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 .
Priority
This application is filed as CON of prior Application No. 18/257,960. The filed claims 24 and 38 recite “an automotive seat” that is newly added subject matter, therefore are entitled ONLY to the actual filing date of the CON.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 23-24, 28, 37-38, 40 and 44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11918122 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claims 23-24, 28, 37-38, 40 and 44 are anticipated by patent claim.
Regarding instant claim 23, patent claim 1 anticipates the claim limitations, as shown in the following table:
Instant Application
US 11918122 B2
23. (New) A computing apparatus comprising:
1. A remotely adjustable ergonomic chair, comprising:an adjustable chair having a controller operatively arranged to control a plurality of actuators in said chair;a mobile device operatively arranged to communicate with said controller;
one or more processors; and one or more computer readable storage media which store program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing apparatus to:
a mobile device operatively arranged to communicatewith said controller;wherein said mobile device includes a software application configured to enable a user to take various photographs of the user for storage and analysis in said mobile device;
obtain at least one image of a user;
wherein said mobile device includes a software application configured to enable a user to take various photographs of the user for storage and analysis in said mobile device;
use the computing apparatus to graphically represent personal body measurements within the at least one image displayed on the computing apparatus, and to receive input and store the user's height;
wherein said software application is arranged to permit said user to graphically represent personal body measurements within said photographs displayed on said mobile device, and to input and store the height of the user;
determine a plurality of personal body dimensions by analyzing the size and number of pixels in the at least one image in view of the height of the user; and
wherein said software application is arranged to calculate a plurality of personal body dimensions by analyzing the size and number of pixels in said photographs in view of said known height of said user;
determine ergonomic adjustments for an ergonomically adjustable system based upon: ergonomics, human factors, physiology, anatomy, biomechanics, anthropometry, and/or kinesiology.
wherein said software application is operatively arranged to calculate ergonomically optimum adjustments for said chair based upon factors selected from the group consisting of ergonomics, human factors, physiology, anatomy, biomechanics, anthropometry, and kinesiology;
Claim 23 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claims 24 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the patent (patent claim 1: chair, i.e. “furniture”). Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claims 28 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the patent (patent claim 1: first communication means operatively arranged to communicate said ergonomically optimum adjustments to said controller to adjust said chair, i.e. “transmit the ergonomic adjustments to a controller of the ergonomically adjustable system”). Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claims 37 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claims 38 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the patent (patent claim 1: chair i.e. “furniture”). Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claims 40 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the patent (patent claim 1: first communication means operatively arranged to communicate said ergonomically optimum adjustments to said controller to adjust said chair). Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claims 37 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11918122 B2 in view of KOLLER DE 102018115134.
Regarding claim 25, patent claim does not explicitly further teach determining the ergonomic adjustments based on: gender, age, weight, comfort preferences, seating position preferences, heel height of the user's footwear, and/or tissue allotment.
KOLLER explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining the ergonomic adjustments based on: gender, age, weight (page 3 paragraph 2 from the bottom, seat setting based on weight of the driver), comfort preferences, seating position preferences, heel height of the user's footwear, and/or tissue allotment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified patent claim to incorporate the teachings of KOLLER, because they all directed to ergonomic adjustment, to make the apparatus wherein determining the ergonomic adjustments based on: gender, age, weight. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to adjust the seating component to ergonomic position, as KOLLER teaches in page 3 paragraph 2 from the bottom.
Claims 26, 34, 39 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of US 11918122 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claims 26, 34, 39 and 41 are anticipated by patent claim.
Claims 26 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claims 34 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claims 39 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claims 41 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of US 11918122 B2 in view of Fagan US 20200148366 A1.
Regarding claim 27, patent claim does not explicitly further teach the ergonomic adjustments comprise a counteracting adjustment to one seat component made in response to an adjustment of a different seat component.
