DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schoerrig (US Pub No 2013/0073149).
In regard to claim 1, Schoerrig discloses a method of controlling a vehicle safety device (Abstract: “a method for controlling at least one reversible occupant protection measure of a precrash safety system”), the method comprising:
predicting, by a controller, a collision accident and a rollover accident by using a signal detected by an accident prediction detecting part (the elements sending signals 11-20, see Fig 1) installed in a host vehicle (see Fig 1, especially elements 17-20 and Paragraph 0029: “In FIG. 1, examples of some input signals 11-20, which are evaluated by the control device 1 in order to actuate the actuators of the precrash system, are shown on the left.”; also see claim 12: “a potentially imminent collision based on radar data; a potentially imminent collision based on camera data; a collision that is occurring; and a rollover of the motor vehicle that is occurring”; Examiner notes that while elements 19 and 20 measure accident events that have just begun, the information is still fed into the “precrash system” to actuate vehicle safety systems before the accident has concluded; i.e., the system is predicting the result of the accident before it occurs); and
supporting, responsive to a prediction of an accident of the host vehicle, by the controller, a passenger, the passenger being situated in a seat in the host vehicle, to remain on the seat by operating a seat device, the seat device being configured to support the passenger on the seat (see Paragraph 0041: “Each precrash severity indicator PCS 1-8 is assigned a set of actuators that can be parameterized in the control device--in this case, for example, a defined force characteristic of the electric motor-operated belt tensioner (see reference numerals 51-54) the window closing mechanism (see reference numeral 54) and/or the seat adjuster (see reference numeral 54).”; in other words, information from elements 19 and 20 via PCS 8 is fed through the precrash system and results in outputs through PCS’ 8 to elements 53 and 54 to tension the seat belt and close windows and the sunroof; also see claim 8: “wherein the at least one reversible occupant protection measure comprises one or more of: belt tensioning; closing of windows; closing of a sliding roof; and seat adjustment”),
while closing an opening/closing device (the windows and sunroof of the vehicle considered capable of being opened and closed, as the method could not close a window that had never been opened), the opening/closing device being configured to openably and closably operate at a periphery of the passenger (closing the windows and sunroof via 54, in Fig 1, as described in Paragraph 0041).
In regard to claim 5, Schoerrig discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the predicting further comprises predicting a rollover accident by determining a roll motion of the host vehicle based on the signal detected by the accident prediction detecting part (see the signal sent by element 20 in Fig 1 along with Paragraph 0040: “signal 20: a rollover, which has actually taken place, by retrieving data from the airbag control device”).
In regard to claim 7, Schoerrig discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the opening/closing device comprises one or more of a window glass and a sunroof (see 54 in Fig 1; also see claim 8: “closing of windows; closing of a sliding roof”), and
wherein the seat device comprises one or more of a seatbelt and a bolster device (see 53 and 54 in Fig 1; also see claim 8: “belt tensioning; closing of windows; closing of a sliding roof; and seat adjustment”).
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 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoerrig (US Pub No 2013/0073149) in view of Hashimoto et al., (US Pub No 2011/0218713).
In regard to claim 2,
Schoerrig discloses the method of claim 1.
Schoerrig does not positively disclose wherein the predicting further comprises:
predicting a forward or rearward collision accident by determining a distance and relative velocity of the host vehicle with respect to vehicles traveling forward or rearward of the host vehicle based on the signal detected by the accident prediction detecting part.
In other words, Schoerring does teach, in general, using a radar and a camera (17 and 18, part of the “accident prediction detecting part”, the elements sending signals 11-20, see Fig 1; also see Paragraphs 0037-0038) to predict a collision, but only fails to positively disclose that the radar and camera predict the collision by determining a distance and relative velocity of vehicles traveling forward or rearward of the host vehicle.
However, such practices are well known in the art. For example, Hashimoto discloses a vehicle control method utilizing a collision predicting portion (see the Abstract). Most importantly, Hashimoto teaches using a radar to measure relative speed and distance between a host vehicle and an object to predict a time of collision (see Paragraphs 0038 and 0040).
As Schoerring utilizes a radar for the express purpose of predicating a collision, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to accomplish this by measuring the relative speed and distance between the host vehicle and another vehicle, as is commonly done in the art, as demonstrated by Hashimoto.
In regard to claim 8,
Schoerrig discloses the method of claim 1.
Schoerrig does not positively disclose
determining, by the controller, a posture of the passenger by using a signal detected by a passenger posture detecting part installed in the host vehicle,
wherein the supporting further comprises controlling a posture of the seat responsive to the posture of the passenger being determined as a tilted rearward orientation, the seat operates in a basic seating mode in which an upper body of the passenger returns forward.
Examiner notes that Schoerrig does teach, in general, adjusting portions of the seat to be more upright in anticipation of a collision; for example, see Paragraph 0051: “as well as a seat adjustment (see reference numeral 54). In this context the headrest is moved into the upright position--for example, starting from a current angle of 45° to an angle of 70° relative to the horizontal”.
Further, it is known in similar methods to detect the posture of a passenger and to adjust a seat occupied by the passenger to a safer position in anticipation of a collision. For example, Hashimoto discloses a vehicle control method utilizing a collision predicting portion (see the Abstract), wherein, when a collision is anticipated and it is determined that a passenger seat is reclined, the seat is adjusted to allow a seatbelt and airbag to more reliably protect the passenger.
See Paragraph 0041: “In the vehicle seat control apparatus 10 structured as described above, the reclining angle of the seat back is adjusted to match a preset target angle if a collision is predicted by the collision predicting ECU 46. As a result, at the time of collision, the posture of the occupant will be appropriate, thus enabling an occupant restraint device such as a seat belt or an air bag apparatus to reliably protect the occupant.”.
Also see Claim 22: “wherein the control portion controls the drive unit such that the reclining angle approaches a target angle when the collision predicting portion predicts the collision; the target angle is a predetermined angle at which an occupant restraint device restrains the occupant in an appropriate posture; and the predetermined state is a state in which the reclining angle matches the target angle”.
As Schoerrig teaches, adjusting a passenger seat in anticipation of a collision, in general, and in view of the teachings of Hashimoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the method of Schoerrig to further determine a posture of the passenger and to adjust the passenger seat to a more ideal position (i.e., less reclined), to allow the vehicle safety systems (i.e., seatbelt and airbag) to operate more effectively, as taught by Hashimoto.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoerrig (US Pub No 2013/0073149) with Hashimoto et al., (US Pub No 2011/0218713) in further view of Stadler et al. (US Pub No 2014/0028008).
In regard to claim 9,
Schoerrig modified supra discloses the method of claim 9.
Schoerrig does not positively disclose wherein the supporting further comprises controlling a steering wheel to position the steering wheel at a preset basic position when a forward or rearward collision accident is predicted.
However, it is known in the art, in similar systems, to position a steering wheel to a preset, safer position when a collision is anticipated. For example, Stadler discloses a vehicle with a retractable steering wheel (see the Title). Most importantly, Stadler teaches moving the steering wheel from a retracted position to a preset crash position “to improve protection of the driver” (Paragraph 0032); further, Stadler teaches moving the steering wheel in anticipation of a collision based on information from vehicle sensors (see Paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the method of Schoerrig such that “the supporting further comprises controlling a steering wheel to position the steering wheel at a preset basic position when a forward or rearward collision accident is predicted” to improve protection of the drive, as is taught by Stadler.
In regard to claim 10,
Schoerrig discloses the method of claim 8.
Schoerrig does not positively disclose wherein the supporting comprises controlling a steering wheel, the steering wheel being in a state in which the steering wheel enters a dash panel side or exits toward a driver side from a preset basic position, to move the steering wheel to the preset basic position, responsive to the forward or rearward collision accident being predicted.
However, it is known in the art, in similar systems, to position a steering wheel to a preset, safer position when a collision is anticipated, to include from a stowed position. For example, Stadler discloses a vehicle with a retractable steering wheel (see the Title). Most importantly, Stadler teaches moving the steering wheel from a retracted position (considered to be “a state in which the steering wheel enters a dash panel side”, as at least a portion of the steering equipment is retracted into the dash, the “front” of the dash, being generally “a side”) to a preset crash position “to improve protection of the driver” (Paragraph 0032); further, Stadler teaches moving the steering wheel in anticipation of a collision based on information from vehicle sensors (see Paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the method of Schoerrig such that “the supporting comprises controlling a steering wheel, the steering wheel being in a state in which the steering wheel enters a dash panel side or
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appear they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB M AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5790. The examiner can normally be reached Core Hours 10-6 M-F (First Fridays Off).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747