DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action in response to U.S. application 18/942,746. All claims are pending.
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 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: “pinch detection unit” in claims 1 and 2 and “obstacle detection unit” in claims 1 and 3.
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. Based on [0031] the obstacle detection unit will be interpreted as a camera or radar and based on [0035] the pinch detection unit will be interpreted as being implemented with the electronic control unit (ECU).
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 § 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.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Machii (US 20220290480).
Regarding claim 7, Machii teaches a control method for a seat device for a vehicle (seat control device 1 as described in [0031] as being installed in a vehicle), wherein the seat device has an electric device configured to move a seat of the vehicle ([0031] discusses an electric seat system configured to perform sliding movements via a motor), and the control method for the seat device for the vehicle comprises:
detecting a pinched obstacle by detecting a load change of the electric device when the seat moves ([0036]-[0037] discuss detecting a pinched obstacle based on a change in the motor current (load) over a time period);
detecting whether the obstacle exists in a moving direction of the seat ([0036]-[0037] discuss detecting an object is pinched by the seat while the seat moves where it is interpreted that detecting an object is pinched as the seat moves will detect whether the obstacle exists in a moving direction with [0037]-[0038] further discussing determining that a pinching event has occurred and was not erroneously determined based on the current difference); and
reducing a pinch load on the obstacle caused by the seat when the obstacle exists ([0056] discusses stopping and reversing the seat movement (reducing the pinch load) based on the pinch detection).
Regarding claim 8, Machii teaches determining that the obstacle is pinched when the load change of the electric device exceeds a predetermined determination threshold, wherein the predetermined determination threshold of a pinch detection unit is reduced when the obstacle exists compared to when the obstacle does not exist ([0036]-[0039] discuss determining that an object is pinched based on the current change exceeding a predetermined threshold value where the threshold when the obstacle does not exist can be considered infinite because the system has determined that it was an error based on the fluctuation of the current and therefore it cannot meet the threshold value; therefore the threshold for when the object exists is reduced).
Regarding claim 9, Machii teaches wherein when it is detected that the obstacle exists, a moving speed of the seat is reduced compared to when the obstacle does not exist ([0056] discusses stopping and reversing the seat movement (reducing the pinch load) based on the pinch detection where the stop and reverse movement is considered reduced based on the object being detected and when the object is not detected the seat will continue moving forward).
Regarding claim 10, Machii teaches wherein the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion portion and a seat back portion ([0061] discusses the seat comprising a seat portion and a backrest portion).
Regarding claim 11, Machii teaches wherein the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion portion and a seat back portion ([0061] discusses the seat comprising a seat portion and a backrest portion).
Regarding claim 12, Machii teaches wherein the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion portion and a seat back portion ([0061] discusses the seat comprising a seat portion and a backrest portion).
Double Patenting
Claims 1-12 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 1-12 of U.S. Application 18/977,988. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-12 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Application 18/977,988 (herein referred to as ‘988). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. As shown in the table below claim 1 is rejected by ‘308’s claims 1, 3, and 5.
Claim
This Application’s Claim
‘988 Claims
1
A seat device for a vehicle, comprising: an electric device, configured to move a seat of the vehicle;
1. A seat device for a vehicle, comprising: an electric device for moving a seat of the vehicle;
1
a pinch detection unit, detecting a pinched obstacle by detecting a load change of the electric device when the seat moves;
1. a pinch detection part detecting an obstacle being pinched by detecting a load change of the electric device when the seat is moved;
1
an obstacle detection unit, detecting whether the obstacle exists in a moving direction of the seat;
1. an obstacle detection part classifying the obstacle in a moving direction of the seat;
1
and a control unit, reducing a pinch load on the obstacle caused by the seat when the obstacle exists.
1. and a control part controlling the electric device according to a classification of the obstacle.
‘988’s claim 1 is the same as the present application’s claim 1 except that in the present application the obstacle detection unit merely detects whether the obstacle exists and controls the movement of the seat based on the obstacle existing, while ‘988’s claim 1 classifies the detected obstacle and controls the movement based on the classification of the obstacle. It would be obvious to classify the obstacle to determine in what action the seat should take to make the system more versatile. It then follows that this application’s claim 1 would be broader, and with the obviousness statement to include classifying the object in ‘988, this would be obviousness double patenting.
For the same reasons, the following table shows which claims from ‘988 correspond to this application’s 2-6. Claim 2 cites the pinch being detected based on the load change exceeding a predetermined threshold. This corresponds to claim 1 of ‘988 which detects a pinch based on the load change where it would be obvious that the load change would be compared to a threshold to make the pinch determination.
2
wherein the pinch detection unit is configured to determine that the obstacle is pinched when the load change of the electric device exceeds a predetermined determination threshold, and the control unit reduces the predetermined determination threshold of the pinch detection unit when the obstacle exists compared to when the obstacle does not exist.
1. a pinch detection part detecting an obstacle being pinched by detecting a load change of the electric device when the seat is moved;
3
wherein when the obstacle detection unit detects that the obstacle exists, the control unit reduces a moving speed of the seat compared to when the obstacle does not exist.
3. wherein, in response to the pinch detection part detecting a pinching of the obstacle, the control part makes the seat perform a reversal movement via the electric device, and the control part changes a reversal movement amount via the classification of the obstacle after the obstacle is pinched.
4
wherein the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion portion and a seat back portion.
4. wherein, the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion part and a seat back part.
5
wherein the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion portion and a seat back portion.
4. wherein, the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion part and a seat back part.
6
wherein the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion portion and a seat back portion.
4. wherein, the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion part and a seat back part.
As shown in the table below claim 7 is rejected by ‘988’s claim 7.
7
A control method for a seat device for a vehicle, wherein the seat device has an electric device configured to move a seat of the vehicle, and the control method for the seat device for the vehicle comprises:
7. A control method of a seat device for a vehicle, wherein the seat device has an electric device for moving a seat of the vehicle, the method comprising:
7
detecting a pinched obstacle by detecting a load change of the electric device when the seat moves;
7. detecting an obstacle being pinched by detecting a load change of the electric device when the seat is moved;
7
detecting whether the obstacle exists in a moving direction of the seat;
7. classifying the obstacle in a moving direction of the seat;
7
and reducing a pinch load on the obstacle caused by the seat when the obstacle exists.
7. and controlling the electric device according to a classification of the obstacle.
‘988’s claim 7 is the same as the present application’s claim 7 except that in the present application the obstacle detection unit merely detects whether the obstacle exists and controls the movement of the seat based on the obstacle existing, while ‘988’s claim 7 classifies the detected obstacle and controls the movement based on the classification of the obstacle. It would be obvious to classify the obstacle to determine in what action the seat should take to make the system more versatile. It then follows that this application’s claim 7 would be broader, and with the obviousness statement to include classifying the object in ‘988, this would be obviousness double patenting.
For the same reasons, the following table shows which claims from ‘988 correspond to this application’s 8-12. Claim 8 cites the pinch being detected based on the load change exceeding a predetermined threshold. This corresponds to claim 7 of ‘988 which detects a pinch based on the load change where it would be obvious that the load change would be compared to a threshold to make the pinch determination.
8
determining that the obstacle is pinched when the load change of the electric device exceeds a predetermined determination threshold, wherein the predetermined determination threshold of a pinch detection unit is reduced when the obstacle exists compared to when the obstacle does not exist.
7. detecting an obstacle being pinched by detecting a load change of the electric device when the seat is moved;
9
wherein when it is detected that the obstacle exists, a moving speed of the seat is reduced compared to when the obstacle does not exist.
9. making the seat perform a reversal movement via the electric device in response to the pinch detection part detecting a pinching of the obstacle; and changing a reversal movement amount after the obstacle is pinched via the classification of the obstacle.
10
wherein the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion portion and a seat back portion.
10. wherein, the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion part and a seat back part.
11
wherein the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion portion and a seat back portion.
10. wherein, the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion part and a seat back part.
12
wherein the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion portion and a seat back portion.
10. wherein, the seat of the vehicle further comprises a seat cushion part and a seat back part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ozawa (US 20230234477) and Imai (US 20230219464) teach detecting a seat pinch condition based on a change in current; Kim (US 20190152346) teaches a radar sensor being used to prevent a seat from pinching an occupant of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M JACKSON whose telephone number is (303)297-4364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:30 MT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/D.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657