Fagan explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the ergonomic adjustments comprise a counteracting adjustment to one seat component made in response to an adjustment of a different seat component ([0067] the actuator 181-186 altering their length in a coordinated manner to adjust seat).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified patent claim to incorporate the teachings of Fagan, because they all directed to seat adjustment, to make the apparatus wherein the ergonomic adjustments comprise a counteracting adjustment to one seat component made in response to an adjustment of a different seat component. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to adjust the seating base position, as Fagan teaches in [0067].
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of US 11918122 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 29 is anticipated by patent claim.
Claims 29 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 6 of the patent (patent claim 6: a wirelessly enabled controller operatively arranged to convey commands from an external device to said central actuator or to said plurality of secondary actuators, i.e. “transmit the ergonomic adjustments to the controller via wireless communication”). Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claims 30-31, 35-36 and 42-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of US 11918122 B2 in view of HUBER US 20130090816 A1.
Regarding claim 30, patent claim does not explicitly further teach the wireless communication comprises a Bluetooth® communication or a near-field communication (NFC) communication.
HUBER explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the wireless communication comprises a Bluetooth® communication ([0019] Bluetooth) or a near-field communication (NFC) communication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified patent claim to incorporate the teachings of HUBER, because they all directed to seat adjustment, to make the apparatus/ wherein the wireless communication comprises a Bluetooth® communication or a near-field communication (NFC) communication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to adjust the seat, as HUBER teaches in [0015].
Regarding claim 31, patent claim further teaches the controller is operatively arranged to control a plurality of actuators to adjust the ergonomically adjustable system according to the ergonomic adjustments (patent claim 6: a wirelessly enabled controller operatively arranged to convey commands from an external device to said central actuator or to said plurality of secondary actuators, i.e. “control a plurality of actuators to adjust the ergonomically adjustable system according to the ergonomic adjustments”).
Regarding claims 35 and 42, HUBER further teaches the determining the ergonomic adjustments for the ergonomically adjustable system is further based upon one or more physiological landmarks of the user in the at least one image (Fig. 1C [0029] the physiological landmarks are recognized and marked).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified patent claim to incorporate the teachings of HUBER, because they all directed to seat adjustment, to make the apparatus/computer readable storage media wherein the determining the ergonomic adjustments for the ergonomically adjustable system is further based upon one or more physiological landmarks of the user in the at least one image. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to adjust the seat, as HUBER teaches in [0015].
Regarding claims 36 and 43, HUBER further teaches the determining the ergonomic adjustments for the ergonomically adjustable system is further based upon a respective distance between two of the physiological landmarks of the user (Fig. 1C marking bar 10, 20 and 30 are set for head, pelvis, etc. i.e. “two of the physiological landmarks of the user”, the height of each pair of the marks i.e. “a respective distance between two of the physiological landmarks of the user” are used for the adjustment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified patent claim to incorporate the teachings of HUBER, because they all directed to seat adjustment, to make the apparatus/computer readable storage media wherein the determining the ergonomic adjustments for the ergonomically adjustable system is further based upon a respective distance between two of the physiological landmarks of the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to adjust the seat, as HUBER teaches in [0015].
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US 11918122 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 32 is anticipated by patent claim.
Claims 32 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 4 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of US 11918122 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 33 is anticipated by patent claim.
Claims 33 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 5 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 37-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a signal – claims 37-43 recite “One or more computer readable storage media” that could be transitory.
The usage of the phrase “computer-readable storage medium” is broad enough to include both “non-transitory” and “transitory” media. The specification further explicitly does not limit the utilization of a non-transitory computer-readable medium (See specification, [0145] one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon). The specification does not further define computer readable medium. When the specification is silent, the BRI of a CRM and a computer readable storage media (CRSM) in view of the state of the art covers a signal per se. See Ex parte Mewherter, 2012-007962 (PTAB, 2013). Therefore, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).
For examination purpose, “computer-readable storage medium” in claims 37-43 will be construed as “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
Claims 23-30, 32-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 23 recites:
A computing apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more computer readable storage media which store program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing apparatus to:
obtain at least one image of a user;
use the computing apparatus to graphically represent personal body measurements within the at least one image displayed on the computing apparatus, and to receive input and store the user's height;
determine a plurality of personal body dimensions by analyzing the size and number of pixels in the at least one image in view of the height of the user; and
determine ergonomic adjustments for an ergonomically adjustable system based upon: ergonomics, human factors, physiology, anatomy, biomechanics, anthropometry, and/or kinesiology.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus. Thus, the claim is directed to a product, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one:
Claim 23 recites the limitations of “determine a plurality of personal body dimensions by analyzing the size and number of pixels in the at least one image in view of the height of the user; and determine ergonomic adjustments for an ergonomically adjustable system based upon: ergonomics, human factors, physiology, anatomy, biomechanics, anthropometry, and/or kinesiology”. The recited “determine …, and determine …” steps, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, determine a plurality of personal body dimensions can be done in the mind or with pen and paper by counting the number of pixels from the feet to top of head, dividing the height of the user by the number to get the dimension of a pixel, then counting number of pixels between two sides of the shoulder and multiplying the number with the pixel size to get the shoulder width. The seat setting can be determined in the mind or using pen and pager by looking up a table to find the settings for corresponding body dimension. 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two:
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional elements of 1) “obtain at least one image of a user” and “receive input and store the user's height”, these additional limitations represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, and are recited at a high level of generality (For example, see MPEP 2106.05(g), which notes that mere data gathering, outputting and storing can be seen as insignificant extra-solution activity). These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recited 2) “A computing apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer readable storage media which store program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing apparatus to” are additional elements which are to implement the apparatus. But the “processors” and “computer readable storage media” are recited at high level of generality (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is “processors” or “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium”) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See also MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recited 3) “use the computing apparatus to graphically represent personal body measurements within the at least one image displayed on the computing apparatus” is additional limitation that is recited at high level of generality (no details what so ever are provided other than causing to act), it is a general field of use and mere instruction to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or mere field of use and technological environment (MPEP 2016.05(h)) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional limitation and additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has the following additional limitations and elements:
1) “obtain at least one image of a user” and “receive input and store the user's height”;
2) “A computing apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer readable storage media which store program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing apparatus to”;
3) “use the computing apparatus to graphically represent personal body measurements within the at least one image displayed on the computing apparatus”.
Regarding 1), as explained previously, are extra-solution activities, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. As indicated in MPEP 2016.05(d) II, receiving, transmitting and storing data are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Regarding 2) “A computing apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer readable storage media which store program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing apparatus to” are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding 3) “use the computing apparatus to graphically represent personal body measurements within the at least one image displayed on the computing apparatus” is additional limitation that is a general field of use and mere instruction to apply an exception or mere field of use and technological environment and does not add an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim directs to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Claim 24 depends on claim 23, and recites additional elements of “the ergonomically adjustable system comprises furniture, a seat, or an automotive seat” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 24 is not patent eligible.
Claim 25 depends on claim 23, and recites additional limitation of “determine the ergonomic adjustments based on: gender, age, weight, comfort preferences, seating position preferences, heel height of the user's footwear, and/or tissue allotment” that merely specifies some details of the “determine …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 25 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 25 is not patent eligible.
Claim 26 depends on claim 24, and recites additional elements of “the ergonomic adjustments comprise adjustments to one or more of: seat height, seat tilt, armrest width, armrest height, lumbar height, lumbar support density, seat depth, and/or backrest angle” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 26 is not patent eligible.
Claim 27 depends on claim 26, and recites additional elements of “the ergonomic adjustments comprise a counteracting adjustment to one seat component made in response to an adjustment of a different seat component” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 27 is not patent eligible.
Claim 28 depends on claim 23, and recites additional limitations of “transmit the ergonomic adjustments to a controller of the ergonomically adjustable system” that represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, or mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer, and are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 28 is not patent eligible.
Claim 29 depends on claim 28, and recites additional limitations of “transmit the ergonomic adjustments to the controller via wireless communication” that represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, or mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer, and are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 29 is not patent eligible.
Claim 30 depends on claim 29, and recites additional elements of “the wireless communication comprises a Bluetooth® communication or a near-field communication (NFC) communication” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 30 is not patent eligible.
Claim 32 depends on claim 23, and recites additional elements of “the personal body dimensions comprise personal body rear view measurements, wherein the personal body rear view measurements comprise one or more of: a width of the user's hips and/or a distance between the left and right deltoid muscles of the user” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 32 is not patent eligible.
Claim 33 depends on claim 23, and recites additional elements of “the personal body dimensions comprise personal body side view measurements, wherein the personal body side view measurements comprise one or more of: a distance from a top of the user's head to a middle of the user's elbow, a distance from the top of the user's head to a middle of the user's lumbar curve, a distance from the top of the user's head to a most protruding part of the user's buttocks, and/or a distance from the top of the user's head to a base of the user's patella” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 33 is not patent eligible.
Claim 34 depends on claim 23, and recites additional elements of “the ergonomic adjustments comprise an adjustment to at least one of an angle or a distance of a component of the ergonomically adjustable system” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 34 is not patent eligible.
Claim 35 depends on claim 23, and recites additional limitation of “the determining the ergonomic adjustments for the ergonomically adjustable system is further based upon one or more physiological landmarks of the user in the at least one image” that merely specifies some details of the “determine …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 35 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 35 is not patent eligible.
Claim 36 depends on claim 35, and recites additional limitation of “the determining the ergonomic adjustments for the ergonomically adjustable system is further based upon a respective distance between two of the physiological landmarks of the user” that merely specifies some details of the “determine …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 36 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 36 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 37,
Step 1: The claim recites non-transitory computer readable storage media as construed. Thus, the claim is directed to a product, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A and Step 2B: Similarly, as recited in the rejection of claim 23, claim 37 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claim 37 is not patent eligible.
Claim 38 depends on claim 37, recite similar additional limitations to that of claim 24, therefore are not patent eligible.
Claim 39 depends on claim 37, recite similar additional limitations to that of claim 26, therefore are not patent eligible.
Claim 40 depends on claim 37, recite similar additional limitations to that of claim 28, therefore are not patent eligible.
Claim 41 depends on claim 37, recite similar additional limitations to that of claim 34, therefore are not patent eligible.
Claim 42 depends on claim 37, recite similar additional limitations to that of claim 35, therefore are not patent eligible.
Claim 43 depends on claim 42, recite similar additional limitations to that of claim 36, therefore are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 44,
Step 1: The claim recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A and Step 2B: Similarly, as recited in the rejection of claim 23, claim 44 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claim 44 is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 24 and 38 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 claim(s) contains 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not identify the specific structures that perform the functions in the claims:
Claims 24 and 38 recites “an automotive seat”, lacks corresponding structure, material or acts described in the specification.
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 23-44 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.
Claims 23, 37 and 44 recite “the size” that lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 24-36 and 38-43, dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 23-24, 26, 28-31 and 34-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUBER US 20130090816 A1 in view of HOU CN 111375198 A.
Regarding claim 23, HUBER teaches a computing apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more computer readable storage media which store program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors ([0015] mobile terminal device, the data medium i.e. the memory of the mobile terminal device), cause the computing apparatus to:
obtain at least one image of a user ([0002] [0008] [0011] the mobile terminal taking image of the vehicle occupant);
use the computing apparatus to graphically represent personal body measurements within the at least one image displayed on the computing apparatus, and to receive input and store the user's height ([0011] [0015] [0016] the mobile terminal device displays the two-dimension image on touch screen, and stores the height input by the person using touch screen input);
determine a plurality of personal body dimensions by analyzing the size in the at least one image in view of the height of the user ([0015] [0006] using the body proportions determined by the mobile terminal device and the heigh information received by the mobile terminal device, the mobile terminal device determines a defined absolute setting of the seat components and/or vehicle components based on the body dimensitions, which is based on the absolute sizes of the body parts); and
determine ergonomic adjustments for an ergonomically adjustable system based upon: ergonomics ([0015] [0016] ergonomically optimal setting of the seat components), human factors, physiology, anatomy, biomechanics, anthropometry, and/or kinesiology.
