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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/26/2024 was received and reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to application number 18/785,680 filed on 07/26/2024, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 1-4, 12, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira et al. US 20200130702 A (hereinafter Ferreira) in view of McMillen et al. WO 2006020069 A2 (hereinafter McMillen).
Claim 1: Ferreira discloses A vehicle comprising: a seat having a seat base and a seat back, wherein the seat back may fold from an upright seating position to a folded position [Abstract; in pet mode, the vehicle computer may cause one or more windows to lower, the sunroof to open the trunk lift gate to pivot open, and the seat backs of one or more rows of seats to tilt or fold down]; a user input for entering an input to move the seat back to the folded position [[0016]; the key fob 105 can include a “pet mode” selector for manual activation by a user 101. When the pet mode selector 108 is pressed (or otherwise selected) by a user 101, a coded wireless signal is sent to the vehicle control manger computer 150. (…) As a non-limiting example, in pet mode, the vehicle control manager computer may cause any one or more of the following to occur: (...) adjusting the recline position of all or a portion of one or more rows of back seats 128 from an upright position to a folded or reclined position so that at least a portion of the seat back of at least one of rows of seats 128 is horizontal or substantially horizontal to create more room and a flatter consistent surface in the rear of the vehicle 120]; a controller configured to control movement of the seat back from the upright seating position to the folded position [[0020]; the vehicle control manager computer 150 can be operatively and communicably connected to a door lock system 160, a power window system 161, a trunk/lift gate control system 162, a sunroof control system 163, an entertainment system 164, a navigation system 165, and a seat tilting/folding system 166], (…) of the seat back to move to the folded position [[0022]; transmit a signal to the trunk control system 162 to adjust the lift gate 124 of the vehicle from a closed configuration to an open configuration to provide access for the pet 106 to enter the vehicle 120; and transmit a signal to the seat tilting system 166 to tilt or fold one or more seat backs within one or more rows of back seats 128 from a vertical position to a horizontal or substantially horizontal position to create more room for the pet 106] (…).
Ferreira does not explicitly disclose at least one door moveable between an open position and a closed position; a door sensor for detecting the at least one door in the open position or the closed position; and wherein the controller determines whether the vehicle is not moving and whether the at least one door is in the open position or closed position, and wherein the controller permits activation (...) when the input is received, the at least one door is in the open position and the vehicle is determined not to be moving, and prevents movement (…) when the vehicle is moving or the at least one door is in the closed position.
McMillen teaches at least one door moveable between an open position and a closed position [[0034]; In operation, the system of the present invention receives an anticipated use indication signal from any of a variety of use anticipation indicators. That is, the door opens and a sensor signals the system]; a door sensor for detecting the at least one door in the open position or the closed position [[0023]; a sensor engaged with the door to indicate that the door has been opened or closed 44]; and wherein the controller determines whether the vehicle is not moving and whether the at least one door is in the open position or closed position, and wherein the controller permits activation (...) when the input is received, the at least one door is in the open position and the vehicle is determined not to be moving, and prevents movement (…) when the vehicle is moving or the at least one door is in the closed position [[0005]; The present invention is an ergonomic support, i.e., a side bolster, for a vehicle seat or head rest that retracts automatically upon receiving its signal of anticipated entry or exit of the seat occupant to or from the seat. The bolster is preferably actuated by an electrical motor, although other motors are conceived which will be useful. The electrical motor (for example) receives a signal to engage or disengage, and thereby extend or retract the bolster. The signal may be received by the motor via a relay or a microprocessor. A relay or microprocessor in turn receives a signal from any of the variety of use anticipation indicators that a "use", that is a vehicle entry or exit, is about to occur. Anticipation indicators are triggered by inserting a key into the ignition, withdrawing the key from the ignition, placing the transmission in "park" position, engaging the parking brake, the triggering of a door sensor indicating that the door is opened or closed, or a user-operated switch. [0023]: Accordingly, the use anticipation indicator may be, without limitation, any one of the following: the withdrawal of the key from the ignition 41, the transmission being placed in park 42, engagement of the parking brake 43, a sensor engaged with the door to indicate that the door has been opened or closed 44, or a manual override switch 45, or a signal received from a remote keyless entry system 46. Any of these devices may be used in combination or individually and other potential UAI's are conceivable to one skilled in the art.].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ferreira in view of McMillen with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle controls. The combination would improve accessibility in a vehicle [McMillen; [0002]; There is a need in the art for ergonomic supports, particularly side bolsters, that can be extended for support, but that can provide for easy access of the driver or passenger into and out of the seat].
Claim 2: The combination of Ferreira and McMillen teach the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Ferreira discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one door comprises a rear door at a rear end of the vehicle [[0016]; opening a door of the vehicle 120 (e.g., a rear side door or a trunk door/lift gate 124) from the closed position to an open position].
Claim 3: The combination of Ferreira and McMillen teach the system of claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated.
Ferreira discloses the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the rear door is a liftgate [[0016]; opening a door of the vehicle 120 (e.g., a rear side door or a trunk door/lift gate 124) from the closed position to an open position].
Claim 4: The combination of Ferreira and McMillen teach the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Ferreira discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one door comprises a rear side door [[0016]; opening a door of the vehicle 120 (e.g., a rear side door or a trunk door/lift gate 124) from the closed position to an open position].
Claim 12: The claim is directed towards a system of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim 1, respectively. The cited portions of Ferreira in view of McMillen used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same steps to perform the system of claim 12, respectively. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim 1 as outlined above.
Claim 14: The claim is directed towards a method of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim 1, respectively. The cited portions of Ferreira in view of McMillen used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim 14, respectively. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim 1 as outlined above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira in view of McMillen, further in view of Kormos et al. US 20240042904 A1 (hereinafter Kormos).
Claim 5: The combination of Ferreira and McMillen teach the system of claim 4, accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 above is incorporated. Ferreira does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Kormos teaches the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the rear side door is located proximate to a rear row of seating which is rearward of a front row of seating [[0042]; A driver or passenger may enter the front side door 16A to access the front row of seat assemblies 20 and may enter the rear side door 16B to access the second row of seat assemblies 22].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ferreira in view of Kormos with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle controls. The combination would enhance accessibility to seating in a vehicle [Kormos; [0043]; In FIG. 3, the vehicle seat assembly 22 is arranged in a first non-use boarding position tilted or pitched forward about the front bottom side to allow for enhanced space for a user to enter or board and exit the space behind the vehicle seat assembly 22, such as to enter or exit from or to the third row of seat assemblies 24 from the rear side door 16B].
Claims 6-8 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira in view of McMillen, further in view of Nathan et al. US 20070296257 A1 (hereinafter Nathan).
Claim 6: The combination of Ferreira and McMillen teach the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Ferreira does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Nathan teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the seat is a flip seat [[0026]; as shown in FIG. 5, the seat 10 may automatically flip forward to the illustrated stadium seat position (folded forward position) once the seat back 12 reaches the folded over position].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ferreira in view of Nathan with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle controls. The combination would allow accessibility even when power is not available [Nathan; [0007]; Seat folding latches may also be specified to be manually actuated in the event that a user wishes to operate the latch manually or if power is not available for the power actuation system].
Claim 7: The combination of Ferreira and Nathan teach the system of claim 6, accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated. Ferreira does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 7.
Nathan teaches the vehicle of claim 6, wherein the flip seat has a latch that is releasable to allow the seat back to flip forward with a bias spring [[0029]; the counter-clockwise rotation of the power plate spring 25 may be used to actuate the power plate 33 and the connected latch lever 20 from the retained position (loaded position) to the released position (fired position)].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ferreira in view of Nathan with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle controls. The combination would allow accessibility even when power is not available [Nathan; [0007]; Seat folding latches may also be specified to be manually actuated in the event that a user wishes to operate the latch manually or if power is not available for the power actuation system].
Claim 8: The combination of Ferreira and McMillen teach the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Ferreira does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 8.
Nathan teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the seat back is moved via an actuator [[0024]; the latch may be power actuated upon triggering the actuator 18. The actuator 18 may comprise a shape memory alloy trigger, a solenoid or other actuator that is capable of exerting a tensioning force on wire 26. In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 4 the actuator 18 exerts a pulling force on the cable that pulls the trigger plate 27 in a counter-clockwise direction].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ferreira in view of Nathan with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle controls. The combination would allow accessibility even when power is not available [Nathan; [0007]; Seat folding latches may also be specified to be manually actuated in the event that a user wishes to operate the latch manually or if power is not available for the power actuation system].
Claim(s) 19-20: The claim(s) are directed towards a method of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim(s) 7-8, respectively. The cited portions of Ferreira in view of Nathan used in the rejection of claim(s) 7-8 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim(s) 19-20, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 7-8 as outlined above.
Claims 9-10 & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira in view of McMillen, further in view of Jain et al. US 10214118 B1 (hereinafter Jain).
Claim 9: The combination of Ferreira and McMillen teach the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Ferreira does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 8.
Jain teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the user input comprises a switch [Colm. 5, Ln. 26-31; There is needed the locating of a switch for the activation or deactivation of the automated seat adjustment system with a notification indicating to either or both the passenger and the driver the automated seat adjustment system has been activated, is about to be activated, is activated, or is not activated].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ferreira in view of Jain with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle controls. The combination would improve functionality via machine learning [Jain; Colm. 11, Ln. 43-47; the controller 34 implements machine learning techniques to assist the functionality of the controller 34, such as feature detection/classification, obstruction mitigation, route traversal, mapping, sensor integration, ground-truth determination, and the like].
Claim 10: The combination of Ferreira and Jain teach the system of claim 9, accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 above is incorporated. Ferreira does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 10.
Jain teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the switch is located near a rear end of the vehicle [Colm. 13, Ln. 18-20; a manual override switch 499 is located within an arm length reach of the passengers in the front and rear seat as well as the driver].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ferreira in view of Jain with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle controls. The combination would improve functionality via machine learning [Jain; Colm. 11, Ln. 43-47; the controller 34 implements machine learning techniques to assist the functionality of the controller 34, such as feature detection/classification, obstruction mitigation, route traversal, mapping, sensor integration, ground-truth determination, and the like].
Claim(s) 16-17: The claim(s) are directed towards a method of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim(s) 9-10, respectively. The cited portions of Ferreira in view of Jain used in the rejection of claim(s) 9-10 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim(s) 16-17, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 9-10 as outlined above.
Claims 11, 13, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira in view of McMillen, further in view of Banales Cano et al. US 20190381913 A1 (hereinafter Banales Cano).
Claim 11: The combination of Ferreira and McMillen teach the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Ferreira does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 11.
Banales Cano teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller requires first and second attempted user inputs before moving the seat back to the folded position [[0005]; Adjusting the seatback to the non-passenger position while the slider is in the tilt-and-slide region comprises placing the seat system in a tilt-and-slide mode in response to a first input, and wherein placing the seatback in the passenger position in response to the slider having moved from the tilt-and-slide region to the detent region comprises placing the seat system in a comfort mode, the method further comprising receiving a second input to place the seat system in a fold flat mode, and in response to the second input, releasing the recliner without applying any stopper to the recliner, and allowing a recliner spring to pivot the seatback into a fold flat position].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ferreira in view of Banales Cano with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle controls. The combination would simply construction and improve maintenance upkeep [Banales Cano; [0017]; a sliding seat may not be able to absorb seatbelt loads from a passenger in case of a collision, and a person should not be able to sit in the seat while it is in the easy entry operation mode. Some implementations will therefore place the seatback in what can be referred to as a non-passenger position while the seat is able to slide freely. Upon the slider again becoming secured so that the seat is no longer free to slide, the system can allow the seatback to be returned to a passenger position. Architectures that facilitate such functionality can simplify the construction, operation, and maintenance of the seat system, and can provide the opportunity to implement other kinematic behaviors].
Claim 13: The claim is directed towards a system of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim 1, respectively. The cited portions of Ferreira in view of Banales Cano used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same steps to perform the system of claim 13, respectively. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim 1 as outlined above.
Claim 15: The claim is directed towards a method of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim 1, respectively. The cited portions of Ferreira in view of Banales Cano used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim 15, respectively. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim 1 as outlined above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira in view of McMillen, further in view of Han et al. US 20240375551 A1 (hereinafter Han).
Claim 18: The combination of Ferreira and McMillen teach the method of claim 14, accordingly, the rejection of claim 14 above is incorporated. Ferreira does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 18.
Han teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising the step of providing an output to a user indicative of preventing the folding of the seat back [[0030] & [0032]; the seat control method may further include suspending, by the control device, control of the at least one adjacent seat and the target seat while an operation input is received, when a speed of a host vehicle is greater than or equal to a predetermined speed, a door of the host vehicle is closed, a risk of collision is detected while the host vehicle is driving, a user is seated in the at least one adjacent seat, or the at least one adjacent seat is operating. (...) the seat control method may further include providing, by the control device, a user with a notification function by using a notification device (...)].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ferreira in view of Han with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle controls. The combination would reduce processing loads and increase processing speeds [Han; [0259]; an efficient seat control function may be provided by minimizing a communication load between components in the host vehicle, increasing a processing speed between a plurality of controllers, and simplifying the processing process.].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Jeon et al. (US 20240217414 A1) discloses a seating system for a vehicle includes a first seat assembly having a first seat base and a first armrest that is convertible between an armrest position and a center seat position, and a second seat assembly having a second seat base and a second armrest that is convertible between an armrest position and a middle seat position. The seating system also includes a convertible third seat assembly located between the first and second seat assemblies and having a third seat formed by the first armrest and the second armrest in the middle seat position, wherein the first and second armrests are moveable between the armrest position and the center seat position.
Suda et al. (US 20050236881 A1) discloses the invention provides a seat stowing system for stowing in a floor recess (16) a seat (15) with a seat back (22, 23) tipped forward to fold it against a seat cushion (21). The stowing system (20) includes a seat back forward-tipping mechanism for automatically tipping the seat back forward and a swinging mechanism (30) for automatically swinging the folded seat back and the seat cushion as one. The seat back forward-tipping mechanism and the swinging mechanism are drive-controlled by a control unit, and the operation of stowing the seat in the floor recess is thus made electric.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony G Mora whose telephone number is (571)272-2306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8am-5pm PST, Alternating Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Kito R Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/ANTHONY GABRIEL MORA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664