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 the applicant’s filing on November 11, 2025. Claims 41, 42, 46, 48, 57, and 60 have been amended. Claims 1-40, 47 have been canceled. Claim 61 has been added. Claims 41-46, and 48-61 are pending and are examined below.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed November 11, 2025 with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered. The previous objections have been rendered moot by the present amendments.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed November 11, 2025 with respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered. The previous rejections have been rendered moot by the present 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.
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: “a routing unit configured to,” “a prediction unit configured to,” and “a recommendation unit configured to” in claims 54 and 55.
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
Claim 54 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “the route” appears to lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 61 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “the set of data” appears to lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 54 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 54 and 55, claim elements “a routing unit configured to,” “a prediction unit configured to,” and “a recommendation unit configured to” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed units. Applicant’s Specification briefly mentions each of these units (See at least ¶165-167 of Applicant’s PGPUB) but fails to provide any further detail regarding the structure, material, or acts for the claimed units for these units. Therefore, claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 54 and 55 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 claims 54 and 55, claim elements “a routing unit configured to,” “a prediction unit configured to,” and “a recommendation unit configured to” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed units. Applicant’s Specification briefly mentions each of these units (See at least ¶165-167 of Applicant’s PGPUB) but fails to provide any further detail regarding the structure, material, or acts for the claimed units for these units. Therefore, claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 48-52, 55-57, 59, 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, hereinafter referred to as Hassenpflug, and Isozaki, 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);
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).
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 based on the real-time risk level (Seat adjustment range may be reduced, i.e., “restricted” – See at least ¶55 and Fig. 3).
As to claim 52, Hassenpflug discloses the seat adjustment function comprises one or more of a seat recline, a seat height, a seat belt payout, a backrest angle, a lumbar support adjustment, a seat belt tightness, a seat belt adjustment, and a seat belt travel length (Various axes of adjustment – See at least ¶52 and Fig. 2).
As to claims 55, and 59, Hassenpflug discloses the 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 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, 44, 53, 54, 58, 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, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Breed et al., US 20060208169 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hassenpflug, Isozaki, 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 and Isozaki 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 and Isozaki 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 and Isozaki 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 and Isozaki 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 and Isozaki 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 and Isozaki 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 claim 53, the combination of Hassenpflug and Isozaki fails to explicitly disclose the 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 and Isozaki and include the feature of the 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).
As to claims 54, and 58, Hassenpflug discloses:
a 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 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 and Isozaki fails to explicitly disclose a 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 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 claim 61, Hassenpflug discloses the one or more second sensors are 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 and Isozaki fails to explicitly disclose the one or more second sensors are supported by intelligent computer vision algorithms to utilize one or more machine learning and deep learning fusion processes to aggregate the set of data related to vehicle, seat and seat belt, the set of data related to vehicle surroundings, and the set of data related to occupant body features, body posture and 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 and Isozaki 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).
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