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 .
Claims 1 – 20 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooper et al. (US 2017/0197574).
Regarding Claim 1:
Cooper et al. teaches a system, comprising: a memory (the Examiner takes Official Notice that because Cooper et al. teaches an ECU 802, such computers are well-known to comprise memory by virtue of stored data described in the abstract) that stores computer executable components; and a processor (802) that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise: a calculation component (ECU 802 uses sensed data via 912 and 914 to determine the seat distance shown in Fig 9) that determines a distance between an occupant of a vehicle and an object of the vehicle (Fig 9, see also steps 1010, 1020, and 1030 in Fig 10); and an impact mitigation component (steps 1040 to 1060, via seatbelt, airbag, and seat maneuvering shown in Fig 8) that, based on the distance, facilitates an action determined to mitigate an impact between the occupant and the object (paragraphs 0033 – 0042 describe moving the seat based on occupied seats and the occupant’s weight profile, as well as the use of tracks 910 and 908 along with actuators 918 and 916 to move the seats during a collision).
Regarding Claim 2:
Cooper et al. teaches the occupant comprises a rear seat occupant (904, Fig 9) and the object comprises a front seat (902) of the vehicle, and wherein the action determined to mitigate the impact between the occupant and the object comprises moving the front seat forward to increase the distance between the occupant and the object (paragraphs 0033 – 0042 describe moving the seat based on occupied seats and the occupant’s weight profile, as well as the use of tracks 910 and 908 along with actuators 918 and 916 to move the seats during a collision).
Regarding Claim 3:
Cooper et al. teaches the occupant comprises a rear seat occupant (904) and the object comprises a front seat (902) of the vehicle, and wherein the action determined to mitigate the impact between the occupant and the object comprises tilting (via 816 in combination with 802 or 803) the front seat to increase the distance between the occupant and the object.
Regarding Claim 5:
Cooper et al. teaches the action determined to mitigate the impact between the occupant and the object comprises, based on the distance between the occupant and the object, adjusting a seatbelt tension applicable to the occupant (via 830).
Regarding Claim 6:
Cooper et al. teaches the action determined to mitigate the impact between the occupant and the object comprises, based on the distance between the occupant and the object, adjusting airbag deployment of an airbag applicable to the occupant (via 824).
Regarding Claim 7:
Cooper et al. teaches the impact mitigation component determines the action determined to mitigate an impact between the occupant and the object based on user profile data associated with a user profile applicable to the occupant (via 806, 812, and 822).
Regarding Claim 8:
Cooper et al. teaches a range of movement of a seat of the vehicle is restricted based on the user profile data (via 802).
Regarding Claim 9:
Cooper et al. teaches the computer executable components further comprise: a seating arrangement component that, using a seating arrangement model generated using machine learning applied to past seating arrangements of other occupants of other vehicles, other than occupants of the vehicle, generates a seating arrangement recommendation applicable to occupants of the vehicle, comprising the occupant, wherein the seating arrangement recommendation is determined to mitigate an impact between the occupant and the object (via 1000 in Fig 10, see also Figs 1 – 9, and paragraphs 0014 – 0022).
Regarding Claim 10:
Cooper et al. teaches the seating arrangement component further generates the seating arrangement recommendation based on user profile data associated with a user profile applicable to the occupant (Fig 10, paragraphs 0014 – 0016).
Regarding Claim 11:
Cooper et al. teaches the seating arrangement recommendation optimizes leg spacing of occupants of the vehicle, comprising the occupant (Fig 9, via 0190, 908, 918 and 916).
Regarding Claim 12:
Cooper et al. teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium (802), comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: determining a distance ((ECU 802 uses sensed data via 912 and 914 to determine the seat distance shown in Fig 9) between an occupant (seated in 904, Fig 9) of a vehicle and an object (902) of the vehicle; and based on the distance (paragraphs 0037 – 0037), facilitating an action determined to mitigate an impact between the occupant and the object (via seat tracks, actuators, and sensors 918, 914, 910, 916, 912, and 908, along with the safety components detailed in the restrain control module 804 in Fig 8).
Regarding Claim 13:
Cooper et al. teaches the occupant comprises a third row seat occupant and the object comprises a rear seat of the vehicle, and wherein the action determined to mitigate the impact between the occupant and the object comprises moving the rear seat forward to increase the distance between the occupant and the object (paragraphs 0015 – 0018).
Regarding Claim 14:
Cooper et al. teaches the occupant comprises a third row seat occupant and the object comprises a rear seat of the vehicle, and wherein the action determined to mitigate the impact between the occupant and the object comprises tilting the rear seat to increase the distance between the occupant and the object (paragraphs 0015 – 0018).
Regarding Claim 15:
See rejection of Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 16:
See rejection of Claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 17:
See rejection of Claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 18:
See rejection of Claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 19:
See rejections of Claims 1 and 12 above.
Regarding Claim 20:
See rejection of Claim 9 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (US 2017/0197574) and in view of Jardi et al. (US 2022/0388466).
Regarding Claim 4:
Cooper et al. teaches all of the claimed limitations except for the action determined to mitigate the impact between the occupant and the object comprises rotating a rear seat of the vehicle, applicable to the occupant, to increase the distance between the occupant and the object.
However, Jardi et al. teaches a similar collision mitigation system in which the seats rotate to increase the distance between the rows of seats (paragraph 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the seat rotation of Jardi et al. in order to rotate the seats away from each other, which in effect increases the distance between the facing seats.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747