DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 08/23/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/23/2024 are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7-9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Olivares (US 2017/0028882) in view of Schwemmer (US 5,396,973), and further in view of KRAETSCHMER (DE102013101274).
Regarding claim 1, Olivares discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A ride system comprising: a ride vehicle comprising a chassis and a seating area, wherein the seating area is configured to support a passenger; and an attenuation device mechanically coupled between the seating area and the chassis and configured to attenuate a first acceleration of the seating area, relative to a reference frame, compared to a second acceleration of the chassis, relative to the reference frame, in response to the first acceleration meeting or exceeding a threshold acceleration. Olivares, Paras. [0013]-[00019], [0024], [0032], [0038]-[0045], and Figs. 1-2, and Example 14, teaches a vehicle system including a seat mounted to a vehicle, a chassis, an attenuation device disposed between the seating area and the chassis, a locking mechanism configured to maintain the seating area coupled to the chassis, (where base structure 150 supporting the seat 50 including seat back 52 and seat bottom 54 configured to support an occupant/passenger), and a control system configured to selectively disengage the locking mechanism so that the attenuation service attenuates acceleration transmitted to the seating area.
Olivares does not explicitly disclose that the control system compares a first acceleration of the seating area relative to a reference frame with a second acceleration of the chassis relative to the reference frame and determines that the first acceleration meets or exceeds a threshold relative to the second acceleration.
However, Schwemmer, Col. 5, ll. 44-68, Col. 6, ll. 1-18, 50-68, Col. 7, ll. 1-8, Col. 8, ll. 8-68, teaches an electronically controlled attenuation (shock absorber) assembly disposed between first and second components and including an electric controller, accelerometers, and sensor inputs for monitoring movement of the components. Also teaches that the controller receives absolute acceleration information for the respective components and further teaches that relative acceleration is obtained by subtracting the acceleration signals of the two components attached to the attenuation device. Schwemmer further teaches that the controller processes these acceleration signals and controls the attenuation device in response thereto. Therefore, teaches obtaining acceleration values for each of two components and comparing those values by determining their relative acceleration.
KRAETSCHMER, Paras. [0010]-[0014], [0025]-[0033], teaches evaluating acceleration information with respect to one or more predetermined threshold. Also teaches comparing an acceleration signal with a first and second threshold, determining when the thresholds have been exceeded, and utilizing the determinations as part of the controller decision for initiating occupant protection control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the control system of Olivares to incorporate the acceleration comparison as taught by Schwemmer so that the controller determines the relative acceleration between the seating area and the chassis, and further employ the threshold evaluation as taught by KRAETSCHMER so that releasing the locking mechanism of Olivares occurs only when the determined acceleration satisfies a predetermined threshold, in order to improve the timing and consistency of operation of a vehicle occupant protection system.
Regarding claim 2, Olivares, Schwemmer and KRAETSCHMER teach the limitations of claim 1. Olivares discloses:
The ride system of claim 1, comprising a locking mechanism configured to, when engaged, resist a relative motion between the seating area and the chassis at least until a shear force, corresponding to the threshold acceleration, between the seating area and the chassis is met. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Olivares teaches a ride system including a seating area, a chassis, an attenuation device coupled between the seating area and the chassis, a locking mechanism, and a controller configured to selectively disengage the locking mechanism. Schwemmer teaches comparing acceleration signals associated with the two components coupled by the attenuation device to determine relative acceleration. KRAETSCHMER teaches determining whether an acceleration signal exceeds a predetermined threshold prior to initiating a protective action.
Olivares, Paras. [0013]-[00019], [0024], [0032], [0038]-[0045], and Figs. 1-2, and the disclosure relating to shear pin, teaches a locking mechanism comprising a shear pin that retains the seating area and the support structure in a fixed position/alignment to restricts movement of the seat relative to the support structure while the applied force is below a predetermined shear threshold/level. And further teaches that the shear pin is configured to fracture upon application of a predetermined force, permitting relative movement between the seating area and the support structure (chassis). Therefore, teaches a locking mechanism configured to resist motion between the seating area and the chassis until a predetermined shear force is met, corresponding to the threshold/level acceleration determined by the control system.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Olivares, Schwemmer and KRAETSCHMER teach the limitations of claim 1. Olivares discloses:
The ride system of claim 1, comprising: a locking mechanism configured to, when engaged, resist a relative motion between the seating area and the chassis; and a control system configured to selectively disengage the locking mechanism so as to allow relative motion between the seating area and the chassis. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Olivares teaches a ride system including a seating area, a chassis, an attenuation device coupled between the seating area and the chassis, a locking mechanism, and a controller configured to selectively disengage the locking mechanism. Schwemmer teaches comparing acceleration signals associated with the two components coupled by the attenuation device to determine relative acceleration. KRAETSCHMER teaches determining whether an acceleration signal exceeds a predetermined threshold prior to initiating a protective action.
Olivares, Paras. [0013]-[00019], [0024], [0032], [0038]-[0045], and Figs. 1-2, and the disclosure relating to shear pin, teaches a locking mechanism comprising a shear pin that retains the seating area and the support structure in a fixed position/alignment to restricts movement of the seat relative to the support structure while the applied force is below a predetermined shear threshold/level. And further teaches that the shear pin is configured to fracture upon application of a predetermined force (shear force is exceeded), permitting relative movement between the seating area and the support structure (chassis). Therefore, teaches a locking mechanism configured to resist motion between the seating area and the chassis until a predetermined shear force is met, corresponding to the threshold/level acceleration determined by the control system.
The combination of Olivares and Schwemmer and KRAETSCHMER teach a locking mechanism and a control system. Olivares teaches the locking mechanism that maintains the seating area and support structure in fixed alignment until release (disengage). While KRAETSCHMER teaches controller that initiates a protective action when a predetermined threshold is exceeded.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Olivares, Schwemmer and KRAETSCHMER teach the limitations of claims 1-2. Olivares discloses:
The ride system of claim 2, wherein the locking mechanism comprises a shear pin configured to break at a threshold shear force between the seating area and the chassis. As discussed with respect to claim 2, Olivares teaches a ride system including a seating area, a chassis, an attenuation device coupled between the seating area and the chassis, a locking mechanism, and a controller configured to selectively disengage the locking mechanism. Schwemmer teaches comparing acceleration signals associated with the two components coupled by the attenuation device to determine relative acceleration. KRAETSCHMER teaches determining whether an acceleration signal exceeds a predetermined threshold prior to initiating a protective action.
Olivares, Paras. [0013]-[0024], [0027], [0032]-[0034], [0038]-[0045], and Figs. 1-2, and the disclosure relating to shear pin, teaches a locking mechanism comprising a shear pin that retains the seating area and the support structure in a fixed position/alignment to restricts movement of the seat relative to the support structure while the applied force is below a predetermined shear threshold/level. And further teaches that the shear pin is configured to fracture upon application of a predetermined force (shear force is exceeded), permitting relative movement between the seating area and the support structure (chassis). Therefore, teaches a locking mechanism comprising a shear pin configured to break at a threshold shear between the seating area and the chassis.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Olivares, Schwemmer and KRAETSCHMER teach the limitations of claim 1. Olivares discloses:
The ride system of claim 1, wherein the seating area comprises a seat coupled to the chassis via the attenuation device. Olivares, Abstract, Paras. [0013]-[00019], [0024], [0032], [0038]-[0045], and Figs. 1-2, teaches a seat portion 50 configured to support an occupant, a base structure 150 (chassis), and an energy absorber 120, 240, 270 disposed between the seat portion and the base structure. The shear member couples the seat portion to the base structure, and the energy absorber is coupled between them. Therefore, teaches a seat coupled to the chassis via an attenuation device.
Regarding claim 9, Olivares, Schwemmer and KRAETSCHMER teach the limitations of claim 1. Olivares discloses:
The ride system of claim 1, wherein the attenuation device comprises a hydraulic cylinder. Olivares, Abstract, Paras. [0025], [0037], Example 6, and Figs. 1-2, teaches that the energy absorber (attenuation device), comprises a hydraulic cylinder.
Regarding claim 12, Olivares and Schwemmer teach the limitations of claim 11. Olivares and Schwemmer and KRAETSCHMER discloses:
The method of claim 11, comprising determining, via control circuitry, to release the secure coupling in response to sensor data indicative of the second acceleration of the chassis increasing above a threshold. Olivares teaches a method of a ride system comprising maintaining via s locking mechanism, a secure coupling between a seating area of a ride vehicle and a chassis, and releasing the secure coupling via the locking mechanism, and attenuating acceleration of the seating area relative to the chassis using an attenuation device.
Schwemmer, Col. 6, ll.20-61, Col. 8, ll. 7-18, 37-45, “The sensor means 38 which is integrated into the shock absorber assembly 20 is used to provide a signal proportional to any of the following: absolute displacement, relative displacement, absolute velocity, relative velocity, relative acceleration and absolute acceleration, force or internal pressure, as further described, hereafter”, “Finally, relative acceleration can be obtained by subtracting the acceleration signals of the two components attached to the absorber assembly 20, while absolute acceleration of the components can be received directly from the accelerometer”, teaches sensor means providing signals indicative of absolute acceleration and relative acceleration of components attached to the shock absorber assembly. Further teaches that the controller receives signals, including acceleration signals from an accelerometer for estimating the absolute acceleration of the body. Therefore, teaches receiving sensor data indicative of the acceleration of s component attached to the shock absorber, including absolute acceleration obtained from an accelerometer for use by the controller.
KRAETSCHMER, Paras. [0010]-[0014], [0025]-[0033], teaches an electronic control unit receiving acceleration data and comparing to one or more predetermined threshold values. When the acceleration exceeds the predetermined threshold, the controller initiates activation of a vehicle occupant protection system. Therefore, teaches evaluating of acceleration signals against predetermined thresholds and initiating a protective action upon exceeding the threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Olivares to incorporate whether the acceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold as taught by KRAETSCHMER, before releasing the locking mechanism, in order to improve occupant protection control.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Olivares (US 2017/0028882) in view of Schwemmer (US 5,396,973), and further in view of KRAETSCHMER (DE102013101274), and Breed (US 2004/0036261).
Regarding claim 4, Olivares, Schwemmer and KRAETSCHMER teach the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Breed discloses:
The ride system of claim 3, wherein the control system is configured to selectively disengage the locking mechanism in response to determining that a collision of the ride vehicle has occurred or in response to estimating that a future collision of the ride vehicle will occur within a future time period. Breed, Abstract, Paras. [0195]-[0196], [0408]-[0415], teaches a processor configured to determine whether a vehicle crash is occurring based on measured vehicle acceleration and angular motion, and further teaches an anticipatory sensing system configured to determine an object that is about to impact vehicle and forecast crash severity before the collision occurs. Also teaches determining that a collision has occurred or estimating that a future collision will occur.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Olivares to incorporate collision detection and anticipatory sensing techniques as taught by Breed, in order to improve the timing and reliability of protective actions in response to collision events.
Regarding claim 5, Olivares, Schwemmer and KRAETSCHMER teach the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Breed teaches claim 4. Breed discloses:
The ride system of claim 4, wherein the control system is configured to determine that the collision has occured or to estimate that the future collision will occur based on sensor data of one or more accelerometers of the ride system, one or more radar sensors of the ride system, one or more optical sensors of the ride system, or any combination thereof. Breed, Abstract, Paras. [0195]-[0196], [0408]-[0415], teaches determining vehicle crash conditions using sensor data from one or more accelerometers, anticipatory sensing, and additional sensors including radar or laser radar systems for detecting objects in a potential collision path and camera based systems for identifying approaching objects. And further teaches combining data from multiple sensors, including accelerometers and anticipatory sensors, to determine whether occupant protection should be initiated. Therefore, teaches determining that a collision has occurred or estimating that a future collision will occur based on the sensor data from one or more accelerometers, one or more radar sensors, and one or more optical sensors.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 4 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Olivares (US 2017/0028882) in view of Schwemmer (US 5,396,973), and further in view of KRAETSCHMER (DE102013101274), and Arima (US 5,435,553).
Regarding claim 6, Olivares, Schwemmer and KRAETSCHMER teach the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Arima discloses:
The ride system of claim 3, wherein the control system is configured to selectively disengage the locking mechanism in response to a local stop control signal from an input device accessable to the passenger, a network stop control signal, or both. Arima, Col. 4, ll. 40-68, Col. 5, ll. 1-14, Col. 7, ll. 11-20, and Figs. 3 and 6, teaches a central computing and controlling circuit 38 that wirelessly transmits an emergency stop signal to the racing cars through infrared transmitting and receiving units 26. Upon receiving the emergency stop signal, each racing car actuates its emergency stop switch 66, stopping operation of the vehicle. Therefore, teaches a network stop control signal transmitted from a remote controller to the vehicle in response to which the vehicle control system performs a commanded operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Olivares to incorporate adding a response to a network stop control signal as taught by Arima, in order to allow a remote control mechanism and improve the safety of the ride system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Olivares (US 2017/0028882) in view of Schwemmer (US 5,396,973), and further in view of KRAETSCHMER (DE102013101274), and Carlson (US 5,277,281).
Regarding claim 10, Olivares, Schwemmer and KRAETSCHMER teach the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Carlson discloses:
The ride system of claim 9, wherein the hydraulic cylinder comprises a magnetorheological fluid, and wherein the ride system comprises a control system configured to adjust an attenuation amount of the hydraulic cylinder by regulating an electrical current to an electromagnet that applies a magnetic field to the magnetorheological fluid. Carlson, Col. 3, ll. 45-59, Col. 4, ll. 40-68, Col. 8, ll. 27-30, teaches a hydraulic cylinder (damper 16) containing a magnetorheological fluid (MR fluid 18), and an electromagnetic coil (coil 40). And further teaches regulating electric current supplied to the electromagnetic coil, where the resulting magnetic field changes the flow characteristics of the magnetorheological fluid and adjusts the damping force of the hydraulic cylinder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the hydraulic cylinder of Olivares to incorporate the controllable magnetorheological hydraulic cylinder as taught by Carlson, in order to improve occupant protection.
Claims 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Olivares (US 2017/0028882) in view of Schwemmer (US 5,396,973).
Regarding claim 11, Olivares discloses the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
A method comprising: maintaining, via a locking mechanism, a secure coupling between a seating area of a ride vehicle of a ride system and a chassis of the ride vehicle; releasing, via the locking mechanism, the secure coupling; and attenuating, via an attenuation device, a first acceleration, relative to a reference frame, of the seating area compared to a second acceleration, relative to the reference frame, of the chassis. Olivares, Paras. [0013]-[00019], [0024], [0032], [0038]-[0044], and Figs. 1-2, and Example 14, teaches a method of a ride system comprising maintaining via s locking mechanism, a secure coupling between a seating area of a ride vehicle and a chassis, and releasing the secure coupling via the locking mechanism, and attenuating acceleration of the seating area relative to the chassis using an attenuation device, where acceleration transmitted from the chassis to the seat following release of the locking mechanism.
Olivares does not explicitly disclose attenuating a first acceleration, relative to a reference frame, of the seating area compared to a second acceleration, relative to the reference frame of the chassis.
Schwemmer, Col. 5, ll. 44-68, Col. 6, ll. 1-18, 50-68, Col. 7, ll. 1-8, Col. 8, ll. 8-68, teaches monitoring acceleration of respective components coupled by a shock absorber using acceleration sensors associated with components and determining the relative acceleration by comparing the measured acceleration signals, such as subtracting the acceleration signals of the two components attached to the shock absorber. And further teaches controlling attenuation of the shock absorber based on measured acceleration information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Olivares to determine attenuation using the acceleration information as taught by Schwemmer, in order to improve the control of attenuation device for the response of both, the seating area and the chassis, and improve occupant protection control.
Regarding claim 14, Olivares and Schwemmer discloses the limitations of claim 11, Olivares discloses:
The method of claim 11, wherein the attenuation device is configured to attenuate the first acceleration of the seating area in a longitudinal direction relative to the ride vehicle. Olivares, Paras. [0013]-[00019], [0023]-[0029], [0032], [0038]-[0044], Claims 11, 14, 19, and Figs. 1-2, and Example 14, teaches the attenuation device attenuates movement of the seating area with respect to the chassis during a vehicle collision, which occurs in the longitudinal direction of travel of the vehicle.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Olivares (US 2017/0028882) in view of Schwemmer (US 5,396,973), and further in view of Taylor (US 6,540,038).
Regarding claim 13, Olivares, Schwemmer teach the limitations of claim 11. Taylor discloses:
The method of claim 11, wherein the seating area comprises a cabin comprising one or more seats, and wherein the attenuation device is coupled between the cabin and the chassis. Taylor, Col. 1, ll. 16-33, Col. 2, ll. 59-68, Col. 3, ll. 1-14, 51-68, Col. 4, ll. 1-40, Fig. 1, teaches a truck 10 including a cab 12 supported on a vehicle frame 13 as an enclosed occupant compartment intended for at least a driver’s seat. Cab 12 is suspended above frame 13 on cab suspension elements 15 and 16 (attenuation device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the seating area of Olivares as a cabin supported by an attenuation device between the cabin and the chassis as taught by Taylor, to isolate occupants from shock during collision, in order to improve ride comfort.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Olivares (US 2017/0028882) in view of Schwemmer (US 5,396,973), and further in view of Breed (US 2004/0036261).
Regarding claim 15, Olivares and Schwemmer discloses the limitations of claim 11, Breed discloses:
The method of claim 14, wherein the first acceleration is a deceleration relative to a previous velocity of the ride vehicle. Breed, Abstract, Paras. [0018]-[0024], [0154]-[0155], [0164]-[0165], teaches that when a crash commences, the vehicle starts decelerating and an accelerometer senses the vehicle deceleration. And further teaches determining the velocity change of the vehicle during the crash. Therefore, Breed teaches that the first acceleration is a deceleration relative to a previous velocity of the vehicle,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Olivares with the crash sensing techniques of detecting vehicle deceleration and velocity change during a crash as taught by Breed, in order to improve occupant protection control.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Olivares (US 2017/0028882) in view of Schwemmer (US 5,396,973), and further in view of Mowry (US 2010/0270836).
Regarding claim 16, Olivares and Schwemmer discloses the limitations of claim 11, Mowry discloses:
The method of claim 11, comprising, in response to the ride vehicle achieving an at rest state, resetting the attenuation device. Mowry, Paras. [0033]-[0040], teaches that following the energy absorbing event, the energy absorber is reset. Further teaches that the seat assembly resets and returns to its starting position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to perform the reset after the ride vehicle has come to rest as taught by Mowry, in order to restore the attenuation device for subsequent use.
Claims 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Olivares (US 2017/0028882) in view of Breed (US 2004/0036261).
Regarding claim 17, Olivares and Breed teaches the limitations of claim 17:
A method comprising: determining, via a control system, that a collision of a ride vehicle with an obstacle may occur in a future amount of time; braking, via the control system, the ride vehicle such that a chassis of the ride vehicle decelerates relative to the obstacle; and activating, via the control system, an attenuation device coupled between a seating area of the ride vehicle and the chassis such that a first peak deceleration of the seating area, relative to the obstacle, is less than a second peak deceleration of the chassis, relative to the obstacle. Olivares, Paras. [0015]-[0018], claim 11, teaches an attenuation device disposed between a seat and the vehicle support structure that reduces the acceleration transmitted to the occupant by permitting controlled relative movement after release of a locking member. Breed, Paras. [0024], [0148]-[0151], [0155]-[0164], [0286], [0471]-[0480], teaches determining that a collision occurs before impact, using vehicle sensors and controlling the vehicle based on the predicted collision, including vehicle deceleration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Breed’s predictive collision determination and braking control into the ride system of Olivares, in order to initiate occupant protection before impact.
Regarding claim 18, Olivares and Breed discloses the limitations of claim 17, Olivares discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein activating the attenuation device comprises unlocking a locking mechanism configured to, when locked, resist relative motion between the seating area and the chassis. Olivares, Paras. [0015]-[0018], claim 11, teaches that activation of the attenuation device comprises releasing a locking mechanism that resists movement between the seating area and the chassis. Further teaches a shear pin 136 that initially holds the seat 50 in fixed alignment with the support structure 150, and resisting the movement. Upon loading above a predetermined threshold, the shear pin fractures, releasing the secure coupling and permitting movement of the seat relative to the support structure while the energy absorber attenuates the motion. Therefore, teaches a locking mechanism that when locked, resist the movement, and when released, activates the attenuation device.
Regarding claim 20, Olivares and Breed discloses the limitations of claim 17, Olivares discloses:
The method of claim 17, comprising not attenuating accelerations less than a threshold acceleration. Olivares, Paras. [0015]-[0018], claim 11, teaches to not attenuate accelerations less than a threshold acceleration. And teaches that a shear pin 136 maintains the seat in fixed alignment with the support structure until a predetermined loading threshold is exceeded. The shear pin fractures only when the applied load exceeds the threshold, after the seat is permitted to move and the energy absorber attenuates the motion. Therefore, acceleration producing loads below the predetermined threshold do not active the attenuation device, such that the attenuation does not occur
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Olivares (US 2017/0028882) in view of Breed (US 2004/0036261), and further in view of Browne (US 2005/0087409).
Regarding claim 19, Olivares and Breed discloses the limitations of claim 17, Breed and Browne disclose:
The method of claim 17, comprising adjusting an attenuation rate of the attenuation device based on a user preference, a weight of a passenger of the ride vehicle, a speed of the ride vehicle, or any combination thereof. Browne, Paras. [0018]-[0019], [0033], claim 11, teaches adjusting an attenuation rate of an attenuation device. And teaches a magnetorheological (MR) fluid damper having a coil capable of carrying a variable current to generate a magnetic field with a controllable magnetic flux density, where the viscosity and shear properties of the magnetorheological (MR) fluid are controlled. Further teaches that the electric current to the coil is variably controlled to vary the magnetic flux in the fluid passageway and therefore, control the flow characteristics of the magnetorheological (MR) fluid to achieve a desired damping effect, including tuning the force velocity damping characteristics for a particular application. Breed, Paras. [0024], [0148]-[0151], [0155]-[0164], [0286], [0471]-[0480], teaches determining occupant protection based on occupant characteristics, including the weight of the occupant, by providing an occupant weight sensor and using the measured parameter in determining the appropriate occupant protection response.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the controllable attenuation rate of the magnetorheological (MR) fluid damper as taught by Browne and to adjust the occupant weight as taught by Breed, in order to improve occupant protection during a collision.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Olsson (US 2017/0071804) teaches a seat frame acceleration measurements, a controller, and comparison of two acceleration related signals.
Nilsson (US 2001/0011830) teaches a vehicle seat mounted to a vehicle which moves relative to the vehicle body during a crash.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Samuel Morano can be reached on 571-272-6684. 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
