DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 68-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 68, 82 and 85 recite a method comprising:
recognizing a make and a model of a child safety seat;
generating a model of the child safety seat; and
displaying step-by-step instructions for the installation of the child safety seat.
The limitations of recognizing a make and model of a child safety seat, generating a model, and displaying instructions for installation, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting an information system of a vehicle with a processor configured to perform the claimed steps, wherein the model is a digital model, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “information system” and “processor” language, “recognizing”, “generating” and “displaying” in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually recognizing a make and model, for example by observing the seat or reading the make and model, and generating a model and displaying instructions for example using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite using a processor to perform the claimed steps in an information system of a vehicle. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of recognizing via sensor data, generating a digital model, and displaying instructions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Furthermore, the performance of the steps in an information system of a vehicle amounts to no more than mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and he performance of the steps in an information system of a vehicle amounts to no more than mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 67-81, 83, 84, 86 and 87 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and only recite additional abstract details of collecting data regarding the child seat and vehicle environment, processing it, and displaying additional instructions based on the collection and analysis. Therefore, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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)(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.
4. Claims 68, 69, 73-75, 77-79, 81-83, 85 and 86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rehfeld et al. (EP 4,439,485 A1).
Regarding claims 68, 69, 73-75, 77-79, 81-83, 85 and 86, Rehfeld discloses a system (as per claim 68) and corresponding method (as per claim 82) and computer readable medium with instructions (as per claim 85) comprising:
an information system of a vehicle (entertainment and support system – see Par. 30) operable to present step-by-step instructions to guide a user for installation of a child safety seat; and
a processor (101) operatively connected to the information system operable to control a display of the step-by-step instructions (see abstract); and
wherein the processor is operable to:
recognize, via a sensor, a make, and a model of the child safety seat (Par’s. 29, 31);
generate a digital model of the child safety seat on the information system of the vehicle (retrieve 3D model and optionally render 2D model based on this model – Par’s. 33, 36); and
display the step-by-step instructions for the installation of the child safety seat (for example, display area of installation, display guidance for where to place seat, provide continuous feedback on placement – Par’s. 38, 69-70) (as per claims 68, 82 and 85),
the processor is operable to: provide time for the user to follow each step of the step-by-step instructions (Par. 24 – time intervals); check the installation of the child safety seat after each step for accuracy of completion of the each step; continue displaying a next step after completing a previous step; provide a first signal after completion of each step of the installation of the child safety seat accurately; and generate a second signal after completing all the steps of the installation accurately (continue providing appropriate signals until step is performed correctly – Par. 38, 69-70) (as per claims 69, 83 and 86),
the child safety seat comprises one or more of a front facing car seat, a rear facing car seat, and a booster seat (Fig’s. 3A, 6) (as per claim 73),
the system comprises a computer vision module comprising a shape recognizing camera (Par. 29) (as per claim 74),
the information system comprises an infotainment system of the vehicle (Par. 30) (as per claim 75),
the system finds an installation requirement based on a manufacturer's manual accessed via at least one of a local memory, an internet, and a connector (Par. 70) (as per claim 77),
the child safety seat, the vehicle, and a belt of a seat in the vehicle comprises plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises an infrared sensor (Par. 22) (as per claim 78),
the first signal comprises one or more of a first text message, a first visual cue, a first sound alert, a first tactile cue, and a first vibration; and wherein the second signal comprises one or more of a second text message, a second visual cue, a second sound alert, a second tactile cue, and a second vibration (Par’s. 38, 69-70) (as per claim 79), and
the information system is further operable to present warnings and alerts to the user based on real-time data collected by the child safety seat (Par. 68) (as per claim 81).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 70-72, 80, 84 and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rehfeld et al. (EP 4,439,485 A1) in view of Saban (US 2009/0027188 A1).
Regarding claims 70, 84 and 87, Rehfeld discloses the step-by-step instructions for the installation of the child safety seat comprises: guiding a direction of a placement of the child safety seat; and checking and confirming the direction of the placement of the child safety seat (see e.g. Par. 38), and wherein the step-by-step instructions comprises one or more of a text, a figure, an audio, and an animation (Par’s. 69-70).
Rehfeld does not appear to discloses guiding a connection of the child safety seat with an attachment point; checking and confirming that the child safety seat is accurately connected with the attachment point; guiding a routing of a vehicle seat belt to pass through one or more points on the child safety seat; checking and confirming the routing of the vehicle seat belt is accurate and is passing through the one or more points on the child safety seat; guiding the user for a tautness on the vehicle seat belt; and checking and confirming for the tautness on the vehicle seat belt; and guiding the user for a distance between the child safety seat and an object in front of the child safety seat; and checking and confirming the distance between the child safety seat and the object in the front of the child safety seat.
However, Saban discloses a similar system for assisting with child seat installation, which guides a user with attachment points, routing a seat belt and checking tautness/tension (Par’s. 122, 199, 294), and distance/proximity to another seat (Par. 77). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Rehfeld by guiding and checking the performance of these stages of the installation taught by Saban. Such a modification would involve applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 71 and 72, Saban further discloses the object in the front of the child safety seat comprises at least one of an instrument panel and a seat of the vehicle, as noted above (Par. 77) (as per claim 71), and the attachment point comprises an International Organization for Standardization standard ISO 13216 (ISOFIX) (Par. 132) (as per claim 72). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Rehfeld by guiding these aspects of the installation, with the motivation being the same as that set forth in the rejection of claims 70, 84 and 87, above.
Regarding claims 76 and 80, Rehfeld further discloses the system identifies the child safety seat, by detecting a shape of the child safety seat via a camera (Par. 29). Rehfeld does not appear to disclose identifying based on a weight of the child safety seat via a weight sensor installed in a seat of the vehicle (as per claim 76), and the child safety seat is operable to collect real-time data about a child using the child safety seat, wherein the real-time data a weight (Par.138) (as per claim 80). However, Saban discloses incorporating a weight sensor into a child seat installation guidance system (Par. 122). Furthermore, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the concept and advantages of identifying an item based on its weight were well known to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Rehfeld by identifying the seat based on a detected weight of the seat, and real-time weight data of the child using the seat. Such a modification would involve a use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715