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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 31 October 2023. It is noted, however, that the electronic retrieval of the priority documents failed (See notice mailed 31 March 2025) and further that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the French application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 12 recites the limitations "the branches" “the secondary direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13 recites the limitation "the branches". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Examiner notes that the antecedent basis issue appears to be caused by the claims accidentally depending from claim 9 instead of claim 11. For the purposes of compact prosecution and examination, claims 12 and 13, have been treated as if they depended upon claim 11 in the art rejection outlined below.
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 1-10, 14-19, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (Chinese Patent App 20210972285).
Regarding claim 1, Song discloses a seat backrest, the seat backrest extending in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction; (Abstract; Fig 8-9)
at least one first and one second coplanar interdigital electrode capacitive sensor, referred to as first and second capacitive sensors of the first zone, (Fig 8-9; 3rd paragraph of page 3; first paragraph of page 6; “There is at least one capacitance sensor. the specific position of the automobile seat in the step S1 is the headrest position, shoulder right position, shoulder left side position, waist right position, waist left side position, waist upper side position, waist middle side position, waist lower side position, leg right side position, leg left side position, leg support upper side position; leg support lower side position of one or more combinations.” “As shown in FIG. 8, FIG. 9, the specific position of the automobile seat in step S1 is a headrest position 8, shoulder right position 9, shoulder left side position 10, waist right position 11, waist left side position 12, waist upper side position 13, waist middle side position 14, waist lower side position 15, leg right position 16; leg left side position 17, leg support upper side position 18, leg support lower side position 19 in the one kind of or more combinations.” )
the capacitive sensors of the first zone being arranged on a first zone of the backrest
the second capacitive sensor of the first zone being located above the first capacitive sensor of the first zone; (9 or 10 of Fig 8-9; first paragraph of page 6)
the second capacitive sensor of the first zone is advanced by a first distance relative to the first capacitive sensor of the first zone in the direction of the vertical central plane. (9 or 10 of Fig 8-9; first paragraph of page 6)
Song discloses that the capacitive sensors (11 and 12) extend above the horizontal central plane, but not explicitly that they are “located” above the horizontal central plane. However, Song further discloses that the sensor “shape can be randomly cut according to the user seat area” in order to allow “the controller in the vehicle calculates the variable quantity of capacitive reactance and impedance through the distance between the passenger and several capacitance sensors and the contact area respectively and judges the change of the passenger on the automobile seat position through the variation;” and further that “In order to timely detect the position of the passenger on the seat, the response time of the whole system is less than 500 milliseconds.” Therefore placing the capacitive sensors entirely above the horizontal central plane would have been a matter of obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Specifically a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that since the invention must “detect the position of the passenger on the seat” in “less than 500 milliseconds” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to discover the optimum range for the capacitive sensor. Therefore the placement of the capacitive sensor above the horizontal central plane would have been obvious since it has been held that discovering an optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the claimed spacing yields any previously unexpected results. Furthermore, using the claimed spacing would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art based on factors such as comfort, ease of use, aesthetics, etc.
Regarding claim 2, Song further discloses wherein the first distance measured in the transverse direction is equal to or greater than 5 millimeters. (Fig 8-9; first paragraph of page 6) Furthermore the Examiner notes that the arguments that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to discover the optimum range for the capacitive sensor outlined above are also applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, which comprises at least one third coplanar interdigital electrode capacitive sensor, referred to as the third capacitive sensor of the first zone, the third capacitive sensor of the first zone being arranged on the first zone of the backrest, the third capacitive sensor of the first zone being located above the second capacitive sensor of the first zone; the third capacitive sensor of the first zone being advanced by a second distance relative to the second capacitive sensor of the first zone in the direction of the central vertical plane, the second distance measured in the transverse direction being equal to or greater than 5 millimeters. (8 of Fig 8-9; first paragraph of page 6)
Regarding claim 4, Song does not appear to explicitly disclose a fourth capacitive sensor located above and slightly off center the 3rd capacitive sensor. Nevertheless because Song discloses the 3 capacitive sensors, the limitation would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing as mere duplication of parts, since the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (See MPEP2144.04 VI. B.)
Regarding claim 5, Song appears to disclose that the gap between the two sensors of first zone is larger than 20 mm. Nevertheless, the limitation would have been a matter of obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Specifically, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that since the invention must “detect the position of the passenger on the seat” in “less than 500 milliseconds” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to discover the optimum range for the capacitive sensor. Therefore the placement of the capacitive sensor gap of between 5 millimeters and 20 millimeters would have been obvious since it has been held that discovering an optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the claimed spacing yields any previously unexpected results. Furthermore, using the claimed spacing would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art based on factors such as comfort, ease of use, aesthetics, etc.
Regarding claim 6, Song further discloses which further comprises at least one first and one second capacitive sensor of the second zone, the first and second capacitive sensors of the second zone being arranged on a second zone of the backrest, the second zone being located above the horizontal central plane and on the other side of the vertical central plane; the second capacitive sensor of the second zone being located above the first capacitive sensor of the second zone; the second capacitive sensor of the second zone being advanced by a fourth distance relative to the first capacitive sensor of the second zone in the direction of the central vertical plane, the fourth distance measured in the transverse direction in particular being equal to or greater than 5 millimeters. (the other of 11 or 12 of Fig 8-9; first paragraph of page 6)
Regarding claim 7, Song further discloses which comprises at least one third coplanar interdigital electrode capacitive sensor, referred to as the third capacitive sensor of the second zone, the third capacitive sensor of the second zone being arranged on the second zone of the backrest, the third capacitive sensor of the second zone being located above the second capacitive sensor of the second zone; the third capacitive sensor of the second zone being advanced by a fifth distance relative to the second capacitive sensor of the second zone in the direction of the central vertical plane, the fifth distance being measured in the transverse direction, the fifth distance being equal to or greater than 5 millimeters. (8 of Fig 8-9; first paragraph of page 6)
Regarding claim 8, Song does not appear to explicitly disclose a fourth capacitive sensor located above and slightly off center the 3rd capacitive sensor. Nevertheless because Song discloses the 3 capacitive sensors, the limitation would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing as mere duplication of parts, since the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (See MPEP2144.04 VI. B. )
Regarding claim 9, Song further discloses wherein at least two capacitive sensors of the first zone and two capacitive sensors of the second zone are arranged symmetrically to one another, relative to the central vertical plane. (Fig 8-9; first paragraph of page 6)
Regarding claim 10, Song further discloses which further comprises electrical connection wires each connected to a capacitive sensor of the first zone and/or a capacitive sensor of the second zone, and a flexible support carrying the capacitive sensors and the electrical connection wires, part of the flexible support being arranged on an upper edge of the backrest, next to the headrest. (page 5; “The conductive fabric layer is made of high quality soft copper/nickel plating conductive cloth as base material, relative to the sheet electrode capacitance sensor and resistance wire capacitance sensor, the shape can be randomly cut according to the user seat area, the installation is more convenient.” “the several capacitance sensors are installed on the special position of the automobile seat; several capacitance sensors respectively connected with the controller in the automobile through the wiring harness”
Regarding claims 14-19, Song further discloses wherein the first distance is equal to or greater than 10 millimeters. (Fig 8-9; first paragraph of page 6) Furthermore the Examiner notes that the arguments that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to discover the optimum range for the capacitive sensor outlined above are also applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, Song further discloses a device for detecting the size of an occupant of a motor vehicle seat, the detection device comprising: (Abstract; Fig 8-9; Examiner notes that the invention of song would be capable of detecting the size of a vehicle occupant and that as the limitation “for detecting the size of an occupant” merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the limitation is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. (see MPEP 2111.02 II) Nevertheless the Examiner points Applicant to the document cited below but not used)
at least one flexible support in the form of a strip with two lateral edges, the flexible support extending in a longitudinal direction at least one first and one second coplanar interdigital electrode capacitive sensor, referred to as first and second capacitive sensors, and (references mapped the same as above in Fig 8-9; first paragraph of page 6)
electrical connection wires connected to the first and second capacitive sensors and extending in the The conductive fabric layer is made of high quality soft copper/nickel plating conductive cloth as base material, relative to the sheet electrode capacitance sensor and resistance wire capacitance sensor, the shape can be randomly cut according to the user seat area, the installation is more convenient.” “the several capacitance sensors are installed on the special position of the automobile seat; several capacitance sensors respectively connected with the controller in the automobile through the wiring harness”)
the first and second capacitive sensors extending perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; the second capacitive sensor being advanced by a first distance from the first capacitive sensor in the direction of a lateral edge; (Fig 8-9; first paragraph of page 6)
the first distance, measured in a transverse direction, being equal to or greater than 5 millimeters. (8 of Fig 8-9; first paragraph of page 6)
Song does not appear to be explicit as to the wires extending in the longitudinal direction, nevertheless the limitation would have been an obvious design choice so as to route the wires as efficiently as possible to save money.
Regarding claim 24, Song further discloses wherein the first distance is equal to or greater than 10 millimeters. (Fig 8-9; first paragraph of page 6) Furthermore the Examiner notes that the arguments that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to discover the optimum range for the capacitive sensor outlined above are also applied to claim 24.
Claims 11-13, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Microchip (Capacitive Touch Sensor Design Guide, Microchip, 2020).
Regarding claim 11, Song discloses “a seat capacitance sensor based on conductive fabric, wherein the capacitance sensor comprises a conductive fabric layer, nonwoven fabric felt layer” because “using a sheet electrode capacitance sensor and a resistance wire capacitance sensor to measure the passenger condition; the sensor cost is high; the seat mounting technique is complex and so on, so as to affect the vehicle production efficiency” (page 2) Nevertheless a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it a matter of simple design choice to have used a capacitance sensor of a different known type.
Microchip teaches wherein at least one coplanar interdigital electrode capacitive sensor comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, the first electrode and the second electrode each comprising a rod extending in a main direction, and branches secured to the rod, the branches extending in a secondary direction, the secondary direction being perpendicular to the main direction; the branches of the first electrode being separated from one another by the same interval, the branches of the first electrode being interposed between the branches of the second electrode, the rod and branches of at least one of the first and second electrodes having a dimension in the main direction of between 250 micrometers and 1000 micrometers. (page 37; Fig 2-20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Song with wherein at least one coplanar interdigital electrode capacitive sensor comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, the first electrode and the second electrode each comprising a rod extending in a main direction, and branches secured to the rod, the branches extending in a secondary direction, the secondary direction being perpendicular to the main direction; the branches of the first electrode being separated from one another by the same interval, the branches of the first electrode being interposed between the branches of the second electrode, the rod and branches of at least one of the first and second electrodes having a dimension in the main direction of between 250 micrometers and 1000 micrometers as taught by Microchip with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 12, Microchip teaches wherein the branches of at least one of the first and second electrodes have a dimension in the secondary direction of between 3 millimeters and 20 millimeters. (page 37; Fig 2-20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Song with wherein the branches of at least one of the first and second electrodes have a dimension in the secondary direction of between 3 millimeters and 20 millimeters as taught by Microchip with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 13, Microchip teaches the branches of the first electrode comprise free ends, and wherein a free end of a branch of the first electrode is spaced apart from a facing rod portion of the second electrode by a spacing of between 250 micrometers and 1000 micrometers. (page 37; Fig 2-20; XY separation of Table 2-7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Song with the branches of the first electrode comprise free ends, and wherein a free end of a branch of the first electrode is spaced apart from a facing rod portion of the second electrode by a spacing of between 250 micrometers and 1000 micrometers as taught by Microchip with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 20, Microchip does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the dimension in the main direction is comprised between 500 micrometers and 800 micrometers for the surface sensor layout. Microchip however uses a dimension in the main direction within the claimed range for other sensor configurations and further states for the surface sensor design (page 36) that “Dual touch detection requires a center-to-center touch point separation of at least twice the sensor pitch for two unique touchpoints to be registered.” Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found the limitation an obvious matter of design choice dependent on at least the required sensor size and the fidelity of touch receptivity required.
Regarding claim 21, Microchip discloses wherein the dimension in the secondary direction is comprised 3 and 7 millimeters. (Pitch row in table 2-7 on page 37)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Song with wherein the dimension in the secondary direction is comprised 3 and 7 millimeters as taught by Microchip with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 22, Microchip teaches wherein the spacing is comprised between 500 micrometers and 800 micrometers. (page 37; Fig 2-20; XY separation of Table 2-7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Song with wherein the spacing is comprised between 500 micrometers and 800 micrometers as taught by Microchip with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Balde (US Patent Publication 2021/0016683) discloses a capacitive seat sensor for detecting the size of a vehicle occupant.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669