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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 7 – 8, 17 – 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7 should read “wherein when a rear seat behind the seat is an automatic seat, and the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched, the control unit further causes the rear automatic seat to automatically move backward.” to provide clarity and to distinguish it from the “seat” previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 8 should read “wherein when a rear seat behind the seat is an automatic seat, and the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched, the control unit further causes the rear automatic seat to automatically move backward.” For the same reason as in claim 7.
Claim 17 should read “wherein when a rear seat behind the seat is an automatic seat, the control method further comprises: further causing the rear automatic seat to automatically move backward when the obstacle is detected to be pinched.” to provide clarity and to distinguish it from the “seat” previously recited in claim 11.
Claim 18 should read “wherein when a rear seat behind the seat is an automatic seat, the control method further comprises: further causing the rear automatic seat to automatically move backward when the obstacle is detected to be pinched.” For the same reason as claim 17 above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
As per claim 1,
Line 2, “an electric device, configured to move a seat of the vehicle;”
Line 3 – 4, “a pinch detection unit, detecting a pinched obstacle …”
Line 5 – 6, “a control unit, causing the electric device to perform a reverse operation …”
Claim 3, “when the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched, the control unit further causes the power sliding door to open.”
Claim 4, “when the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched, the control unit further causes the power sliding door to open.”
Claim 5, “wherein when the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched, the control unit further causes other seats in a same row as the seat to automatically move forward.”
Claim 6, “wherein when the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched, the control unit further causes other seats in a same row as the seat to automatically move forward.”
Claim 7, “the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched, the control unit further causes the rear automatic seat to automatically move backward.”
Claim 8, “the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched, the control unit further causes the rear automatic seat to automatically move backward.”
Claim 9, “when the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched, the control unit further turns on an interior light of the vehicle.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “control unit” is described as being implemented by a controller or ECU and directly implements the operation of the “electric device” (specification, par. [0036]). The “pinch detection unit” is described as being implemented by the “seat control ECU” as described in par. [0034] and fig. 4.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5 – 6, 15 – 16 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.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein when the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched, the control unit further causes other seats in a same row as the seat to automatically move forward.” The scope of this limitation is unclear. Claim 1 recites reversing movement of the seat that pinches an obstacle, but does not require that any other seat in the same row previously moved or is positioned such that forward movement is possible. Accordingly, the claim encompasses situations in which only the pinched seat moves while the other seats in the same row remain stationary. The claim does not specify whether the other seats are capable of automatic movement or whether they are positioned away from a forward-most limit. For example, if another seat in the same row is already at its forward-most position, it would not be capable of further forward movement. Because the claim does not define the structural or positional conditions under which the other seats are caused to move forward, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 6 is rejected for the same basis as claim 5 above.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the control method further comprises: further causing other seats in a same row as the seat to automatically move forward when the obstacle is detected to be pinched.” The scope of this limitation is unclear. Claim 11 recites reversing movement of the seat that pinches an obstacle, but does not require that any other seat in the same row previously moved or is positioned such that forward movement is possible. Accordingly, the claim encompasses situations in which only the pinched seat moves while the other seats in the same row remain stationary. The claim does not specify whether the other seats are capable of automatic movement or whether they are positioned away from a forward-most limit. For example, if another seat in the same row is already at its forward-most position, it would not be capable of further forward movement. Because the claim does not define the structural or positional conditions under which the other seats are caused to move forward, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same basis as claim 15 above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 10 – 11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Imai, Hidekazu (Publication No. US 20230072849 A1; hereinafter Imai) in view of Kawakura et al. (Publication No. US 20070216330 A1; hereinafter Kawakura).
Regarding to claim 1, Imai teaches A seat device for a vehicle, (Fig. 1, “the seat device 100”) comprising:
an electric device, configured to move a seat of the vehicle; ([Par. 0042], “The motor drive circuit 3 generates a drive voltage for rotating the motor 6 and supplies the drive voltage to the motor 6. The motor 6 rotates by the drive voltage to move the seat 30 in the front-rear direction (a direction) via the slide mechanism 7.” Wherein the “motor drive circuit 3” and the “motor 6” correspond to the “electric device” that is configured to move the seat of the vehicle.)
a pinch detection unit, detecting a pinched obstacle by detecting a load change of the electric device when the seat moves; ([Par. 0038], “The pinching detector 22 detects pinching of an object (a person's leg, baggage, or the like) by the seat 30 based on the current of the motor 6 detected by the motor current detector 4. Since details of the pinching detection based on the motor current are well known, description thereof will be omitted.” Wherein the “current motor change” corresponds the “load change”.) and
a control unit, causing the electric device to perform a reverse operation when the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched, so as to cause the seat to reversely move, ([Par. 0037], “The motor controller 21 outputs a control signal for controlling the rotation of the motor 6 to the motor drive circuit 3 based on the operation state of each of the switches 11 and 12 of the operation unit 1, the detection result of the pinching detector 22, the seat movement amount calculated by the seat movement amount calculator23, and the like.”; [Par. 0053], “as shown in the diagram (A) of FIG. 4, the operation start position A of the seat 30 is on the rear side as compared with FIG. 3, and the movement distance of the seat 30 from the operation start position A to the pinching position B, that is, the seat movement amount L3 (=|A−B|) is smaller than the reference value C (L3<C). Then, when pinching occurs, the seat 30 is reversed in the Q direction from the pinching position B as in the diagram (B) of FIG. 3 and then moved to the reverse position Y, which is the same position as the operation start position A (Y=A). That is, a reverse movement amount L4 of the seat 30 is the same as the seat movement amount L3 (L4=L3=|A−B|).”)
Imai further teaches to determine a reserve movement amount based on movement amount of the seat as disclosed in par. [0053], but does not explicitly disclose determine a reverse movement based on a time from when the load change starts to when the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched.
However, Kawakura teaches determine a reverse movement based on a time from when the load change starts to when the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched. ([0022], “The pinching determination means may determine that there is a pinching of an object when a duration time during which the estimated load is continuously greater than a prescribed threshold value exceeds a prescribed reference time or when an amount of movement of the closure member during a state where the estimated load is greater than the prescribed threshold value exceeds a prescribed reference amount of movement.”; [Par. 0063], “If the condition t.sub.con.gtoreq.t.sub.ref does not hold in step ST104,then in step ST105, an amount of movement D of the windowpane 9 for a time period during which the three conditions in steps ST101, ST102 and ST103 are continuously fulfilled is compared with a prescribed amount of movement (or mask amount of movement) D.sub.ref, and if D.gtoreq.D.sub.ref, it is determined that there is a pinching of an object and the motor 3 is stopped or reverse rotated,”
Examiner Note:
The mapping is understood as Imai discloses determining a reverse movement amount based on the seat movement amount at the time of pinching (Par. [0053–0054], [0062–0064]). However, Imai does not explicitly disclose that the reverse movement amount is determined based on a time from when the load change starts to when the pinching detector detects that the obstacle is pinched. Kawakura discloses detecting pinching based on a load increase condition that persists for a duration time or based on a movement amount of the closure member during a state in which the load exceeds a prescribed threshold (see Kawakura, [0019], [0022], [0063]). Kawakura teaches that the duration time begins when the load exceeds a threshold and ends when the pinching determination condition is satisfied, and further discloses reversing or stopping the motor upon such detection (¶0063). Kawakura thus teaches measuring the time interval during which the load change occurs and correlating that interval to a movement amount of the driven member during that time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Imai to determine the reverse movement amount based on the time interval from when the load change starts to when pinching is detected, as taught by Kawakura, because Kawakura teaches monitoring the duration of a load increase condition to improve reliability of pinching detection and suppress erroneous determinations. Since the time interval of the load increase is a measurable control parameter within the same motor-driven seat system, it would have been an obvious design choice to use that time parameter in controlling the reverse operation in Imai in order to improve the responsiveness and control accuracy of the system. The modification merely applies a known load-duration parameter from Kawakura within the same type of motor control environment of Imai, yielding predictable results.
Regarding to claim 10, the combination of Imai and Kawakura teaches the device of claim 1
Imai further teaches wherein the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion portion and a seat back portion. (see fig. 1, “seat 30”)
Claims 11, 20 recite the method with substantially similar scope as claims 1, 10 respectively, thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 1, 10 respectively above.
Claim(s) 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Imai and Kawakura in view of Lee, Jong Seon (Publication No. US 20240175300 A1; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding to claim 9, the combination of Imai and Kawakura teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination of Imai and Kawabura teaches to determine whether the seat of the vehicle is pinched by an obstacle as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein when the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched, the control unit further turns on an interior light of the vehicle.
However, Lee teaches wherein when the pinch detection unit detects that the obstacle is pinched, the control unit further turns on an interior light of the vehicle. ([Par. 0019], “if the pole and the claw reach a balance of force immediately before the door is fully locked, or if an external object gets stuck and prevents the door from being fully fastened, the door may be opened, or a door open warning light may be displayed, depending on the vehicle behavior during traveling, although the door may not be opened 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 claim invention to modify the combination of Imai and Kawabura to incorporate the teaching of Lee. The modification would have been obvious because activating a warning light when an object is stuck provides a visual indication of the incident to the user and passengers, thereby improving awareness of the condition and enabling appropriate corrective action to enhance safety.
Claim 19 recites the method with substantially similar scope as claim 9, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 9 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 4, 7 – 8, 12 – 14, 17 – 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 – 6, 15 – 16 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcoming the 112b rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3668