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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 17, 2026. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 14, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed June 17, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coburn et al., US 20180251085 A1, in view of Le et al., US 20140316607 A1, in view of Mankame et al., US 20250001959 A1, and in view of Delgado, US 11840160 B1, hereinafter referred to as Coburn, Le, Mankame, and Delgado, respectively.
As to claim 1, Coburn discloses a method performed by a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving an identification (ID) code from an occupant outside the vehicle (Identify user before entering vehicle – See at least Abstract; Digital signature, i.e., “code” – See at least ¶21);
in response to the ID code, [retrieving] previously captured sensor data corresponding to the occupant (Retrieve previous adjustments from storage – See at least ¶32);
determining an optimal seat configuration for a seat of the vehicle (Determine seat settings based on previous setting and identification – See at least ¶32); and
modifying the seat to the optimal seat configuration (Actuate seat based on previous setting and identification – See at least ¶32).
Coburn fails to explicitly disclose performing the above in response to when the vehicle is turned off, and in response to vehicle being turned on. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Coburn and include the feature of performing the above in response to when the vehicle is turned off, and in response to vehicle being turned on, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Le teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle arts to use ignition signals regarding whether a vehicle is on or off as an input for controlling an automatic seat adjustment system (Seat adjustment in response to ignition - See at least ¶1 of Le).
The combination of Coburn, and Le fails to explicitly disclose downloading previously captured sensor data corresponding to the occupant from a remote platform and using an AI model as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Coburn, and Le and include the feature of downloading previously captured sensor data corresponding to the occupant from a remote platform and using an AI model as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Mankame teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle arts to use common computer elements like remote storage and AI to implement features of vehicle control systems (Cloud infrastructure for communicating stored sensor data – See at least ¶15 and 41 and Fig. 2; Machine learning used to create profile from sensor data – See at least ¶43 of Mankame).
The combination of Coburn, Le, and Mankame fails to explicitly disclose the previously captured data was captured away from the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Coburn, Le, and Mankame and include the feature of the previously captured data was captured away from the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Delgado teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle arts to obtain sensor data in first vehicle and then transfer that information in the form of a seating profile to a different vehicle that is not the vehicle in which the sensor data was obtained (See at least Col. 18 Lines 8-15 of Delgado).
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences due to the claims being directed to different statutory classes of invention.
As to claims 2, 9, and 16, Coburn discloses the ID code is stored in one or more of a key fob or mobile device (Personal device, fob, etc. – See at least ¶21).
Coburn fails to explicitly disclose the downloading comprises: downloading an occupant profile comprising the previously capture sensor data. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Coburn and include the feature of downloading an occupant profile comprising the previously capture sensor data, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Mankame teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle arts to use common computer elements like remote storage and AI to implement features of vehicle control systems (Cloud infrastructure for communicating stored sensor data – See at least ¶15 and 41 and Fig. 2; Machine learning used to create profile from sensor data – See at least ¶43 of Mankame).
As to claims 3, 10, and 17, Coburn fails to explicitly disclose the previously captured sensor data comprises historical seated posture data of the occupant, and the determining of the optimal seat configuration comprises using the AI model on the historical seated posture data of the occupant. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Coburn, and Le and include the feature the previously captured sensor data comprises historical seated posture data of the occupant, and the determining of the optimal seat configuration comprises using the AI model on the historical seated posture data of the occupant, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Mankame teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle arts to (Machine learning used to create profile from sensor data – See at least ¶43; Examiner notes Mankame’s prior acquisition of sensor data in the first vehicle meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of historical as it occurs prior to the creation of the profile.).
As to claims 5, 12, and 19, Coburn discloses based on the optimal seat configuration, modifying one or more of an incline of the seat, a lumbar support of the seat, a height of the seat, and a floor position of the seat (Seat may be raised, lowered, tilted, etc. – See at least ¶19).
As to claims 6, 13, and 20, Coburn discloses based on the optimal seat configuration, modifying one or more of a position of a steering wheel of the vehicle, a head rest of the seat, a position of a rearview mirror of the vehicle, and a position of a side mirror of the vehicle, based on the optimal seat configuration (Additional adjustable components including steering wheel, mirror, etc. – See at least Abstract and Claim 2).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coburn et al., US 20180251085 A1, in view of Le et al., US 20140316607 A1, in view of Mankame et al., US 20250001959 A1, and in view of Delgado, US 11840160 B1, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Di Censo et al., US 20150366350 A1, hereinafter referred to as Coburn, Le, Mankame, Delgado, and Di Censo, respectively.
As to claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of Coburn, Le, Mankame, and Delgado fails to explicitly disclose determining a change in posture of the occupant over time based on the historical seated posture data, wherein the determining of the optimal seat configuration comprises: using the AI model on the change in posture of the occupant. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Coburn, Le, Mankame, and Delgado and include the feature of determining a change in posture of the occupant over time based on the historical seated posture data, wherein the determining of the optimal seat configuration comprises: using the AI model on the change in posture of the occupant, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Di Censo teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle configuration arts to observe changes in a vehicle occupants posture over time and adapt a posture model and posture adjustment accordingly (See at least ¶44 of Di Censo).
Claims 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coburn et al., US 20180251085 A1, in view of Le et al., US 20140316607 A1, in view of Mankame et al., US 20250001959 A1, and in view of Delgado, US 11840160 B1, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Carlton et al., US 20240346863 A1, hereinafter referred to as Coburn, Le, Mankame, Delgado, and Carlton, respectively.
As to claim 7, and 14, Coburn discloses storing the previously captured sensor data in a memory device of the vehicle (Recall adjustments from storage – See at least ¶32 and Fig. 3).
The combination of Coburn, Le, Mankame, and Delgado fails to explicitly disclose deleting the previously captured sensor data from the memory device of the vehicle when the vehicle is turned off. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Coburn, Le, Mankame, and Delgado and include the feature of deleting the previously captured sensor data from the memory device of the vehicle when the vehicle is turned off, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Carlton teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle control arts to delete a user profile/settings when a vehicle has been turned off (See at least ¶102 of Carlton).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights