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 Claims
Claims 1-9 of U.S. Application No. 18/893,159 filed on 09/23/2024 have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim 1 of this application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because each of the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
“a movable portion configured to receive” in claim 1
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In the specification, applicant discloses that, “the term “movable portion 8” refers to a movable portion, namely the seat body 2 or the seatback 5, that moves upon receipt of a driving force from the “electric motor 7”.” (See at least [0023] in applicant’s specification). It will therefore be appreciated that the functions disclosed are executed in the form of hardware and/or software executed by one or more processors. This is adequate structure to perform the claimed functions, so no 112(b) rejections are given based on this claim interpretation.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function) or make an argument as to why the claim limitations already recite sufficient structure as written. However, since the specification discloses adequate structure to perform the claimed functions, applicant does not need to take any action in response to this claim interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sone et al. (US20090039812A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sone discloses a vehicle seat configured to be mounted to a vehicle, the vehicle seat comprising:
an electric motor configured to generate a driving force (“The motor unit 46 includes a motor gear 46b and a motor 46c” [0045]);
a movable portion configured to receive the driving force from the electric motor to thereby move in a direction corresponding to a rotation direction of the electric motor (“the backrest 12” [0035]; “When the sector gear 44 rotates, the bump 26 of the backrest side bracket contacting with the notch 44a of the sector gear also rotates, and the backrest side bracket 21 (backrest 12) rotates (returns) to a backward tilting direction.” [0053]);
an operation switch configured (i) to be manually operated by a user and (ii) to output an ON signal in response to the operation switch being manually operated (“A switch SW1 is for operating the rotating device 4. The switch SW1 is installed near the driver’s seat apart from the vehicle seat 1, and is means for remote control of the rotating device 4.” [0055]; “When the switch SW1 is turned on (Yes at S12)” [0060]);
a controller configured: to rotate the electric motor in a first rotation direction in response to the operation switch outputting the ON signal (“the motor 46c is rotated normally, and the backrest is raised (S14).” [0060]);
to detect the movable portion in its movement interrupted state at least based on (i) the operation switch outputting the ON signal and (ii) a rotation of the electric motor being stopped (“The motor speed is monitored by a pulse signal from the rotation detector 64 shown in FIG. 5, and the change rate of a pulse period is judged to be under a specified value or not described specifically below, and jamming is detected (S16).” [0060]; “When jamming occurs, the load becomes higher gradually, and the pulse period becomes longer gradually.” [0014]);
and to perform a rotation inverting control in response to the controller having detected the movable portion in its movement interrupted state for a first preset time period, the movable portion in its movement interrupted state being unable to move in the direction corresponding to the first rotation direction of the electric motor, the rotation inverting control being configured for the controller to rotate the electric motor in a second rotation direction opposite to the first rotation direction (“During normal rotation of the motor 46c, if jamming occurs while raising the backrest (Yes at S16), the motor 46c is stopped immediately (S18), and rotation is inverted (S22), and the backrest is tilted again.” [0061]; “jamming by the movable part by judging whether the value of a period of one pulse P1 and a period of the next pulse P2 (P2/P1) integrated for 150 times (integrated value: 150) exceeds a specified threshold (160) or not.” [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 4, Sone discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 1, wherein: the movable portion is a seatback configured (i) to support an occupant’s back and (ii) to tilt with respect to a front-rear axis of the vehicle seat corresponding to the rotation direction of the electric motor; and the controller is configured to be enabled to perform the rotation inverting control at least when the seatback tilts backward of the vehicle seat (“the movable part is a backrest of a vehicle seat disposed so as to contact with other members” [0023]; “the backrest side bracket 21 (backrest 12) rotates (returns) to a backward tilting direction.” [0053]).
Regarding claim 6, Sone discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to detect the movable portion in its movement interrupted state based on the movable portion having maintained its movement interrupted state for a preset detecting period (“jamming by the movable part by judging whether the value of a period of one pulse P1 and a period of the next pulse P2 (P2/P1) integrated for 150 times (integrated value: 150) exceeds a specified threshold (160) or not.” [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 7, Sone discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 1, further comprising a rotation sensor configured to output a pulse signal in association with the rotation of the electric motor, wherein the movable portion in its movement interrupted state causes the rotation sensor not to output the pulse signal while the operation switch is outputting the ON signal (“a rotation detector for detecting rotation of the motor and outputting a pulse corresponding to the motor speed” [0019]; “When jamming occurs, the load becomes higher gradually, and the pulse period becomes longer gradually.” [0014]; note that as the period becomes infinitely long when rotation stops, no pulse is outputted).
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 2, 3, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sone in view of Nathan et al. (US7145263B2), hereinafter referred to as Sone and Nathan respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Sone discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 1,
Sone does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to be enabled to perform the rotation inverting control at least when the vehicle is stationary.
However, Nathan in teaches wherein the controller is configured to be enabled to perform the rotation inverting control at least when the vehicle is stationary. Nathan, analogous field of vehicle seat adjustment with anti-pinch features, teaches enabling automatic motorized adjustments (including pinch response actions) based on vehicle state sensors indicating conditions consistent with the vehicle being stationary, such as ignition activated and doors closed (“Control module 42 is operatively connected to an ignition sensor 70 and one or more door open sensors 72.” [Col. 5, lines 29-30]; “When ignition sensor 70 is activated and door open sensor 72 detects a closed door condition, control module 42 will activate drive motor 32 to position the headrest 30 to a predefined raised position.” [Col. 5, lines 58-61]; “An ignition sensor is in communication with the control module and monitors 82 the ignition condition of the vehicle.” [Col. 6, lines 54-56]; “At least one door open sensor is provided which is in communication with the control module. The at least one door open sensor monitors 76 the position or condition of the vehicle door to determine if the door is open or closed and transmits an output signal to the control module 84.” [Col. 6, lines 34-39]). Both Sone and Nathan teach methods for vehicle seat control. However, Nathan explicitly teaches wherein the controller is configured to be enabled to perform the rotation inverting control at least when the vehicle is stationary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sone’s controller to enable rotation inverting control at least when the vehicle is stationary, as taught by Nathan with a reasonable expectation of success, by incorporating vehicle state sensors (e.g., ignition and door sensors) to condition the anti-pinch response, thereby enhancing safety by ensuring adjustments and reversals occur only under safe, non-driving conditions, preventing unintended operations while the vehicle is in motion.
Regarding claim 3, Sone discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 1,
Sone does not explicitly disclose wherein: the movable portion is a seat body configured to move along a front-rear axis of the vehicle seat corresponding to the rotation direction of the electric motor; and the controller is configured to be enabled to perform the rotation inverting control at least when the seat body moves rearward of the vehicle seat.
However, Sone teaches applying the jamming detection and inversion to movable vehicle seat portions (“a motor for driving a movable part” [0019]), and Nathan teaches wherein: the movable portion is a seat body configured to move along a front-rear axis of the vehicle seat corresponding to the rotation direction of the electric motor; and the controller is configured to be enabled to perform the rotation inverting control at least when the seat body moves rearward of the vehicle seat. Nathan teaches analogous motorized adjustment with anti-pinch reversal for seat components moving in directions toward potential obstructions, such as headrest positioning proximate to the passenger’s head (which may involve rearward/forward movement relative to the seat back) (“Control module 42 transmits a signal to drive motor 32 to adjust the position of headrest 30 proximate to the passenger’s head 48 to prevent injury in case of a vehicle collision.” [Col. 4, lines 49-52]). Both Sone and Nathan teach methods for vehicle seat control. However, Nathan explicitly teaches the movable portion is a seat body configured to move along a front-rear axis of the vehicle seat corresponding to the rotation direction of the electric motor; and the controller is configured to be enabled to perform the rotation inverting control at least when the seat body moves rearward of the vehicle seat. Front-rear sliding adjustments are well-known equivalents to other directional mechanisms (e.g., tilting or headrest positioning) in vehicle seats for occupant positioning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Sone’s system, as modified by Nathan with a reasonable expectation of success, to a seat body moving rearward along a front-rear axis, as this is a simple substitution of one known movable seat portion (tilting backrest or headrest) for another (sliding seat body) to achieve predictable anti-pinch safety during rearward movement, motivated by preventing jamming in common seat adjustments where obstructions are likely (e.g., rearward sliding toward rear passengers or objects).
Regarding claim 5, Sone discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 1,
Sone does not explicitly disclose wherein: the movable portion is a seat body configured to move along an up-down axis of the vehicle seat corresponding to the rotation direction of the electric motor; and the controller is configured to be enabled to perform the rotation inverting control at least when the seat body moves downward of the vehicle seat.
However, Sone teaches applying the jamming detection and inversion to movable vehicle seat portions (“a motor for driving a movable part” [0019]), and Nathan explicitly teaches wherein: the movable portion is a seat body configured to move along an up-down axis of the vehicle seat corresponding to the rotation direction of the electric motor; and the controller is configured to be enabled to perform the rotation inverting control at least when the seat body moves downward of the vehicle seat. Nathan teaches motorized adjustment with anti-pinch reversal for a headrest (part of the seat body) moving along an up-down axis, such as raising to a predefined position or adjusting vertically proximate to the head (“control module 42 will activate drive motor 32 to position the headrest 30 to a predefined raised position.” [Col. 5, lines 59-61]; “The control logic of control module 84 monitors the feedback from all connected sensors and generates 86 a control signal instructing the at least one drive motor to adjust 88 the position the headrest based on detected passenger conditions described above between at least one predefined headrest position in proximity to the passenger’s head and a stored position adjacent the upper portion of the seat back” [Col. 6, lines 57-65]). Both Sone and Nathan teach methods for vehicle seat control. However, Nathan explicitly the movable portion is a seat body configured to move along an up-down axis of the vehicle seat corresponding to the rotation direction of the electric motor; and the controller is configured to be enabled to perform the rotation inverting control at least when the seat body moves downward of the vehicle seat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Sone’s system, as modified by Nathan with a reasonable expectation of success, to a seat body moving downward along an up-down axis, by incorporating Nathan’s headrest height adjustment with reversal, as this is a simple substitution of one known movable seat portion (tilting backrest) for another (height-adjustable seat body or headrest) to achieve predictable anti-pinch safety during downward movement, motivated by preventing jamming in standard seat functions where obstructions (e.g., legs or objects below) are possible.
Regarding claim 8, Sone discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 1, wherein the movable portion in its movement interrupted state causes a load increase (“When jamming occurs, the load becomes higher gradually” [0014]),
Sone does not explicitly disclose wherein the movable portion in its movement interrupted state keeps increasing a conduction current flowing through the electric motor while the operation switch is outputting the ON signal.
However, Nathan teaches wherein the movable portion in its movement interrupted state keeps increasing a conduction current flowing through the electric motor while the operation switch is outputting the ON signal. Nathan teaches detecting pinch conditions via increasing conduction current or voltage fluctuations in the motor during obstruction (“Load sensor 74 detects fluctuations in drive motor output to detect an obstruction or blockage in the path of the moving headrest 30. Load sensor 74 may include a current, voltage or PWM sensor, which is coupled to the drive motor 32 to prevent passenger injury resulting from a blocking or pinching condition.” [Col. 6, lines 7-16]). Both Sone and Nathan teach methods for vehicle seat control. However, Nathan explicitly teaches wherein the movable portion in its movement interrupted state keeps increasing a conduction current flowing through the electric motor while the operation switch is outputting the ON signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sone’s detection to explicitly include increasing conduction current as an indicator of the interrupted state, as taught by Nathan with a reasonable expectation of success, by using a current/voltage sensor for load monitoring, as this provides an alternative or complementary detection method to pulse-based sensing, motivated by accurately identifying sustained obstructions through inherent electrical effects of motor stalling under load, enhancing reliability in vehicle seat systems.
Regarding claim 9, Sone discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 1, wherein: the controller is configured: to output, to the electric motor, a supply voltage having a first magnitude in response to (i) the operation switch outputting the ON signal and (ii) the controller not detecting the movable portion in its movement interrupted state (“the motor 46c is rotated normally” [0060]);
and stopping the motor before inversion upon jamming (“the motor 46c is stopped immediately (S18), and rotation is inverted (S22)” [0061]),
Sone does not explicitly disclose performing a motor load reducing control before performing the rotation inverting control in response to the controller detecting the movable portion in its movement interrupted state, the motor load reducing control being configured for the controller to output, to the electric motor, the supply voltage having a second magnitude smaller than the first magnitude.
However, Nathan teaches performing a motor load reducing control before performing the rotation inverting control in response to the controller detecting the movable portion in its movement interrupted state, the motor load reducing control being configured for the controller to output, to the electric motor, the supply voltage having a second magnitude smaller than the first magnitude. Nathan teaches a motor load reducing control by stopping (reducing voltage to zero) before optional reversal upon pinch detection (“If a pinch condition is detected by load sensor 74, the control module 42 instructs drive motor 32 to stop positioning of the headrest 30 and may reverse the direction of drive motor 32 to prevent the blocking or pinching conditions.” [Col. 6, lines 12-16]; “The control module will instruct the at least one drive motor to stop or reverse the positioning of the headrest if the load/pinch sensor detects a pinch condition.” [Col. 7, lines 2-4]; “At least one load or pinch sensor is in communication with the control module and monitors 90 the activity of the at least one drive motor to detect a pinch condition during the positioning of the headrest. The control module will instruct the at least one drive motor to stop or reverse the positioning of the headrest if the load/pinch sensor detects a pinch condition.” [Col. 6-7, lines 65-67 & 1-4). Both Sone and Nathan teach methods for vehicle seat control. However, Nathan explicitly teaches performing a motor load reducing control before performing the rotation inverting control in response to the controller detecting the movable portion in its movement interrupted state, the motor load reducing control being configured for the controller to output, to the electric motor, the supply voltage having a second magnitude smaller than the first magnitude.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sone’s controller to perform a motor load reducing control by outputting a smaller supply voltage (e.g., zero via stop) before inversion, as taught by Nathan with a reasonable expectation of success, as this is a routine transitional step to minimize mechanical stress and prevent further pinching during the reversal process, motivated by Nathan’s emphasis on safe stopping and optional inversion in analogous vehicle seat anti-pinch systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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 on (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.
/AA/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668