication with control processing unit – See at least Fig. 1);
determining the control operation is an upward tilting control operation of a front portion of a seat cushion or a rear reclining control operation of a seatback (Control processing unit issues various commands based on inputs to move posture of seat – See at least ¶22 and Fig. 1); and
receiving information indicating a tilting angle of the seat cushion and information indicating a support angle of the seatback (Seat posture information – See at least ¶45).
Ohtsubo fails to explicitly disclose:
determining whether a first value obtained by adding the tilting angle of the seat cushion and the support angle of the seatback is less than a first set allowable value; and
based on the first value being determined to be less than the first set allowable value, allowing the control operation to be performed; or
based on the first value being determined to be greater than or equal to the first set allowable value, allowing the control operation to be performed and either:
if the control operation is the upward tilting control operation, performing a front reclining operation of the seatback; or
if the control operation is rear reclining control operation, performing a downward tilting operation of the seat cushion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ohtsubo and include the feature of imposing the above limits on vehicle seat control, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ohtsubo is directed to limiting vehicle movement including recline, tilt, and slide to corresponding allowable ranges (See at least ¶44 and Fig.4 of Ohtsubo) and Kwon teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle seat control arts to stop vehicle seat movement as needed (See at least ¶67 and Fig.3 of Kwon).
As to claim 16, Ohtsubo fails to explicitly disclose before the receiving the input, setting the first set allowable value based on a maximum support angle for rear reclining of the seatback corresponding to the tilting angle of the seat cushion. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ohtsubo and include the feature of imposing the above limit on vehicle seat control, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ohtsubo is directed to defining various combinations of allowable recline, slide, and tilt ranges which are set prior to an automatic seat adjustment in concordance with allowable ranges (See at least ¶44, 56 and Figs.4 and 7 of Ohtsubo).
As to claim 19, Ohtsubo fails to explicitly disclose before the receiving the input, setting the third set allowable value based on a maximum support angle for rear reclining of the seatback corresponding to the position of the seat. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ohtsubo and include the feature of imposing the above limit on vehicle seat control, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ohtsubo is directed to defining various combinations of allowable recline, slide, and tilt ranges which are set prior to an automatic seat adjustment in concordance with allowable ranges (See at least ¶44, 56 and Figs.4 and 7 of Ohtsubo).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668