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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0062090 and KR10-2023-0131886. filed on 05/14/2023 and 10/04/2023, respectively.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2024 and 07/01/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 03/28/2024 are presently examined.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeffer (US 20200122608 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Pfeffer discloses A seat control apparatus, comprising:
an input part; a driving part; a controller operatively connected to the input part, the driving part, the sensor part, and the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the seat control apparatus to: receive, through the input part, a switch input for controlling a seat ([0027] “control unit 17 designed in the present case as a microchip 18” [0001] “a seat adjustment system for a seat of a motor vehicle, comprising at least one motor driving the adjustment and at least one operating element, which can be actuated by an operator, for at least one adjustment function” The operating element is the switch input. The motor is the driving part.);
a sensor part; identify, using the sensor part, whether an escape mechanism for the seat is operated; and stop driving of at least one motor included in the driving part when the escape mechanism is operated ([0009] “the seat adjustment system has a control unit which … leaves the relay open at least temporarily if there is a collision signal when an operating element is actuated.” [0013] “collision signal … supplied, for example, by an airbag control device and/or the control device of a safety system which evaluates the signals from collision sensors.” Sensor can be the detection of airbag going off or collision sensors. Escape mechanism is the determination of whether collision signal is present or not.).
While Pfeffer fails to explicitly disclose a memory configured to store one or more instructions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use memory with stored instructions to perform the method executed by the control system disclosed by Pfeffer. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to execute the method using instructions stored on memory because a controller requires some form of stored instructions to execute steps of a method ([0010] “an easily configurable microchip”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Pfeffer discloses The seat control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the seat control apparatus to: perform a seat location control corresponding to the switch input by using the driving part when the escape mechanism is not operated ([0001] “a seat adjustment system for a seat of a motor vehicle, comprising at least one motor driving the adjustment and at least one operating element, which can be actuated by an operator, for at least one adjustment function”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Pfeffer discloses The seat control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one motor includes a first motor and a second motor, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the seat control apparatus to: deactivate the first motor classified as a deactivation target; and stop driving of the second motor not classified as the deactivation target and maintain the second motor in an activation state ([0019] “the relay is closed by means of the control unit when an operating element is actuated and there is no collision signal indicating a collision of the motor vehicle, and the relay is left open at least temporarily” [0030] “This means that the adjustment functions via the motors 9, 10 are blocked” there is no clear description in Applicant’s specification of the different between stopping a motor and deactivating a motor.).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Pfeffer discloses The seat control apparatus of claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the seat control apparatus to: ignore a first additional switch input and maintain a current state of the seat when the first additional switch input corresponding to the first motor is received ([0019] “the relay is closed by means of the control unit when an operating element is actuated and there is no collision signal indicating a collision of the motor vehicle, and the relay is left open at least temporarily” [0030] “This means that the adjustment functions via the motors 9, 10 are blocked” under broadest reasonable interpretation, blocking adjustment of motor 9 initially during and after collision is ignoring the switch input for the first motor.); and
perform a seat location control corresponding to a second additional switch input when the second additional switch input corresponding to the second motor is received ([0030] “This means that the adjustment functions via the motors 9, 10 are blocked so that rescue workers after a collision (or even the occupant him/herself after the collision) is able to use the adjustment function again, for example to extricate him/herself from the motor vehicle 1, to facilitate accessibility and/or, if the collision has not been serious, to be able to use the adjustment functions again simply as intended.” Activating the switch for motor 10 is the second motor, and after the collision is complete, function is returned to the motors.).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Pfeffer discloses The seat control apparatus of claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the seat control apparatus to: ignore the switch input and maintain a current state of the seat when the switch input is received from a first switch classified as a deactivation target ([0019] “the relay is closed by means of the control unit when an operating element is actuated and there is no collision signal indicating a collision of the motor vehicle, and the relay is left open at least temporarily, preferably up to a second actuation of the operating element after the collision signal has ceased when an operating element is actuated and there is a collision signal.” [0030] “This means that the adjustment functions via the motors 9, 10 are blocked” the seat is maintained by ignoring switch input initially.).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Pfeffer discloses The seat control apparatus of claim 5, wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the seat control apparatus to: identify whether a motor corresponding to the switch input corresponds to the first motor when the switch input is received from a second switch which is not classified as the deactivation target or classified as an activation target; and ignore the switch input and maintain the current state of the seat when the switch input received from the second switch corresponds to the first motor ([0030] “This means that the adjustment functions via the motors 9, 10 are blocked so that rescue workers after a collision (or even the occupant him/herself after the collision) is able to use the adjustment function again, for example to extricate him/herself from the motor vehicle 1, to facilitate accessibility and/or, if the collision has not been serious, to be able to use the adjustment functions again simply as intended.” This ignores switch input and maintains the seat state initially to at least motor 9.).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Pfeffer discloses The seat control apparatus of claim 6, wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the seat control apparatus to: perform a seat location control corresponding to the switch input by using the second motor when the switch input received from the second switch corresponds to the second motor ([0030] “This means that the adjustment functions via the motors 9, 10 are blocked so that rescue workers after a collision (or even the occupant him/herself after the collision) is able to use the adjustment function again, for example to extricate him/herself from the motor vehicle 1, to facilitate accessibility and/or, if the collision has not been serious, to be able to use the adjustment functions again simply as intended.” Once the collision is finished, adjustment function returns to the switches, and at least motor 10 is adjusted when the switch is activated.).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeffer in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20190126875 A1), hereinafter Watanabe.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Pfeffer fails to disclose The seat control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the seat control apparatus to: identify whether a recliner is unfixed, by using the sensor part disposed on one area being adjacent to the recliner for adjusting an angle of a backrest of the seat; and identify whether the escape mechanism is operated when it is identified that the recliner is unfixed. EXAMINER’S NOTE: the specification does not describe, nor the figures depict, what “unfixed” means. Examiner will use broadest reasonable interpretation for this term “unfixed.”
However, Watanabe teaches identify whether a recliner is unfixed, by using the sensor part disposed on one area being adjacent to the recliner for adjusting an angle of a backrest of the seat; and identify whether the escape mechanism is operated when it is identified that the recliner is unfixed ([0046] “FIG. 6 shows a state where after the seat back 102 is folded toward the seat cushion 101 and an unillustrated sensor detects the folded seat back 102, the slide-rail drive motor 160 drives the slide rail (upper rail) 110 to slide forward along with the seat cushion 101 so that the full-forward position of the sliding movement of the slide rail (upper rail) 110 is detected by the limit switch 151. With the slide rail at the full-forward position of the sliding movement, the switch button 152 of the limit switch 151 is pressed against the detection plate 153 so that the limit switch 151 is actuated. In response to a signal from this limit switch 151, the unillustrated controller disables the slide-rail drive motor 160.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeffer with Watanabe’s teaching of a vehicle that detects the seat back is folded and then later detects the full forward position of the seat which stops the motors. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to detect a folded seat back and fully slid forward seat in order to assist with a passenger exiting a vehicle that does not have a door next to them (Watanabe [0006] “a front passenger seat of double row seats or a door side seat of a central row of three row seats is slidably moved forward with a seat back folded toward the seat so as to allow a back passenger to get on/off a vehicle.”).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeffer in view of Rieger et al. (DE 102004008507 A1), hereinafter Rieger.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Pfeffer fails to disclose The seat control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the seat control apparatus to: identify whether a user setting regarding a cooperation request mode is in an on state; identify whether a travel speed of a host vehicle and an operation state of a collision detecting sensor included in the sensor part satisfy specific conditions when the user setting is the on state; and transmit at least one door unlocking or opening request signal of the host vehicle to an external device when the travel speed and the operation state of the collision detecting sensor satisfy the specific conditions.
However, Rieger teaches The seat control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the seat control apparatus to: identify whether a user setting regarding a cooperation request mode is in an on state; identify whether a travel speed of a host vehicle and an operation state of a collision detecting sensor included in the sensor part satisfy specific conditions when the user setting is the on state; and transmit at least one door unlocking or opening request signal of the host vehicle to an external device when the travel speed and the operation state of the collision detecting sensor satisfy the specific conditions ([0001] “vehicle doors can be automatically unlocked when required.” Automatic unlocking is the cooperation mode state being on. [0007] “the safety threshold is that accidents such as a collision with a guardrail or a rollover without hard contact can be detected” [0009] “the state variable is an acceleration in a certain direction, in particular in the transverse or longitudinal direction of the vehicle. If lateral acceleration is used as a state variable, accidents involving rollovers and rollovers can be detected, so that the doors are unlocked in these cases as well.” [0010] “It is also possible that the state variable is a rotational speed detected by a rotation rate sensor.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeffer with Rieger’s teaching of a vehicle automatically unlocking the doors of a vehicle during a collision when state variables including rotational speed and collision states satisfy conditions or thresholds for unlocking the doors. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to automatically unlock doors during a collision in order to enable helpers to easily open the doors to assist the passengers of the vehicle (Rieger [0007] “the doors are unlocked because the safety threshold has been exceeded, so that helpers can easily open the doors from the outside.”).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeffer in view of Lota (US 20180111511 A1)
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Pfeffer fails to disclose The seat control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the seat control apparatus to: transmit an output request signal of an audio regarding the escape mechanism to a sound output device or transmit an accident occurrence identification request signal to an e-call system when it is identified that the escape mechanism is operated.
However, Lota teaches transmit an output request signal of an audio regarding the escape mechanism to a sound output device ([0064] “the object may be detected by the proximity sensor 116 or the pressure sensor 118. When the location of the object is detected to be proximate to the selected seat, the speaker 120 of the vehicle may provide an alarm sound in response to the press of the seat reclining button 610.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeffer with Lota‘s teaching of sounding an alarm when a seat fold button is activated by an occupant. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to warn when the seat folding button is pressed, which could be when the occupant wants to exit the vehicle, to notify nearby occupants to stay clear of the folding seat so the occupant may exit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 571-272-1516. 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.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668