HUBER does not explicitly further teach determining the plurality of personal body dimensions by analyzing number of pixels in the at least one image.
HOU explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining the plurality of personal body dimensions by analyzing number of pixels in the at least one image (Fig. 4C page 5 paragraph 1, using the number of pixels to estimate dimension information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HUBER to incorporate the teachings of HOU, because they all directed to seat adjustment, to make the apparatus wherein determining the plurality of personal body dimensions by analyzing number of pixels in the at least one image. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to adjust the seat, as HOU teaches in Abstract.
Regarding claim 24, HUBER further teaches the ergonomically adjustable system comprises furniture, a seat ([0002] a seat), or an automotive seat.
Regarding claim 26, HUBER further teaches the ergonomic adjustments comprise adjustments to one or more of: seat height, seat tilt, armrest width, armrest height, lumbar height, lumbar support density, seat depth, and/or backrest angle ([0009] inclination of backrest).
Regarding claim 28, HUBER further teaches transmit the ergonomic adjustments to a controller of the ergonomically adjustable system ([0015] the desired positions to be set are transferred to the control unit).
Regarding claim 29, HUBER further teaches transmit the ergonomic adjustments to the controller via wireless communication ([0019] Bluetooth).
Regarding claim 30, HUBER further teaches the wireless communication comprises a Bluetooth® communication ([0019] Bluetooth) or a near-field communication (NFC) communication.
Regarding claim 31, HUBER further teaches the controller is operatively arranged to control a plurality of actuators to adjust the ergonomically adjustable system according to the ergonomic adjustments ([0005] the actuators).
Regarding claim 34, HUBER further teaches the ergonomic adjustments comprise an adjustment to at least one of an angle ([0009] inclination of backrest) or a distance of a component of the ergonomically adjustable system.
Regarding claim 35, HUBER further teaches the determining the ergonomic adjustments for the ergonomically adjustable system is further based upon one or more physiological landmarks of the user in the at least one image (Fig. 1C [0029] the physiological landmarks are recognized and marked).
Regarding claim 36, HUBER further teaches the determining the ergonomic adjustments for the ergonomically adjustable system is further based upon a respective distance between two of the physiological landmarks of the user (Fig. 1C marking bar 10, 20 and 30 are set for head, pelvis, etc. i.e. “two of the physiological landmarks of the user”, the height of each pair of the marks i.e. “a respective distance between two of the physiological landmarks of the user” are used for the adjustment).
Regarding claim 37, as construed, it is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage media having instructions of carrying out the apparatus with similar limitations as set forth in claim 23. Since HUBER and HOU teach the claimed apparatus, they teach the instructions for implementing the apparatus.
Claim 38 recites similar limitations to that of claim 24 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 39 recites similar limitations to that of claim 26 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 40 recites similar limitations to that of claim 28 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 41 recites similar limitations to that of claim 34 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 42 recites similar limitations to that of claim 35 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 43 recites similar limitations to that of claim 36 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 44, it is directed to a method of carrying out the apparatus with similar limitations as set forth in claim 23. Since HUBER and HOU teach the claimed apparatus, they teach the method steps for implementing the apparatus.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUBER in view of HOU as applied to claims 23-24, 26, 28-31 and 34-44 above, further in view of KOLLER DE 102018115134.
Regarding claim 25, neither HUBER nor HOU explicitly further teaches determining the ergonomic adjustments based on: gender, age, weight, comfort preferences, seating position preferences, heel height of the user's footwear, and/or tissue allotment.
KOLLER explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining the ergonomic adjustments based on: gender, age, weight (page 3 paragraph 2 from the bottom, seat setting based on weight of the driver), comfort preferences, seating position preferences, heel height of the user's footwear, and/or tissue allotment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HUBER and HOU to incorporate the teachings of KOLLER, because they all directed to ergonomic adjustment, to make the apparatus wherein determining the ergonomic adjustments based on: gender, age, weight. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to adjust the seating component to ergonomic position, as KOLLER teaches in page 3 paragraph 2 from the bottom.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUBER in view of HOU as applied to claims 23-24, 26, 28-31 and 34-44 above, further in view of Fagan US 20200148366 A1.
Regarding claim 27, neither HUBER nor HOU explicitly further teaches the ergonomic adjustments comprise a counteracting adjustment to one seat component made in response to an adjustment of a different seat component.
Fagan explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the ergonomic adjustments comprise a counteracting adjustment to one seat component made in response to an adjustment of a different seat component ([0067] the actuator 181-186 altering their length in a coordinated manner to adjust seat).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HUBER and HOU to incorporate the teachings of Fagan, because they all directed to seat adjustment, to make the apparatus wherein the ergonomic adjustments comprise a counteracting adjustment to one seat component made in response to an adjustment of a different seat component. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to adjust the seating base position, as Fagan teaches in [0067].
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUBER in view of HOU as applied to claims 23-24, 26, 28-31 and 34-44 above, further in view of Haddad US 20150221090 A1.
Regarding claim 32, neither HUBER nor HOU explicitly further teaches the personal body dimensions comprise personal body rear view measurements, wherein the personal body rear view measurements comprise one or more of: a width of the user's hips and/or a distance between the left and right deltoid muscles of the user.
Haddad explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the personal body dimensions comprise personal body rear view measurements, wherein the personal body rear view measurements comprise one or more of: a width of the user's hips and/or a distance between the left and right deltoid muscles of the user ([0029] shoulder width, distance between outside of shoulder from rear view).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HUBER and HOU to incorporate the teachings of Haddad, because they all directed to body geometry measurement, to make the apparatus wherein the personal body dimensions comprise personal body rear view measurements, wherein the personal body rear view measurements comprise one or more of: a width of the user's hips and/or a distance between the left and right deltoid muscles of the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to measure the body part geometry, as Haddad teaches in [0029].
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUBER in view of HOU as applied to claims 23-24, 26, 28-31 and 34-44 above, further in view of Mok US 20200126295 A1.
Regarding claim 32, neither HUBER nor HOU explicitly further teaches the personal body dimensions comprise personal body side view measurements, wherein the personal body side view measurements comprise one or more of: a distance from a top of the user's head to a middle of the user's elbow, a distance from the top of the user's head to a middle of the user's lumbar curve, a distance from the top of the user's head to a most protruding part of the user's buttocks, and/or a distance from the top of the user's head to a base of the user's patella.
Mok explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the personal body dimensions comprise personal body side view measurements, wherein the personal body side view measurements comprise one or more of: a distance from a top of the user's head to a middle of the user's elbow (Fig. 9 [0220] point 906), a distance from the top of the user's head to a middle of the user's lumbar curve (Fig. 13 [0240] waist section 1306), a distance from the top of the user's head to a most protruding part of the user's buttocks (Fig. 14 [0241] most prominent point 1401 of hip, the hip height 1402 is the body height minus distance from the top of head to the most protruding part of user’s buttocks), and/or a distance from the top of the user's head to a base of the user's patella (Fig. 9 [0020] point 904).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HUBER and HOU to incorporate the teachings of Mok, because they all directed to body geometry measurement, to make the apparatus wherein the personal body dimensions comprise personal body side view measurements, wherein the personal body side view measurements comprise one or more of: a distance from a top of the user's head to a middle of the user's elbow, a distance from the top of the user's head to a middle of the user's lumbar curve, a distance from the top of the user's head to a most protruding part of the user's buttocks, and/or a distance from the top of the user's head to a base of the user's patella. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to determining geometric positions of key features of the body, as Mok teaches in [0269].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KARAVAEV US 20170156430 A1 teaches measuring body dimensions using side view and rear view of body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights