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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 01/02/2026. Claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-20 considered in this office action. Claims 1 and 13 are amended. Claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are pending examination. Applicant's amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection therefore, claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
Roy and other cited prior art references do not disclose requesting a driver to take over the control authority while the autonomous driving mode is being performed, when the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than a first threshold, or when the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than a second threshold.
The Applicant’s argument A with respect to the claims have been fully considered and are moot in light of new grounds for rejection below. Applicant amended claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of former claim 10. As originally presented claim 1 broadly recited controlling whether to hand over control authority based on the seat position or seatback angle of the driver seat. As amended claim 1 now more specifically requires requesting the driver to take over control authority while the autonomous driving mode is being performed when the seat position exceeds a first threshold or when the back angle exceed a second threshold. The amendment changed the scope and operative meaning of the claim by requiring threshold based takeover logic during autonomous driving, rather than generic control of handover based on seat position or angle. The newly cited reference (Saito et al.) is relied upon only for this newly added threshold triggered takeover request subject matter. Accordingly, the new ground of rejection was necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
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 1-2, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Roy (US11351892B1) in view of Minato et al. (US20180292821A1), further in view of Saito et al. (JP2016078530A).
Regarding claim 1, Roy discloses, an autonomous controller comprising: a processor configured to: control autonomous driving (Background, provide signals to a processor or controller that generates and outputs steering) … (10, Lines 53, the vehicle processor can pre-emptively or proactively transmit signals to the actuators 250 to commence compensatory movements to coincide with the actual vehicle), determine whether to enable an autonomous driving mode based on a current position of a seat of a driver (7, Lines 12, it will be appreciated that the autonomous driving mode may itself be triggered by detecting that the seat (driver's seat) has reclined beyond a predetermined angular threshold), or to convert the autonomous driving mode into a manual driving mode based on a current position of a seat of a driver (10, Lines 5, steering wheels is unfolded and thus useable at any one time) … (9, Lines 57, the fold signal and the unfold signal may be automatically generated in response to reclination of the seat beyond a predetermined angle of reclination or by activating an autonomous driving mode), and control whether to hand over control authority based on a movement position on an angle of a backrest of the seat of the driver (7, Lines 12, it will be appreciated that the autonomous driving mode may itself be triggered by detecting that the seat (driver's seat) has reclined beyond a predetermined angular threshold); and a storage configured to store data and an algorithm run by the processor (Detailed Description Paragraph 9, physical data connections may be used to load data onto the memory or to copy data from the memory. For example, the data communication ports may be used to upgrade software, to obtain diagnostics for servicing and maintenance, or to upload configuration data to the memory to configure the vehicle for different types of behaviors).
However, Roy does not explicitly disclose, control whether to hand over control authority based on a movement position in a forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver.
Nevertheless, Minato who is in the same field of endeavor of vehicle seat control discloses, controlling whether to hand over control authority based on a movement position in a forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver (0083, the seat control unit 160 may perform control of switching the driving mode from automated driving to the manual driving subject to return of the slide position of the seat 310 to the position of manual driving. In this case, the seat control unit 160 determines whether the slide position of the second slide mechanism 322 has been returned to the position of manual driving and performs control of switching the driving mode from automated driving to manual driving using the second control unit 140 subject to return of the second slide mechanism 322 to the position P2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined Roy and Minato’s disclosure to address the interaction of driver’s seat positions/angle with vehicle operating modes.
Justification for combining Roy and Minato not only comes from the state of the art but from Roy (Final Paragraph, this new technology has been described in terms of specific implementations and configurations which are intended to be exemplary only. Persons of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that many obvious variations, refinements and modifications may be made without departing from the inventive concepts presented in this application.).
Additionally, Saito who is in the same field of endeavor of autonomous driving takeover request discloses that the processor is configured to request a driver to take over the control authority while the autonomous driving mode is being performed (Step 310, the automatic driving device 10 forcibly stops the automatic driving mode and notifies the driver by the display device 11 and the sound and light notification device 13 that the driving mode has been switched. In addition, as an example, the automatic driving mode is forcibly stopped), when the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than a first threshold (Step 38, the autonomous driving device 10 calculates the difference between the seat position [1] and the seat position [2] that it has memorized, and if the difference is less than the threshold, proceed to step 39. If the difference exceeds the threshold, proceed to step 310), or when the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than a second threshold (Step 37, the autonomous driving device 10 calculates the difference between the seat angle [1] and the seat angle [2] that it has memorized, and if the difference is less than the threshold, proceed to step 38. If the difference exceeds the threshold, proceed to step 310).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined the combination of Roy and Minato to incorporate Saito. This would allow for safe operation and use of the autonomous driving mode, while also allowing the driver to have enhanced comfortability to an extent.
Justification for combining the combination of Roy and Minato with Saito not only comes from the state of the art but from Saito (Step 310, By determining the driver's posture in steps 36 to 38 and switching the driving mode, the driving mode can be switched more safely.). variations, refinements and modifications may be made without departing from the inventive concepts presented in this application.).
Regarding claim 2, Roy, Minato, and Saito disclose the autonomous controller of claim 1 as discussed supra. Additionally, Minato discloses, the processor is configured not to enable the autonomous driving mode when the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than a first threshold (0076, the seat control unit 160 determines whether the driving mode in execution of the vehicle M is automated driving using the first control unit 120 and the second control unit 140, and enables the second slide mechanism 322 to slide along the first slide mechanism).
Furthermore, Roy teaches the condition of when the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than a second threshold (7, Lines 12, it will be appreciated that the autonomous driving mode may itself be triggered by detecting that the seat (driver's seat) has reclined beyond a predetermined angular threshold).
Regarding claim 13, Roy discloses an autonomous controller comprising: a processor configured to: control autonomous driving (Background, provide signals to a processor or controller that generates and outputs steering) … (10, Lines 53, the vehicle processor can pre-emptively or proactively transmit signals to the actuators 250 to commence compensatory movements to coincide with the actual vehicle), determine whether to enable an autonomous driving mode or to convert the autonomous driving mode into a manual driving mode based on a current position of a seat of a driver (7, Lines 12, it will be appreciated that the autonomous driving mode may itself be triggered by detecting that the seat (driver's seat) has reclined beyond a predetermined angular threshold), and control whether to enable the autonomous driving mode based on an angle of a backrest of the seat of the driver (7, Lines 12, it will be appreciated that the autonomous driving mode may itself be triggered by detecting that the seat (driver's seat) has reclined beyond a predetermined angular threshold) and a storage configured to store data and an algorithm run by the processor (Detailed Description Paragraph 9, physical data connections may be used to load data onto the memory or to copy data from the memory. For example, the data communication ports may be used to upgrade software, to obtain diagnostics for servicing and maintenance, or to upload configuration data to the memory to configure the vehicle for different types of behaviors).
However, Roy does not explicitly disclose control whether to enable the autonomous driving mode based on a movement position in a forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver.
Nevertheless, Minato discloses, control whether to enable the autonomous driving mode based on a movement position in a forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver (0083, the seat control unit 160 may perform control of switching the driving mode from automated driving to the manual driving subject to return of the slide position of the seat 310 to the position of manual driving. In this case, the seat control unit 160 determines whether the slide position of the second slide mechanism 322 has been returned to the position of manual driving and performs control of switching the driving mode from automated driving to manual driving using the second control unit 140 subject to return of the second slide mechanism 322 to the position P2).
Additionally, Saito discloses that the processor is configured to request a driver to take over the control authority while the autonomous driving mode is being performed (Step 310, the automatic driving device 10 forcibly stops the automatic driving mode and notifies the driver by the display device 11 and the sound and light notification device 13 that the driving mode has been switched. In addition, as an example, the automatic driving mode is forcibly stopped), when the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than a first threshold (Step 38, the autonomous driving device 10 calculates the difference between the seat position [1] and the seat position [2] that it has memorized, and if the difference is less than the threshold, proceed to step 39. If the difference exceeds the threshold, proceed to step 310), or when the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than a second threshold (Step 37, the autonomous driving device 10 calculates the difference between the seat angle [1] and the seat angle [2] that it has memorized, and if the difference is less than the threshold, proceed to step 38. If the difference exceeds the threshold, proceed to step 310).
Regarding claim 14, Roy, Minato, and Saito disclose the autonomous controller of claim 13 as discussed supra. Additionally, Minato discloses the processor is configured not to enable the autonomous driving mode when the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than a first threshold (0076, the seat control unit 160 determines whether the driving mode in execution of the vehicle M is automated driving using the first control unit 120 and the second control unit 140, and enables the second slide mechanism 322 to slide along the first slide mechanism).
Furthermore, Roy discloses the condition of when the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than a second threshold (7, Lines 12, it will be appreciated that the autonomous driving mode may itself be triggered by detecting that the seat (driver's seat) has reclined beyond a predetermined angular threshold).
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Roy (US11351892B1) in view of Minato et al. (US20180292821A1), further in view of Kobayashi et al. (JP2019156247A), further in view of Saito et al. (JP2016078530A).
Regarding claim 3, Roy, Minato, and Saito disclose the autonomous controller of claim 2 as discussed supra. Additionally, Kobayashi who is in the same field of endeavor of seat devices discloses, the processor is configured to perform position adjustment of the seat of the driver when, while the driver is keeping his or her hands on a steering wheel, manipulating a brake pedal, or manipulating an accelerator pedal (Description, in the manual operation mode, conditions for stopping the control of the seat back angle are set based on detection values from devices directly operated by the driver, such as an accelerator operation, a brake operation, and a steering operation), the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than the first threshold (Description, if the value Pc of the third pressure sensor 64C is smaller than the second threshold value Pth2, the fourth determination signal Sd for rotating the second drive motor 70B, for example, reversely is output to the second motor drive unit 84B), or the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than the second threshold (Description, when the value of the first pressure sensor is larger than the value of the second pressure sensor, the control unit may control the angle in a direction in which the seat back is tilted).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined Roy, Minato, Saito and Kobayashi’s disclosures to have the seat parameter thresholds be activated while the car is in manual operation. This would in turn ensure safe operation of the vehicle by fixing the thresholds so the driver is in a proper position for operating the vehicle.
Justification for combining Roy, Minato, Saito and Kobayashi not only comes from the state of the art but from Roy (Final Paragraph, this new technology has been described in terms of specific implementations and configurations which are intended to be exemplary only. Persons of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that many obvious variations, refinements and modifications may be made without departing from the inventive concepts presented in this application.).
Regarding claim 9, Roy, Minato, and Saito disclose the autonomous controller of claim 1 as discussed supra. Additionally, Kobayashi discloses, the processor is configured to restrict position adjustment of the seat of the driver while the autonomous driving mode is being performed (0018, the control means changes the condition for stopping the control of the seat back angle depending on whether the current mode is the manual operation mode or the automatic operation mode), when the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than a first threshold (Description, if the value Pc of the third pressure sensor 64C is smaller than the second threshold value Pth2, the fourth determination signal Sd for rotating the second drive motor 70B, for example, reversely is output to the second motor drive unit 84B), or when the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than a second threshold (Description, when the value of the first pressure sensor is larger than the value of the second pressure sensor, the control unit may control the angle in a direction in which the seat back is tilted).
Regarding claim 15, Roy, Minato, and Saito disclose the autonomous controller of claim 14 as discussed supra. Additionally, Kobayashi discloses, the processor is configured to perform position adjustment of the seat of the driver when, while the driver is keeping his or her hands on a steering wheel, manipulating a brake pedal, or manipulating an accelerator pedal, (Description, in the manual operation mode, conditions for stopping the control of the seat back angle are set based on detection values from devices directly operated by the driver, such as an accelerator operation, a brake operation, and a steering operation), the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than the first threshold (Description, if the value Pc of the third pressure sensor 64C is smaller than the second threshold value Pth2, the fourth determination signal Sd for rotating the second drive motor 70B, for example, reversely is output to the second motor drive unit 84B), or the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than the second threshold. (Description, when the value of the first pressure sensor is larger than the value of the second pressure sensor, the control unit may control the angle in a direction in which the seat back is tilted).
Claims 11-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Roy (US11351892B1) in view of Minato et al. (US20180292821A1), further in view of Yetukuri et al.( US20190299814A1), further in view of Saito et al. (JP2016078530A).
Regarding claim 11, Roy, Minato, and Saito disclose the autonomous controller of claim 1 as discussed supra. Additionally, Yetukuri discloses, the processor is configured to determine that the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than a first threshold when the seat of the driver moves by more than a predetermined position in the backward direction (0038, the controller may also determine if the rearward travel in a longitudinal direction A of the front seat 12 is at some predetermined limit. The predetermined limits may be a fixed dimension based on empirical procedures to determine the appropriate longitudinal dimension in the fore-aft direction A or the appropriate angle in the recline direction B to use as the predetermined limits) … (0038, once the rearward travel no longer less than the predetermined limit, the method moves to a decision block 126 where it is determined if the rearward travel is greater than the predetermined limit).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined Roy, Minato, Saito and Yetukuri’s disclosures to have fixed and adjustable thresholds for the seat angle and the seats longitudinal direction. This would in turn ensure safe operation of the vehicle by fixing the thresholds so the driver is in a proper position for operating the vehicle.
Justification for combining Roy, Minato Saito, and Yetukuri not only comes from the state of the art but from Roy (Final Paragraph, this new technology has been described in terms of specific implementations and configurations which are intended to be exemplary only. Persons of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that many obvious variations, refinements and modifications may be made without departing from the inventive concepts presented in this application.).
Regarding claim 12, Roy, Minato, and Saito disclose the autonomous controller of claim 1 as discussed supra. Additionally, Yetukuri discloses, the processor is configured to determine that the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than a second threshold when the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver leans forward or backward over a predetermined angle with respect to a right angle (0043, the method moves to a decision block 126 where it is determined if the rearward travel is greater than the predetermined limit. For example, at block 126 the controller may determine if the angle of recline for the front seatback 22 is greater than the predetermined limit, or if the longitudinal dimension of the front seat 12 in the fore-aft direction A exceeds the predetermined limit).
Regarding claim 19, Roy, Minato, and Saito disclose the autonomous controller of claim 13 as discussed supra. Additionally, Yetukuri discloses, the processor is configured to determine that the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than a first threshold when the seat of the driver moves by more than a predetermined position in the backward direction (0038, the controller may also determine if the rearward travel in a longitudinal direction A of the front seat 12 is at some predetermined limit. The predetermined limits may be a fixed dimension based on empirical procedures to determine the appropriate longitudinal dimension in the fore-aft direction A or the appropriate angle in the recline direction B to use as the predetermined limits) … (0038, once the rearward travel no longer less than the predetermined limit, the method moves to a decision block 126 where it is determined if the rearward travel is greater than the predetermined limit)
Regarding claim 20, Roy, Minato, and Saito disclose the autonomous controller of claim 13 as discussed supra. Additionally, Yetukuri discloses, the processor is configured to determine that the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than a second threshold when the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver leans forward or backward over a predetermined angle with respect to a right angle. (0043, the method moves to a decision block 126 where it is determined if the rearward travel is greater than the predetermined limit. For example, at block 126 the controller may determine if the angle of recline for the front seatback 22 is greater than the predetermined limit, or if the longitudinal dimension of the front seat 12 in the fore-aft direction A exceeds the predetermined limit).
Claims 4-5, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Roy (US11351892B1) in view of Minato et al. (US20180292821A1), further in view of Kobayashi et al. (JP2019156247A), further in view of Yetukuri et al.( US20190299814A1), further in view of Saito et al. (JP2016078530A).
Regarding claim 4, Roy, Minato, and Saito disclose the autonomous controller of claim 2 as discussed supra. Additionally, Kobayashi discloses, the driver is keeping his or her hands on a steering wheel, manipulating a brake pedal, or manipulating an accelerator pedal (Description, in the manual operation mode, conditions for stopping the control of the seat back angle are set based on detection values from devices directly operated by the driver, such as an accelerator operation, a brake operation, and a steering operation). It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined Roy, Minato and Kobayashi’s disclosures for the same reasons as discussed supra.
However Kobayashi in combination with Roy, Minato, and Saito does not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to adjust the first threshold or the second threshold and the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than the first threshold or the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than the second threshold.
Nevertheless, Yetukuri who is in the same field of endeavor of Seat adjustment methods discloses, the processor is configured to adjust the first threshold or the second threshold (0013, the rear travel threshold varies based on occupant data) … (0014, the rear travel threshold has a fixed dimension being at least one of a maximum recline angle of the front seatback and a maximum longitudinal dimension of the front seat bottom), and the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than the first threshold or the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than the second threshold (0012, the controller is programmed to move the front seat assembly forward by at least one of decreasing a recline angle of a front seatback and moving a front seat bottom forward in a longitudinal direction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined Roy, Minato, Saito, Kobayashi and Yetukuri’s disclosures to have fixed and adjustable thresholds for the seat angle and the seats longitudinal direction. This would in turn ensure safe operation of the vehicle by fixing the thresholds so the driver is in a proper position for operating the vehicle.
Justification for combining Roy, Minato, Saito, Kobayashi and Yetukuri not only comes from the state of the art but from Roy (Final Paragraph, this new technology has been described in terms of specific implementations and configurations which are intended to be exemplary only. Persons of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that many obvious variations, refinements and modifications may be made without departing from the inventive concepts presented in this application.).
Regarding claim 5, Roy, Minato, Saito Kobayashi and Yetukuri disclose the autonomous controller of claim 4 as discussed supra. Additionally, Yetukuri discloses, the processor is configured to maintain or increase the first threshold or the second threshold (0014, the rear travel threshold has a fixed dimension being at least one of a maximum recline angle of the front seatback and a maximum longitudinal dimension of the front seat bottom) … (the predetermined limits may vary based on the occupant data).
Regarding claim 16, Roy, Minato, and Saito disclose the autonomous controller of claim 14 as discussed supra. Additionally, Kobayashi discloses, the driver is keeping his or her hands on a steering wheel, manipulating a brake pedal, or manipulating an accelerator pedal.
Furthermore, Yetukuri discloses, the processor is configured to adjust the first threshold or the second threshold (0013, the rear travel threshold varies based on occupant data) … (0014, the rear travel threshold has a fixed dimension being at least one of a maximum recline angle of the front seatback and a maximum longitudinal dimension of the front seat bottom), and the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than the first threshold or the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than the second threshold (0012, the controller is programmed to move the front seat assembly forward by at least one of decreasing a recline angle of a front seatback and moving a front seat bottom forward in a longitudinal direction).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Roy (US11351892B1) in view of Minato et al. (US20180292821A1), further in view of Kobayashi et al. (JP2019156247A), further in view of Yetukuri et al.(US20190299814A1), further in view of Breed et al. (US5822707A), further in view of Saito et al. (JP2016078530A).
Regarding claim 6, Roy, Minato, and Saito disclose the autonomous controller of claim 2 as discussed supra. Additionally, Yetukuri discloses, the processor is configured to adjust the first threshold or the second threshold (0013, the rear travel threshold varies based on occupant data) … (0014, the rear travel threshold has a fixed dimension being at least one of a maximum recline angle of the front seatback and a maximum longitudinal dimension of the front seat bottom). It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined Roy, Minato, Saito and Yetukuri’s disclosures for the same reasons as discussed supra.
Furthermore, Kobayashi discloses, the driver keeps his or her hands on a steering wheel (Description, in the manual operation mode, conditions for stopping the control of the seat back angle are set based on detection values from devices directly operated by the driver, such as an accelerator operation, a brake operation, and a steering operation), and the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than the first threshold (Description, if the value Pc of the third pressure sensor 64C is smaller than the second threshold value Pth2, the fourth determination signal Sd for rotating the second drive motor 70B, for example, reversely is output to the second motor drive unit 84B), or when the driver keeps his or her hands on a steering wheel and the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than the second threshold (Description, when the value of the first pressure sensor is larger than the value of the second pressure sensor, the control unit may control the angle in a direction in which the seat back is tilted). It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined Roy, Minato, Saito, Yetukuri and Kobayashi’s disclosures for the same reasons as discussed infra.
However, Kobayashi and Yetukuri in combination with Roy, Minato, and Saito does not explicitly disclose threshold adjustments based on a position of face or eyes of the driver.
Nevertheless, Breed who is in the same field of endeavor of automatic vehicle seat adjustments discloses, adjustments based on a position of face or eyes of the driver (Fig. 8, the occupant's eyes and the seat adjusted to place the eyes at a particular vertical position for proper viewing through the windshield and rear view mirror).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined Roy, Minato, Saito Kobayashi, Yetukuri, and Breed’s disclosures to monitor the driver’s behavior, such as Breeds eye and head position, and adjust the seat thresholds based on these measurements. This would in turn ensure safe operation of the vehicle by fixing the thresholds so the driver is in a proper position for operating the vehicle.
Justification for combining Roy, Minato, Saito, Kobayashi, Yetukuri,, and Breed not only comes from the state of the art but from Roy (Final Paragraph, this new technology has been described in terms of specific implementations and configurations which are intended to be exemplary only. Persons of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that many obvious variations, refinements and modifications may be made without departing from the inventive concepts presented in this application.).
Regarding claim 17, Roy, Minato, and Saito disclose the autonomous controller of claim 14 as discussed supra. Additionally, Yetukuri discloses, the processor is configured to adjust the first threshold or the second threshold.
Furthermore, Kobayashi discloses, the driver keeps his or her hands on a steering wheel (Description, in the manual operation mode, conditions for stopping the control of the seat back angle are set based on detection values from devices directly operated by the driver, such as an accelerator operation, a brake operation, and a steering operation), and the movement position in the forward or backward direction of the seat of the driver is greater than the first threshold (Description, if the value Pc of the third pressure sensor 64C is smaller than the second threshold value Pth2, the fourth determination signal Sd for rotating the second drive motor 70B, for example, reversely is output to the second motor drive unit 84B), or when the driver keeps his or her hands on a steering wheel and the angle of the backrest of the seat of the driver is greater than the second threshold (Description, when the value of the first pressure sensor is larger than the value of the second pressure sensor, the control unit may control the angle in a direction in which the seat back is tilted). However, Kobayashi and Yetukuri do not explicitly disclose threshold adjustments based on a position of face or eyes of the driver.
Nevertheless, Breed discloses, adjustments based on a position of face or eyes of the driver (Fig. 8, the occupant's eyes and the seat adjusted to place the eyes at a particular vertical position for proper viewing through the windshield and rear view mirror).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy (US11351892B1) in view of Minato et al. (US20180292821A1), further in view of Kobayashi et al. (JP2019156247A), further in view of Yetukuri et al.( US20190299814A1) further in view of Breed et al. (US5822707A), further in view of Fung et al.(US20140371984A1), further in view of Saito et al. (JP2016078530A).
Regarding claim 7, Roy, Minato, Saito, Kobayashi, Yetukuri, and Breed disclose the autonomous controller of claim 6 as discussed supra. Additionally, Yetukuri discloses, the processor is configured to refrain from adjusting the first threshold or the second threshold (0014, the rear travel threshold has a fixed dimension being at least one of a maximum recline angle of the front seatback and a maximum longitudinal dimension of the front seat bottom).
Furthermore, Fung who is in the same field of endeavor of methods for responding to driver behavior discloses, a distance between the position of the face of the driver and the seat of the driver is greater than or equal to a predetermined distance (0182, the alert state of the driver is associated with a predetermined distance between the head and the headrest. This predetermined distance could be a factory set value or a value determined by monitoring a driver over time. Then, the body state index may be increased when the driver's head moves closer to the headrest or further from the headrest with respect to the predetermined distance).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined Roy, Minato, Saito, Kobayashi, Yetukuri, Breed, and Fung’s disclosures to monitor the driver’s behavior and adjust the seat accordingly. This would in turn ensure safe operation of the vehicle by fixing the thresholds so the driver is in a proper position for operating the vehicle.
Justification for combining Roy, Minato, Saito, Kobayashi, Yetukuri, Breed, and Fung not only comes from the state of the art but from Roy (Final Paragraph, this new technology has been described in terms of specific implementations and configurations which are intended to be exemplary only. Persons of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that many obvious variations, refinements and modifications may be made without departing from the inventive concepts presented in this application.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 8 recites the limitation of (the processor is configured to refrain from adjusting the first threshold or the second threshold when the distance between the face of the driver and the seat of the driver is greater, by more than a predetermined reference value, than a distance between the face of the driver and a camera capturing the face of the driver). No known prior art was identified for this limitation. Hence claim 8 would be allowed if it did not depend on already rejected claims 7, 6, 2, and 1.
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 SHANE E DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (703)756-1417. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Christian Chace can be reached on (571) 272-4190. 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.
/S.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665