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 Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
No amendments were made to the claims.
This FINAL Office Action is in response to the “Remarks” received on 08/22/2025.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
Remarks filed on 08/22/2025 have been fully considered, are not persuasive, and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the objection of the abstract: The amendments made in the abstract filed on 08/22/2025 are accepted. The abstract objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103: The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Gempel in view of Sorci does strongly suggest the following limitations a) to d) in claim 1:
a) a camera system disposed on the electric seat and configured to photograph a seat at a direct rear side of the electric seat;
b) when the seat at the direct rear side is occupied by the passenger, calculate, based on the image, a current distance of the electric seat relative to the passenger on the seat at the direct rear side of the electric seat, and obtain a predetermined seat adjustment safety distance;
c) calculate a position adjustment parameter of the electric seat based on the seat adjustment safety distance and the current distance; and
d) adjust the position of the electric seat based on the position adjustment parameter to adjust the electric seat to a target position.
The examiner disagrees that Gempel’s teaching in paragraph [0044] of “It is possible to save on sensors on the seat and/or on the adjustable parts 8.” teaches away from using cameras on the back of a seat. While Gempel has a preference for cameras mounted on the roof of a vehicle, such does not amount to teaching away as applicant suggests. See MPEP 2143.01 I.; 2123 II. Additionally, Gempel suggest other possible arrangements of the 3D sensor in paragraph 0049 “As an alternative, the 3D sensor 22 is arranged in a front region with a viewing direction toward the end of the motor vehicle 4 or in a rear region with a viewing direction in the direction of travel. As an alternative, the 3D sensor is fastened in or on the interior mirror 24.”. In other words, a mere preference for a particular embodiment in a reference does not blindfold one of ordinary skill in the art from further modifications in view of those preferences as plainly envisioned by the teachings of Sorci.
Further, the examiner disagrees that Gempel fails to disclose limitation b) as recited in claim 1. Applicant states “Gempel calculates the current distance of the electric seat 16 relative to the overhead reference point 34, rather than the distance of the electric seat 16 relative to the obstacle 38 or the passenger at the direct rear side of the electric seat 16.” As disclosed in paragraph 0039 of Gempel, the reference point forms the origin of the coordinate system that is used to store the configuration of the interior based on the position of the adjustable parts. When an obstacle/person is sensed, a maximum value is determined for each adjustment path. Gempel paragraph 0048 “the adjustment paths 10 are limited depending on the position of the further adjustable parts 8 and/or of the obstacle 38 which may be present.” Gempel strongly suggests that in order to calculate a maximum value for each adjustment path, one would have to calculate a current distance of the electric seat relative to the obstacle/passenger.
Moreover, the examiner disagrees that Gempel fails to disclose limitations c) and d) of claim 1. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, “a position adjustment parameter” is the same the maximum value for each adjustment path as taught by Gempel. As explained above, Gempel strongly suggests calculating a current distance when calculating the maximum value for each adjustment path. Additionally, Gempel strongly suggests “a seat adjustment safety distance.” The safety distance is the distance that prevents the seat from colliding with the obstacle/passenger. In order to prevent a collision, the algorithm would have a predetermined safety distance of the distance between the seat and the passenger is not zero and the maximum value for each adjustment path is set based on this safety distance.
Applicant further remarks that the other independent claims 8 and 15 which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject matter and the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the examiner’s stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’ arguments and the rejection of claims 1-16 remain.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gempel (US PGPub 2021/0086662) in view of Sorci (US PGPub 2021/0326586).
With respect to claim 1: Gempel discloses A vehicle electric seat adjustment system, comprising:
at least one electric seat [Gempel ¶ 0034 and Fig. 1 element 16];
at least one seat position adjustment system corresponding to the at least one electric seat in one-to-one correspondence and configured to adjust a position of the corresponding electric seat [Gempel ¶ 0034 "electromotive adjusting drives" and Fig. 1 element 6];
a seat adjustment controller connected to the camera system and the seat position adjustment system and configured to [Gempel ¶ 0038 "control unit 28 which is connected … to all of the electromotive adjusting drives 6 and also the 3D sensors 22"]:
obtain, in response to a position adjustment instruction for the electric seat [Gempel ¶ 0042 "a user input is detected … carried out before the first and/or second working step 32, 36"], an image of the seat at the direct rear side that is currently captured by the camera system [Gempel ¶ 0040 "an obstable 38 which is located between the two rows of seats for example is identified by means of the 3D sensors 22 in a second working step 36"];
analyze the image to determine whether the seat at the direct rear side is occupied by a passenger [Gempel ¶ 0040 "an obstable 38 which is located between the two rows of seats for example is identified by means of the 3D sensors 22 in a second working step 36"];
when the seat at the direct rear side is occupied by the passenger, calculate, based on the image, a current distance of the electric seat relative to the passenger on the seat at the direct rear side of the electric seat, and obtain a predetermined seat adjustment safety distance [Gempel ¶0046 “The respective current position/current configurations of the adjustable parts 8 are ascertained.” And ¶0048 “maximum values are associated with each adjustment path 10”];
calculate a position adjustment parameter of the electric seat based on the seat adjustment safety distance and the current distance [Gempel ¶ 0046 and 0048]; and
adjust the position of the electric seat based on the position adjustment parameter to adjust the electric seat to a target position [Gempel ¶ 51].
Gempel does not teach a camera system disposed on the electric seat and configured to photograph a seat at a direct rear side of the electric seat [Gempel ¶ 0049 position of camera is a design choice];
However, in a related field of invention, Sorci does teach a camera system disposed on the electric seat and configured to photograph a seat at a direct rear side of the electric seat [Sorci ¶ 0103 "cameras 25 built inside the rear face of the headrests to capture an image sequence of rear seat passengers"];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the adjustable electric seat system as taught by Gemple with mounting the camera system to the back of the electric seat as taught by Sorci in order to more accurately capture images of the rear seat.
With respect to claim 2: Gempel as modified by Sorci teaches the vehicle electric seat adjustment system according to claim 1. Gemple further teaches wherein the seat
adjustment controller is further configured to:
when the seat at the direct rear side is occupied by no passenger, calculate, based on the image, a current distance of the electric seat relative to the seat at the direct rear side of the electric seat, and obtain the predetermined seat adjustment safety distance [Gempel ¶ 0046 and 0048 “the position of the adjustable parts is determined when there is no occupant located in the interior 2 or when an occupant is located in the interior 2”].
With respect to claim 3: Gempel as modified by Sorci teaches the vehicle electric seat adjustment system according to claim 1. Gemple further teaches wherein:
the seat position adjustment system comprises a seat back adjustment motor and a seat front-rear movement adjustment motor [Gempel ¶ 0034 "electromotive adjusting drives" and Fig. 1 element 6 and element 10]; and
the position adjustment parameter comprises a seat back rotation angle and a seat
front-rear movement distance [Gempel ¶ 0043, 0044 “determine the position of the respective adjustable parts 8, that is to say the angle of the backrests, the height of the headrests, and the height of the sitting surface”, and 0048 “maximum values are associated with each adjustment path 10, and the adjustment paths 10 are limited depending on the position of the further adjustable parts 8 and/or of the obstacle 38 which may be present”].
With respect to claim 4: Gempel and Sorci teaches the vehicle electric seat adjustment system according to claim 3. Gempel further teaches wherein the camera system comprises two cameras arranged from top to bottom on a back of the electric seat [Gempel ¶ 0022 stereo camera].
Gempel does disclose a stereo camera which is known in the art to include two separate lenses that capture separate images which under broadest reasonable interpretation is being interpreted as two cameras. However, Gempel does not explicitly disclose the orientation of the two cameras arranged from top to bottom on a back of the electric seat.
However, the “rearrangements of parts” is generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such arrangement of two cameras top to bottom in order to capture a larger field of view.
With respect to claim 5: Gempel as modified by Sorci teaches the vehicle electric seat adjustment system according to claim 4. Gempel further teaches wherein the camera is a depth camera [Gempel ¶ 0022 a stereo camera is a depth camera].
With respect to claim 6: Gempel as modified by Sorci teaches the vehicle electric seat adjustment system according to claim 1, further comprising a seat adjustment button connected to the seat adjustment controller, the seat adjustment button being configured to transmit, in response to being operated by a user, the position adjustment instruction for the electric seat to the seat adjustment controller [Gempel ¶ 0042 "a switch or a number of switches is/are operated by the driver"].
With respect to Claims 8-13: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 1-6. Claim 8 claims a vehicle which Gempel teaches a vehicle [Gempel, Fig. 1 element 4]. The apparatus taught/disclosed in Claims 8-13 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 1-6. Therefore, claims 8-13 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 15: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claim 1. The method taught/disclosed in claim 15 can clearly perform on the system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gempel in view of Sorci in further view of Mills (US PGPub 2018/0319402).
With respect to claim 7: Gempel as modified by Sorci teaches the vehicle electric seat adjustment system according to claim 1.
Gempel as modified by Sorci does not teach wherein the seat adjustment controller is further configured to:
transmit, in response to a completion of the adjustment of the electric seat, an adjustment success message to an on-vehicle display screen of a vehicle, and control the on-vehicle display screen to display the adjustment success message.
However, in a related field of invention, Mills does teach wherein the seat
adjustment controller is further configured to:
transmit, in response to a completion of the adjustment of the electric seat, an adjustment success message to an on-vehicle display screen of a vehicle, and control the on-vehicle display screen to display the adjustment success message [Mills ¶ 0009 and 0061 “once preset driving conditions are satisfied, a message is displayed indicating the automatic activation of the driver assistance feature”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mills into the invention of Gempel to not only include a seat adjustment controller to adjust an electric seat as Gempel discloses but to also output a success message to an on-vehicle display screen as taught by Mills with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Mills into Gempel to improve the useability of the vehicle electric seat adjustment system. Additionally, it is well known in the art to display messages to the user using an on-vehicle display screen when a condition has been met such as the completion of an adjustment to the interior of the vehicle.
With respect to Claim 14: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claim 7. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 7 can clearly perform on the system of 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gempel in view of Sorci in further view of Foltin (US PGPub 2018/0304775).
With respect to claim 16: Gempel as modified by Sorci teaches the vehicle electric seat adjustment method according to claim 15. Gempel further teaches a vehicle electric seat adjustment apparatus, comprising a processor [Gempel, Claim 12 "controller"].
Gempel as modified by Sorci does not teach a memory, and
a computer program stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the processor.
However, in a related field of invention, Foltin does teach a memory, and
a computer program stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the processor [Foltin ¶ 0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Foltin into the invention of Gempel to not only include a seat adjustment controller to adjust an electric seat as Gempel discloses but to also include a computer program stored in a memory as taught by Foltin with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Foltin into Gempel to allow changes to the computer program to be saved.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666