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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,151,823. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the reasons outlined below.
As per pending claim 1, patented claim 1 adequately discloses all of the features of pending claim 1; however, patented claim 1 is a method while patented claim 1 is a system configured to perform substantially the same operations; it is further noted that patented claim 1 also includes additional structural and aircraft controller limitations.
As per pending claim 2, the combination of patented claims 1 and 2 recite essentially the same duty-cycle and anti-fatigue frequency limitations, and the main difference is, once again, method versus system claim formatting, where the patented claims further comprising additional limitations.
As per pending claim 3, the combination of patented claims 1 and 3 recite the aircraft controller signal, the signal-based vibration sequence, the subset of tactors, and the alert vibration frequency; the main difference is, once again, method versus system claim formatting, and it is noted that pending claim 3 further calls that sequence a “second” vibration sequence and expressly calls the commands “alert vibrate commands”.
As per pending claim 5, the combination of patented claims 1 and 4 substantially recite the emergency signal and responsive bladder deflation limitations; the main difference is, once again, method versus system claim formatting and the pending claim expressly calls the commands “emergency deflate commands”.
As per pending claim 7, the combination of patented claims 1 and 2 substantially recite the same duty-cycle and vibration frequency limitations; it is noted that patented claim 2 is narrower because it further requires the frequency to be an anti-fatigue vibration frequency.
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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migneco, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0354612 A1 (hereinafter: ‘612), in view of BENNIS, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0332235 A1 (hereinafter: ‘235).
As per claim 1, ‘612 in view of ‘235 discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a processor, an inflation sequence for a plurality of air bladders (e.g., See ‘612; [0022], [0024] and [0041], which disclose a processor controlling a plurality of seat bladders through a repeating inflation pattern);
determining, by the processor, a deflation sequence for the plurality of air bladders (e.g., See ‘612; [0022], [0024] and [0041], which disclose the processor controlling the plurality of seat bladders through a repeating deflation pattern);
outputting, by the processor, commands to a pump assembly corresponding to the inflation sequence and the deflation sequence (e.g., See ‘612; [0022], [0024] and [0041], which disclose the processor controlling a fluid source including a pump to inflate and deflate the plurality of seat bladders according to the repeating inflation pattern and the repeating deflation pattern).
Although ‘612 discloses the processor periodically controlling a plurality of seat mounted massage actuators that may include eccentric electric motors (e.g., See ‘612; [0035], [0039] and [0041]), ‘612 does not specifically disclose a plurality of vibration devices disposed adjacent the seat bladders, determining a vibration pattern for the vibration devices, and sending vibration commands corresponding to the vibration pattern.
‘235 adequately discloses these missing features (e.g., See ‘235; [0078], [0079], [0115], [0116], [0165] and [0166], which disclose the vibration devices positioned next to the seat bladders, the processor determining the vibration pattern for the vibration devices, and the processor sending vibration commands corresponding to the vibration pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of ‘235 into ‘612 to better control when and how the vibration devices operate, thereby providing more targeted massage to improve occupant relaxation and comfort.
As per claim 6, ‘612 in view of ‘235 further discloses outputting, by the processor, the commands to the pump assembly for a first period of time and the vibrate commands to the plurality of tactors for a second period of time that does not overlap the first period of time (e.g., See ‘235; [0065], which discloses the seat bladders operating while the vibration devices are off, followed by the vibration devices operating while the seat bladders are off).
As per claim 7, ‘612 in view of ‘235 further discloses that the vibration sequence includes a duty cycle and a vibration frequency for each of the plurality of tactors (e.g., See ‘612; [0039]; and ‘235; [0170], which collectively disclose the processor controlling how long each of the vibration devices is on and off and its vibration frequency during the vibration pattern).
As per claim 8, ‘612 in view of ‘235 further discloses that the inflation sequence and the deflation sequence include a duty cycle for inflating and deflating each of the plurality of air bladders (e.g., See ‘612; [0022] and [0032]; and ‘235; [0170], which collectively disclose the processor individually controlling how long each of the seat bladders inflates and deflates during the repeating inflation pattern and the repeating deflation pattern).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migneco, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0354612 A1 (hereinafter: ‘612), in view of BENNIS, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0332235 A1 (hereinafter: ‘235), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Nathan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0241595 A1 (hereinafter: ‘595).
As per claim 2, Although ‘612 in view of ‘235 discloses that the vibration sequence includes a duty cycle and a vibration frequency for each of the plurality of tactors (e.g., See ‘612; [0039]; and ‘235; [0170], which collectively disclose the processor controlling how long each of the vibration devices is on and off and its vibration frequency during the vibration pattern), ‘612 in view of ‘235 does not specifically disclose the vibration frequency being an anti-fatigue vibration frequency.
‘595 adequately discloses this missing feature by disclosing a controller controlling a vibration frequency for a seat to alert a drowsy driver (e.g., See ‘595; [0024] and [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of ‘595 into ‘612 in view of ‘235 for the purpose of using the vibration frequency to alert a drowsy driver, thereby improving occupant awareness and safety.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migneco, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0354612 A1 (hereinafter: ‘612), in view of BENNIS, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0332235 A1 (hereinafter: ‘235), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Boren, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0018740 A1 (‘740).
As per claim 3, although ‘612 in view of ‘235 discloses the processor determining a vibration pattern and sending vibration commands to a subset of the vibration devices (e.g., See ‘235; [0165], [0166] and [0169]), ‘612 in view of ‘235 does not specifically disclose receiving a signal from an aircraft controller, determining a second vibration pattern based on the signal, and sending alert vibration commands corresponding to the second vibration pattern.
‘740 discloses these missing features by disclosing a controller receiving aircraft flight control information, and using that information to determine an alert vibration pattern, and sending alert commands that cause one or more of the vibration devices to operate according to the alert vibration pattern (e.g., See ‘740; [0072], [0074] and [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of ‘740 into ‘612 in view of ‘235 for the purpose of using aircraft flight control information to provide a vibration alert to a flight crew member, thereby improving flight crew awareness of aircraft conditions that require prompt attention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable unpatentable over Migneco, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0354612 A1 (hereinafter: ‘612), in view of BENNIS, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0332235 A1 (hereinafter: ‘235), in view of Boren, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0018740 A1 (‘740), as applied to claim 3, from above, in further view of Alequin, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0023753 A1 (‘753).
As per claim 4, although ‘612 in view of ‘235 and ‘740 discloses the processor independently controlling the vibration devices and operating different combinations of the vibration devices in sequence (e.g., See ‘235; [0169]), ‘612 in view of ‘235 and ‘740 does not specifically disclose sending stop vibration commands to the plurality of vibration devices before sending the alert vibration commands to the subset.
‘753 adequately discloses these missing features by disclosing a controller stopping an existing vibration output and then causing selected vibration devices to provide an alert vibration output (e.g., See ‘753; [0036] and [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of ‘753 into ‘612 in view of ‘235 and ‘740 for the purpose of stopping an ongoing vibration pattern before providing an alert vibration pattern with selected vibration devices, thereby making the alert easier for an occupant to recognize and distinguish.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migneco, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0354612 A1 (hereinafter: ‘612), in view of BENNIS, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0332235 A1 (hereinafter: ‘235), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Mussi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0113581 A1 (‘581).
As per claim 5, although ‘612 in view of ‘235 discloses the processor controlling a fluid source including a pump to deflate the plurality of seat bladders (e.g., See ‘612; [0022], [0024] and [0041]), ‘612 in view of ‘235 does not specifically disclose receiving a signal indicating an emergency and sending emergency deflate commands in response to the signal.
‘581 adequately discloses these missing features by disclosing a controller in communication with a crash detection or prediction system and controlling a valve to deflate a seat bladder when a crash is detected or predicted (e.g., See ‘581; [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of ‘581 into ‘612 in view of ‘235 for the purpose of automatically deflating the seat bladders when a crash is detected or predicted, thereby improving occupant safety during an emergency.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bredl, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100148552 (hereinafter: ‘552) in view of BENNIS, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0332235 A1 (hereinafter: ‘235).
As per claim 9, ‘552 in view of ‘235 discloses an ejection seat comprising a seatback, a seat pan corresponding to a seat bucket, and a seat cushion mounted to the seat pan (e.g., See ‘552; [0015], which discloses an ejection seat having a rigid seatback, a rigid seat pan, and a seat cushion mounted to the seat pan).
Although ‘552 discloses the ejection set having the seatback, the seat bucket, and the seat cushion, ‘552 does not specifically disclose a seatback cushion, a plurality of vibration devices and a plurality of seat bladders located in the seatback cushion and the seat cushion, and a controller sending vibration commands to the vibration devices and inflation commands to the seat bladders.
‘235 adequately discloses these missing features (e.g., See ‘235; [0078], [0079], [0090], [0094], [0118], [0123], [0140], [0144], [0155], [0159], and [0165], which collectively disclose the seat bladders and the vibration devices located in the seatback cushion and the seat cushion, and the controller sending commands that make the vibration devices vibrate and the seat bladders inflate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of ‘235 into ‘552 in view for the purpose of providing independently controlled bladder and vibration effects in the ejection seat cushions, thereby improving occupant relaxation and comfort.
As per claim 10, ‘552 in view of ‘235 further discloses that the controller is further configured to control a frequency of vibration of the plurality of seatback tactors and the plurality of seat tactors (e.g., See ‘235; [0165], which discloses the controller sending commands that control the vibration frequency of the vibration devices).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bredl, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100148552 (hereinafter: ‘552) in view of BENNIS, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0332235 A1 (hereinafter: ‘235), as applied to claim 10, in further view of STEBBINS, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0346823 A1 (hereinafter: ‘823).
As per claim 11, although ‘552 in view of ‘235 discloses the controller controlling the frequency of vibration of the seatback vibration devices and the seat vibration devices, ‘552 in view of ‘235 does not specifically disclose the frequency of vibration being an alert frequency.
‘823 adequately discloses this missing feature by disclosing vibration devices providing haptic alerts at a selected vibration frequency (e.g., See ‘823; [0046] and [0048], which disclose the vibration devices operating according to a haptic alert pattern with a vibration frequency of 55 to 67 Hz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of ‘823 into ‘552 in view of ‘235 for the purpose of using the vibration frequency to provide a haptic alert, thereby improving an occupant’s ability to detect and recognize the alert.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bredl, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100148552 (hereinafter: ‘552) in view of BENNIS, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0332235 A1 (hereinafter: ‘235), as applied to claim 9, in further view of Boren, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0018740 A1 (hereinafter: ‘740).
As per claim 12, although ‘552 in view of ‘235 discloses the controller determining a vibration sequence for the vibration devices (e.g., See ‘235; [0165], which discloses the controller controlling the vibration devices according to a determined vibration sequence), ‘552 in view of ‘235 does not specifically disclose receiving a signal from an aircraft controller and determining the vibration sequence based on the signal.
‘740 discloses these missing features by disclosing a controller receiving aircraft flight control information and using the information to determine an alert vibration pattern (e.g., See ‘740; [0072], [0074] and [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of ‘740 into ‘552 in view of ‘235 for the purpose of using aircraft flight control information to determine a vibration alert for the flight crew, thereby improving flight crew awareness of aircraft conditions that require prompt attention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bredl, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100148552 (hereinafter: ‘552) in view of BENNIS, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0332235 A1 (hereinafter: ‘235), in view of Boren, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0018740 A1 (hereinafter: ‘740), as applied to claim 12, from above, in further view of Mussi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0113581 A1 (hereinafter: ‘581).
As per claim 13, although ‘552 in view of ‘235 and ‘740 discloses the controller receiving the signal from the aircraft controller and determining the vibration sequence based on the signal, ‘552 in view of ‘235 and ‘740 does not specifically disclose the signal being an emergency signal and the controller sending deflate commands to the seatback bladders and the seat bladders in response to the emergency signal.
‘581 adequately discloses these missing features by disclosing a controller responding to a detected or predicted crash by controlling a valve to deflate a seat bladder, with the system also providing independent deflation of multiple seat bladders (e.g., See ‘581; [0058] and [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of ‘581 into ‘552 in view of ‘235 and ‘740 for the purpose of automatically deflating the seat bladders when a crash is detected or predicted, thereby improving occupant safety during an emergency.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 2020/0054518 A1, which discloses a seat that uses air bladders and vibration devices together, with a controller running them in patterns to help reduce tiredness;
(2) US 2021/0309378 A1, which discloses an aircraft ejection seat that uses several air bladders, a pump, and a controller to change seat support and provide massage;
(3) US 2020/0148366 A1, which discloses an aircraft seat that uses controlled air bladders for massage and can receive aircraft or crew signals to control seat functions, including vibration related functions;
(4) US 2014/0207333 A1, which discloses a vehicle seat that uses several ai bladders in the seat and seatback and controller how they inflate and deflate in patterns;
(5) US 2012/0226148 A1, which discloses a vehicle seat that uses controlled vibrations to warn the occupant, and a controller can change the vibration pattern for different conditions; and
(6) US 3,966,146, which discloses an aircraft ejection seat that uses an inflatable air bladder cushion along the seat and back to change how the occupant is supported during flight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 August 20, 2026
/RDH/
Prosecution Insights