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 .
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 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for receiving sensor signals from sensors provided on inner surfaces of a seatback, determining a center of gravity of a seated child based on received sensor signals, and transmitting a result of the determination to an external device. These limitations are directed to processing and analyzing information to determine a numerical or physical parameter (center of gravity) based on collected data, which falls within the category of an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional steps of receiving sensor signals and transmitting results are considered extra-solution data gathering and extra-solution data output and do not themselves define the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim elements, including: sensors provided on seatback surfaces, a processor executing instructions, and a communicator are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoke generic computer-implemented components to perform their ordinary functions. These additional elements do not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea because they amount to no more than simply implementing the abstract idea on generic and conventional sensor and computer technology. The claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the sensors, the data acquisition process, or the processing techniques themselves. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed specification describes a sensor arrangement associated with a “chest” region of a child. However, the claims have been amended to recite a “thorax”. The originally filed specification does not disclose the term “thorax”, nor does it provided explicit or implicit support demonstrating that the inventor had possession of the claimed “thorax” limitation at the time of filing. Furthermore, the specification does not provide any definition or context for the term “chest” as used in the disclosure is synonymous with “thorax”, or that the claimed “thorax” corresponds to the originally disclosed anatomical region. Accordingly, the amendment introduces subject matter that is not reasonably conveyed by the original disclosure.
Additionally, during the Examiner Interview held on 10/09/2025, Applicant was advised to clarify the meaning of the term in the Japanese priority application and confirm whether the originally disclosed terminology corresponded to “thorax” (since the chest would not make any contact with the sensors as claimed and disclosed), and to make necessary clarifying statements without introducing new matter. Applicant subsequently amended the claims to replace “chest” with “thorax” but did not provide any supporting explanation, translation clarification, or citation to the original disclosure establishing that this modification is supported by the specification or priority document.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 VALENTINA XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9853. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/VALENTINA XAVIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights