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 December 31, 2025. Claims 1, 5, 11, 13, and 16 have been amended. Claims 8, 10, 12, and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-19 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed December 31, 2025 with respect to the previous double patenting rejections have been fully considered and rendered moot by the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed December 31, 2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1, Applicant argues the cited art of record Kanitz, US20210380023A1, and Fitzpatrick et al., US20180272900A1, hereinafter referred to as Kanitz, and Fitzpatrick, respectively, fails to explicitly disclose all of the features of claim 1, as presently amended, specifically, first second and third doors on each of opposite lateral sides for accessing the forward region, the central region, and the rearward region, respectively, and that the claimed invention is specifically a pickup truck.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. the combination of Kanitz and Fitzpatrick fails to explicitly disclose the pickup truck comprises three doors on each of the opposite lateral sides for accessing the three rows of seating. 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 Kanitz and include the feature of three doors on each of the opposite lateral sides for accessing the three rows of seating, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a third row of doors as claimed effects no change in the operation of the seat configuring inventions of Kanitz and Fitzpatrick, as it is merely duplicating the traditional four doors of a vehicle that are commonplace.
Additionally, Kanitz explicitly discloses its vehicle can be any number of vehicles, including a truck (See at least ¶108). Examiner notes “truck” is indistinguishable from “pickup truck.”
For at least the above, the claims are not in condition for allowance.
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 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanitz, US 20210380023 A1, in view of Fitzpatrick et al., US 20180272900 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kanitz, and Fitzpatrick, respectively.
As to claim 1, Kanitz discloses a motor vehicle comprising:
a passenger compartment (Vehicle – See at least Fig. 2);
a floor (Vehicle – See at least Fig. 2);
a seating rail system positioned on the floor and extending along a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle (Seat rails – See at least Fig. 3);
a plurality of seating assemblies arranged in the passenger compartment in a first row, a second row located rearward of the first row, and a third row located rearward of the second row, wherein the first row is in a forward region, the second row is in a central region, and the third row is in a rearward region in a driving mode (First, second, and third rows – See at least Figs. 3, 4, and 12), each of the seating assemblies comprising:
a seat base coupled to the seating rail system (Seat base – See at least Fig. 3);
a seat movably coupled to the seat base (Seat rotatable with respect to base – See at least ¶139 and Fig. 13);
a seat back movably coupled to the seat base (Seatback movement – See at least ¶140); and
one or more seat actuators configured to actuate the seating assemblies to a plurality of positions (Actuators – See at least ¶134 and ¶136); and
a controller configured to receive an input commanding a selected passenger compartment arrangement, wherein the controller controls the one or more actuators to position the seat assemblies in the commanded passenger compartment arrangement (Vehicle computing system – See at least ¶103).
Kanitz fails to explicitly disclose a steering wheel and the controller configured to control the steering wheel to move between the use and stowed positions. 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 Kanitz and include the feature of a steering wheel and the controller configured to control the steering wheel to move between the use and stowed positions, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Fitzpatrick teaches stowing a steering wheel is a well-known and routine consideration when reconfiguring a vehicle cabin interior (See at least ¶30 of Fitzpatrick).
As to claim 2, Kanitz fails to explicitly disclose:
a center console rail system;
a center console positioned on the center console rail system extending longitudinally on the floor; and
a center console actuator to actuate the center console on the center console rail system, wherein the controller controls the actuators to position the center console in the commanded passenger compartment arrangement.
Kanitz fails to explicitly disclose a steering wheel configured to be moveable between a use position and a stowed position. 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 Kanitz and include the feature of the above center console rail system and actuation, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Fitzpatrick teaches stowing a center console is a well-known and routine consideration when reconfiguring a vehicle cabin interior (See at least ¶30 of Fitzpatrick).
As to claims 3, and 14, Kanitz discloses a user input device for inputting selection of the user input (Mobile devices for controlling the vehicle – See at least ¶106).
As to claims 4, and 15, Kanitz discloses the user input device comprises one of a phone, a key fob, a microphone, a gesture detecting device, and a touchscreen display (Phone etc. – See at least ¶107).
As to claims 5, and 16, Kanitz discloses the selected seating arrangement includes one of a driving mode, a conference mode, and a relaxation mode (Plurality of modes – See at least ¶55; Examiner notes any number of the disclosed modes can be considered “driving” as the arrangements of Kanitz occur during vehicle operation which is analogous to the broadest reasonable interpretation of “driving.” Additionally, the plurality of arrangements disclosed by Kanitz are analogous to the claimed “conference” and/or “relaxation” as both are subjective and up to the users to determine what constitutes relaxed, or facilitating conferencing.).
Kanitz fails to explicitly disclose the steering wheel is in the stowed position in the conference and relaxation modes. 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 Kanitz and include the feature of the steering wheel is in the stowed position in the conference and relaxation modes, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Fitzpatrick teaches stowing a steering wheel is a well-known and routine consideration when reconfiguring a vehicle cabin interior, including modes that can be considered “relaxing” or “conference” (See at least ¶30 and Fig. 1 of Fitzpatrick).
As to claims 6, and 17, Kanitz discloses the relaxation mode comprises one of a front facing rear relaxation mode and a rear facing relaxation mode (Front facing and rear facing – See at least Fig. 5).
As to claims 7, and 18, Kanitz fails to explicitly disclose the seating assemblies in the first row seating and the second row seating further comprise a swivel actuator for rotating the seats about a vertical axis. 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 Kanitz and include the feature of the seating assemblies in the first row seating and the second row seating further comprise a swivel actuator for rotating the seats about a vertical axis, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Fitzpatrick teaches swiveling a vehicle seat about a vertical axis is a well-known and routine control for reconfiguring a vehicle cabin interior to accommodate a vehicle passenger (See at least Fig. 2 of Fitzpatrick).
As to claims 9, and 19, Kanitz discloses the third row seating comprises a seat back adjacent to a rear wall of the passenger compartment (Third row – See at least Fig. 12; Examiner notes either end of the vehicle can be considered rear given the nature of Kanitz’s vehicle.).
As to claim 11, Kanitz discloses the vehicle comprises a pickup truck (Truck – See at least ¶108).
As to claim 13, the claim is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 2 as claim 13 merely combines the subject matter of those claims.
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