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 Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed May 12, 2026. Claims 41, 42, 51-55, 57, and 59-61 have been amended. Claims 1-40, 47 have been canceled. Claims 41-46, and 48-61 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed May 12, 2026 with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and rendered moot by the present amendments.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed May 12, 2026 with respect to the previous invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and render moot claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed May 12, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered and rendered moot by the present amendments.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed May 12, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 51 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “wherein adjust the seat and restrict the seat adjustment function” appears grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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 41, 42, 46, 48-51, 56, 57, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassenpflug, US 20190111807 A1, in view of Isozaki et al., US 20200216095 A1, and in view of Fields et al., US 20220089063 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hassenpflug, Isozaki, and Fields, respectively.
As to claim 41, Hassenpflug discloses a system comprising:
one or more second sensors configured to sense external data in a route (Environmental data from sensor – See at least Abstract, ¶37, and Fig. 3);
a processor configured to:
analyze the external data to determine an external condition (Evaluate environmental sensor data – See at least ¶49); and
determine in real-time a real-time risk level based on an analysis of the external data (Determine measure of danger, i.e., “risk” – See at least Abstract and ¶49); and
an electronic control unit configured to adjust a seat based on the real-time risk level (Automatic seat adjustment – See at least ¶60 and Fig. 3).
Hassenpflug fails to explicitly disclose one or more first sensors configured to detecting and determining an alertness signal of an occupant, and determining real-time risk based on the alertness. 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 Hassenpflug and include the feature of one or more first sensors configured to detecting and determining an alertness signal of an occupant, and determining real-time risk based on the alertness, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Isozaki teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle safety arts to determine risk of vehicle operation based on a determined alertness of an occupant (Risk based on driver’s sleepiness, i.e., “alertness” – See at least ¶30 of Isozaki).
The combination of Hassenpflug and Isozaki fails to disclose applying the above in order to adjust a seat belt. 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 combination of Hassenpflug and Isozaki and include the feature of applying the above in order to adjust a seat belt, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Fields teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle safety arts to improve passenger safety in the event of a collision (Cause actuator to restrict physical configuration of passenger's seatbelt from being adjusted/moved in response to determined likelihood of collision – See at ¶66).
Independent claims 57, and 60 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 41 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 42, Hassenpflug discloses one or more of a seat adhered sensor, a vehicle adhered sensor, and a belt adhered sensor (Sensor installed in vehicle – See at least Claim 15).
As to claim 46, Hassenpflug discloses the occupant is one or more of a driver and a passenger (Driver’s seat – See at least ¶35; Examiner notes a driver’s seat is indicative of a driver.).
As to claim 48, Hassenpflug fails to explicitly disclose the processor analyzes an image to determine alertness of the occupant. 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 Hassenpflug and include the feature of the processor analyzes an image to determine alertness of the occupant, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Isozaki teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle safety arts to determine alertness using image data (Evaluate image data – See at least ¶38).
As to claim 49, Hassenpflug fails to explicitly disclose the alertness signal comprises one or more of a seating position, a body posture, a head position, a head angle, a head tilt, and an eye gaze position. 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 Hassenpflug and include the feature of the alertness signal comprises one or more of a seating position, a body posture, a head position, a head angle, a head tilt, and an eye gaze position, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Isozaki teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle safety arts to determine alertness by determining eye gaze (Line of sight – See at least ¶34 of ¶34 and Fig. 3 of Isozaki).
As to claim 50, Hassenpflug discloses the external data comprises one or more of speedometer data, Global Positioning System (GPS) data, road condition data, traffic data, vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) data, vehicle-to-infrastructure (V21) data, weather information, and pre-crash information (Environmental data may include various information including road condition, traffic, etc. – See at least ¶36).
As to claim 51, Hassenpflug discloses:
the control unit is further configured to restrict a seat adjustment function of the seat based on the real-time risk level (Seat adjustment range may be reduced, i.e., “restricted” – See at least ¶55 and Fig. 3);
wherein adjust the seat and restrict the seat adjustment function of the seat comprises one or more of a seat recline, a seat height, a backrest angle, and a lumbar support adjustment (Various adjustment possibilities including seat recline, seat height etc. – See at least ¶51 and Fig. 2).
As to claim 56, Hassenpflug discloses the external condition is one or more of a weather condition, a lane reduction, a traffic condition, a winding route, an icy road, a neighboring car, a sloped road, and a road turn (Environmental data includes weather, and traffic – See at least ¶36).
Claims 43-45, 54, 55, 58, 59, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassenpflug, US 20190111807 A1, in view of Isozaki et al., US 20200216095 A1, and in view of Fields et al., US 20220089063 A1, as applied to claims 41, 57, and 60 above, and further in view of Breed et al., US 20060208169 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hassenpflug, Isozaki, Fields, and Breed, respectively.
As to claim 43, Hassenpflug discloses a position sensor, a liquid detection sensor, an optical sensor, a moisture sensor, an image sensor, a video sensor, and an audio sensor (Nav system, i.e., “position sensor,” camera, lidar, ultrasonic, and rain sensors – See at least ¶37-38).
The combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, and Fields fails to explicitly disclose a seat adhered sensor comprises a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a seat belt sensor, a pressure sensor, a weight sensor, an infrared sensor, a comfort detection sensor, and a temperature 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 combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, and Fields and include the feature of a seat adhered sensor comprising the above listed sensors, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Breed teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle control system arts to incorporate the above listed sensors for common vehicle applications like adjusting vehicle interiors, detecting vehicle occupants, etc. (Seatbelt payout sensor – See at least ¶621; Pressure/weight sensors, seat-adhered – See at least ¶251 and 255; Infrared – See at least ¶140; Temperature sensing – See at least ¶280; SAW sensors used for occupant comfort – See at least ¶2851 of Breed).
As to claim 44, Hassenpflug discloses the vehicle adhered sensor comprises a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a position sensor, a liquid detection sensor, an optical sensor, a moisture sensor, an image sensor, a video sensor, and an audio sensor (Camera, radar, lidar, ultrasonic, rain sensors – See at least ¶37).
The combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, and Fields fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of sensors comprises a seat belt sensor, a pressure sensor, a weight sensor, an infrared sensor, a comfort detection sensor, and a temperature 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 combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, and Fields and include the feature of a plurality of sensors comprising the above listed sensors, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Breed teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle control system arts to incorporate the above listed sensors for common vehicle applications like adjusting vehicle interiors, detecting vehicle occupants, etc. (Seatbelt payout sensor – See at least ¶621; Pressure/weight sensors, seat-adhered – See at least ¶251 and 255; Infrared – See at least ¶140; Temperature sensing – See at least ¶280; SAW sensors used for occupant comfort – See at least ¶2851 of Breed).
As to claim 45, Hassenpflug discloses a position sensor, a liquid detection sensor, an optical sensor, a moisture sensor, an image sensor, a video sensor, and an audio sensor (Nav system, i.e., “position sensor,” camera, lidar, ultrasonic, and rain sensors – See at least ¶37-38).
The combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, and Fields fails to explicitly disclose a belt adhered sensor comprises a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a seat belt sensor, a pressure sensor, a weight sensor, an infrared sensor, a comfort detection sensor, and a temperature 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 combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, and Fields and include the feature of a belt adhered sensor comprising the above listed sensors, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Breed teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle control system arts to incorporate the above listed sensors for common vehicle applications like adjusting vehicle interiors, detecting vehicle occupants, etc. (Seatbelt payout sensor – See at least ¶621; Pressure/weight sensors, seat-adhered – See at least ¶251 and 255; Infrared – See at least ¶140; Temperature sensing – See at least ¶280; SAW sensors used for occupant comfort – See at least ¶2851 of Breed).
As to claims 54, and 58, Hassenpflug discloses:
a processor-implemented prediction unit configured to predict an upcoming road condition (Determine danger – See at least Abstract; Examiner notes determining a measure of danger meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of predicting an upcoming road condition because determining danger is a predictive guess of risk, and this occurs as Hassenplfug’s vehicle operates along a road.); and
a processor-implemented recommendation unit configured to provide a recommendation for a suitable seating position based on the upcoming road condition (Seat control limited to a specific range – See at least Abstract; Examiner notes limiting seat control to a specific range is effectively a recommendation for a seat position between the limits of the range.).
The combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, and Fields fails to explicitly disclose a processor-implemented routing unit configured to generate the route to be pursued by a vehicle. 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 combination of Hassenpflug and Isozaki and include the feature of a processor-implemented routing unit configured to generate the route to be pursued by a vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Breed teaches it is well-known and routine for vehicle to be equipped with route guidance (Route guidance – See at least ¶271 of Breed).
As to claims 55, and 59, Hassenpflug discloses the processor-implemented recommendation unit is further configured to provide an updated recommendation for the suitable seating position based on the real-time risk level (Performed continuously, i.e., “updated” – See at least ¶49).
As to claim 61, Hassenpflug discloses the one or more second sensors are mounted in a body of the vehicle (Environmental data from sensor installed in vehicle – See at least ¶37).
Hassenpflug fails to explicitly disclose the one or more first sensors are mounted inside a cabin of the vehicle. 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 Hassenpflug and include the feature of the one or more first sensors are mounted inside a cabin of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Isozaki teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle safety arts to determine alertness using sensors mounted inside a vehicle cabin (In-vehicle camera – See at least ¶3 of Isozaki).
The combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, and Fields fails to explicitly disclose the one or more second sensors is configured to apply computer vision algorithms comprising machine learning and deep learning fusion processes to aggregate data related to: the vehicle, the seat and the seat belt, vehicle surroundings, occupant body features, occupant body posture, and occupant alertness. 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 combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, and Fields and include the feature of using machine learning as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Breed teaches using neural networks, machine learning, etc., is well-known and routine in various vehicle technologies, including determining various aspects of vehicle occupants and controlling various features of the vehicle, including seat position, accordingly (See at least ¶146, 152, 172 of Breed).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassenpflug, US 20190111807 A1, in view of Isozaki et al., US 20200216095 A1, and in view of Fields et al., US 20220089063 A1, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Wu, US 20210146803 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hassenpflug, Isozaki, Fields, and Wu, respectively.
As to claim 52, the combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, and Fields fails to explicitly disclose the adjustment of the seat belt comprises one or more of a seat belt payout, a seat belt tightness, a seat belt adjustment, and a seat belt travel length. 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 combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, and Fields and include the feature of the adjustment of the seat belt comprises one or more of a seat belt payout, a seat belt tightness, a seat belt adjustment, and a seat belt travel length, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Wu teaches it is well-known and routine to adjust seat belt tension in response to unwanted vehicle movements (Modify seat restraint tension – See at least ¶12 of Wu), like the unwanted vehicle movements associated with the risks contemplated by the combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, and Fields.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassenpflug, US 20190111807 A1, in view of Isozaki et al., US 20200216095 A1, in view of Fields et al., US 20220089063 A1, and in view of Wu, US 20210146803 A1, as applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of Breed et al., US 20060208169 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hassenpflug, Isozaki, Fields, Wu, and Breed, respectively.
As to claim 53, the combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, Fields, and Wu fails to explicitly disclose the electronic control unit adjusts the seat adjustment function based on height, weight, and size of the occupant. 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 combination of Hassenpflug, Isozaki, Fields, and Wu and include the feature of the electronic control unit adjusts the seat adjustment function based on height, weight, and size of the occupant, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Breed teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle seat control arts to adjust a seat based on a driver’s morphology (Seat adjustment based on height, weight, and other dimensions, i.e., “size” – See at least ¶107 of Breed).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights