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 Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed January 22, 2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 18, and 19 have been amended. Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 have been canceled. Claims 1-5, and 8-15, and 18-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 22, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered.
Applicant has amended claims 5, and 15 to address the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, however, the new language does not address the previous grounds of rejection. As currently amended, the claims appear to both require identifying coordinate data from a mapping table (See base claims 4 and 14) and subsequently identifies that coordinate data is not in the mapping table, which appears contradictory. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 22, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 1, Applicant argues the cited art of record, Matha et al., US 20210129711 A1, hereinafter referred to as Matha, fails to explicitly disclose all of the features of claim 1, as presently amended to include subject matter previously presented, specifically, controlling the adjacent seat to a specified state after identifying that there is the collision possibility, predicting the collision possibility again based on the first current state, the specified state, and the target state, identifying, among avoidance coordinates set not to collide, an avoidance coordinate being closest to the specified state, based on a mapping table stored in the memory, after predicting that there is the collision possibility again, and controlling the adjacent seat based on the avoidance coordinate, and controlling the target seat to the target state.
Applicant argues the above subject matter is not obvious in view of Matha because the claimed invention actively controls an adjacent seat to avoid a collision when a collision possibility is identified and Matha fails to disclose controlling an adjacent seat based on an avoidance coordinate. Applicant argues Matha merely determines whether an overlap condition between seats exists and partially allowing or prohibiting seat movement on that basis.
As previously acknowledged in the prior Office action, Matha fails to explicitly disclose the above subject matter directed to controlling an adjacent seat. However, it would have been readily and unquestionably obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Matha to apply its individual seat control to its plurality of seats so that each of its adjacent seats performs Matha’s collision avoidance control. Applying Matha’s single seat control to its plurality of seats involves routine skill in the art as a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize it as merely duplicating features disclosed by Matha from a single seat to a plurality of seats. Such a modification to Matha further supports its intended purpose of avoiding collisions/interferences between seat.
Additionally, imposing limits that translate to allowing or permitting movement of a seat is analogous to the broadest reasonable interpretation of controlling the claimed seats to respective claimed states.
Examiner notes the same arguments apply to independent claim 11.
For at least the above, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 5, and 15, the recitation “identifying first reference data and second reference data…when coordinate data matching the first coordinate data is not stored in the mapping table” is vague and indefinite. As claimed, it is unclear how to perform the claimed identifying when coordinate data does not match the stored mapping table, but still relying on identifying the coordinate data from the mapping table in base claims 4 and 14. Applicant’s Specification offers no further clarification (See at least ¶82 of Applicant’s PGPUB). Therefore, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matha et al., US 20210129711 A1, in view of Gempel et al., US 20250121786 A1, hereinafter referred to as Matha, and Gempel, respectively.
As to claim 1, Matha discloses a seat control apparatus comprising:
an input device (Human-machine interaction means – See at least ¶77);
a driving device (Motor – See at least ¶17);
a memory configured to store one or more instructions; and
a controller operatively connected to the input device, the driving device, and the memory, wherein the instructions are configured to, when being executed by the controller, cause the seat control apparatus to:
identify a first current state of a target seat and a second current state of an adjacent seat upon receiving a specified input regarding a position of the target seat through the input device (Model positions of vehicle seats, i.e., states, in response to user input – See at least ¶91-99);
identify a target state of the target seat corresponding to the specified input (Ordered movement – See at least ¶99);
predict a collision possibility of the target seat and the adjacent seat while the target seat is controlled from the first current state to the target state, based on the first current state, the second current state, and the target state (Determine whether ordered movement can cause collision – See at least ¶99); and
control the target seat to the target state by using the driving device after identifying that there is no collision possibility (Depending on result of overlap determination, allow or prohibit movement – See at least ¶103), and
controlling the target seat to the target state (Depending on result of overlap determination, allow or prohibit movement – See at least ¶103).
Matha fails to explicitly disclose:
controlling the adjacent seat to a specified state after identifying that there is the collision possibility;
predicting the collision possibility again based on the first current state, the specified state, and the target state;
identifying, among avoidance coordinates set not to collide, an avoidance coordinate being closest to the specified state, based on a mapping table stored in the memory, after predicting that there is the collision possibility again;
and controlling the adjacent seat based on the avoidance coordinate; and control the target seat to the target state.
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 Matha and include the feature of controlling the adjacent seat to a specified state and predict the collision possibility again based on the first current state, the specified state, and the target state upon identifying that there is the collision possibility, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Matha discloses a plurality of moveable seats (See at least Fig. 2) whose position is controlled so that there is no overlap/collision between the seats (See at least Abstract). Controlling an adjacent seat so as to avoid colliding/interfering with a selected seat is an obvious modification over Matha’s disclosure because each seat is equipped with means for moving/repositioning each seat, and it would be readily obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art moving/repositioning an adjacent seat to a selected seat is consistent with Matha’s purpose of avoiding collisions/interference between seats.
Additionally, Matha fails to explicitly disclose identifying, among avoidance coordinates set not to collide, an avoidance coordinate being closest to the specified state, based on a mapping table stored in the memory, upon identifying that there is the collision possibility, and controlling the adjacent seat based on the avoidance coordinate. 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 Matha and include the feature of the above, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Matha discloses a plurality of moveable seats (See at least Fig. 2) whose position is controlled so that there is no overlap/collision between the seats (See at least Abstract). Controlling an adjacent seat so as to avoid colliding/interfering with a selected seat is an obvious modification over Matha’s disclosure because each seat is equipped with means for moving/repositioning each seat, and it would be readily obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art moving/repositioning an adjacent seat to a selected seat is consistent with Matha’s purpose of avoiding collisions/interference between seats. Additionally, Gempel teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of controlling vehicle interiors to use Cartesian coordinates to describe vehicle interior element positions, i.e., seat positions (See at least ¶69 of Gempel).
Independent claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claims 2, and 12, Matha discloses:
identifying first data of the target seat and second data of the adjacent seat including at least one of reclining angles, slide positions, folding angles, tilting angles of the target seat and the adjacent seat, or any combination thereof, respectively (Seat position may include slide positions, vertical positions, etc. – See at least ¶70-76); and
predicting the collision possibility based on a comparison result of the first data and the second data (Depending on result of overlap determination, allow or prohibit movement – See at least ¶103).
Matha fails to explicitly disclose using coordinates 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 invention of Matha and include the feature of using coordinates as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Gempel teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of controlling vehicle interiors to use Cartesian coordinates to describe vehicle interior element positions, i.e., seat positions (See at least ¶69 of Gempel).
As to claims 3, and 13, Matha discloses determining that there is the collision possibility when a minimum spacing distance between the target seat and the adjacent seat is a first distance or less while controlling the target seat to the target state, based on the comparison result (Determine whether ordered movement can cause collision – See at least ¶99; Examiner notes an overlap as described by Matha is necessarily a lack of minimum spacing distance.).
Claims 4, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matha et al., US 20210129711 A1, in view of Gempel et al., US 20250121786 A1, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Frye et al., US 20160280098 A1, hereinafter referred to as Matha, Gempel, and Frye, respectively.
As to claim 4, the combination of Matha and Gempel fails to explicitly disclose identifying the first coordinate data and the second coordinate data from the mapping table, based on the first current state and the second current state. 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 Matha and Gempel and include the feature of identifying the first coordinate data and the second coordinate data from the mapping table, based on the first current state and the second current state, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Frye teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of controlling vehicle interiors to use mappings/tables/equations/etc. to determine vehicle interior components positions (See at least ¶47 of Frye).
Claims 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matha et al., US 20210129711 A1, in view of Kreder et al., US 20150120150 A1, hereinafter referred to as Matha, and Kreder, respectively.
As to claims 8, and 18, Matha fails to explicitly disclose an output device, wherein the instructions are configured to, when being executed by the controller, cause the seat control apparatus to: provide a notification regarding disabling of an operation of the target seat by using the output device after identifying that there is the collision possibility. 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 Matha and include the feature of an output device, wherein the instructions are configured to, when being executed by the controller, cause the seat control apparatus to: provide a notification regarding disabling of an operation of the target seat by using the output device after identifying that there is the collision possibility, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kreder teaches it is well-known and routine to notify an operator of a vehicle when a seat movement is not allowed (See at least ¶32 of Kreder).
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matha et al., US 20210129711 A1, in view of Gempel et al., US 20250121786 A1, as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Kreder et al., US 20150120150 A1, hereinafter referred to as Matha, Gempel, and Kreder, respectively.
As to claims 9, and 19, the combination of Matha and Gempel fails to explicitly disclose an output device, wherein the instructions are configured to, when being executed by the controller, cause the seat control apparatus to: provide a warning notification by using the output device after identifying that a passenger is seated on the adjacent seat; and identify the first current state and the second current state after receiving an operation request corresponding to the warning notification. 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 Matha and Gempel and include the feature of an output device, wherein the instructions are configured to, when being executed by the controller, cause the seat control apparatus to: provide a warning notification by using the output device upon identifying that a passenger is seated on the adjacent seat; and identify the first current state and the second current state upon receiving an operation request corresponding to the warning notification, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kreder teaches it is well-known and routine to notify an operator of a vehicle when a seat movement is not allowed (See at least ¶32 of Kreder).
As to claims 10, and 20, Matha discloses determining that there is the collision possibility when predicting that a time point, at which the minimum spacing distance is not more than a second distance that is smaller than the first distance, is present (Determine whether ordered movement can cause collision – See at least ¶99; Examiner notes an overlap as described by Matha is necessarily a lack of minimum spacing distance at a given time.).
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 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