September 18, 2026
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heurlin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0065778 A1) in view of Schieß (U.S. Patent No. 11,603,062 B2).
Heurlin et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed including a vehicle seat, the vehicle seat comprising an electric device for moving a seat cushion and a seat back to a predetermined posture (see paragraph [0062] where it reads “recline motor 175A and tilt motor 175B can respectively comprise an electric motor”), comprising:
a detection device, detecting a tilt degree of a vehicle (see paragraph [0174] where it reads “The computer program product of any preceding clause, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to, prior to adjusting at least one of the position of the seat back or the seat base: presenting a notification on a display in the vehicle indicating that the current seat angle between the seat back and the seat base is unsafe, wherein the notification includes an adjustment override option; detecting interaction with the adjustment override option; and in response to detecting interaction indicating selection of adjustment override, maintaining the current seat angle; and in response to detecting interaction indicating automatic adjustment enabled, automatically adjusting at least one of the position of the seat back or the seat base to mitigate possibility of the person being involved in a submarining incident.”), wherein
when the electric device moves the seat cushion and the seat back to the predetermined posture,
if the vehicle is tilted rearward, the seat cushion is moved so that the seat cushion is tilted forward compared to the seat cushion when the vehicle is in the predetermined posture; and
if the vehicle is tilted forward, the seat cushion is moved so that the seat cushion is tilted rearward compared to the seat cushion when the vehicle is in the predetermined posture but does not teach a detection device, detecting a tilt degree of a vehicle relative to a gravity direction.
However, Schieß teaches a detection device, detecting a tilt degree of a vehicle relative to a gravity direction (see the specification at column 4, lines 7-12 where it reads “The sensor 115 is designed to determine an angle of inclination of the motor vehicle 105 about a longitudinal axis 130. The inclination angle is preferably determined with respect to gravity. Alternatively, the inclination angle can also be determined relative to a ground surface on which the motor vehicle 105 is located.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the seat system of Heurlin by incorporating the tilt/angle sensor and corresponding tilt detection logic of Schieß, so as to detect the vehicle’s tilt “relative to a gravity direction” and automatically adjust the seat position to maintain occupant comfort and safety on sloped surfaces. The motivation for this combination is to provide a seat system that not only prevents submarining and optimizes occupant posture, but also compensates for vehicle inclination, thereby maintaining the memorized comfort position regardless of whether the vehicle is parked or stopped on an incline. This is a predictable improvement, as gravity-referenced tilt sensors are standard in automotive applications, and their use in occupant protection/control systems is well known. Therefore, the combination of Heurlin and Schieß renders the claimed subject matter obvious.
As for Claim 2, Heurlin et al. teach that he electric device moves the seat back to an angle relative to the seat cushion in which the seat back is in the predetermined posture (see paragraph [022] where it reads “An advantage of the one or more systems, computer-implemented methods, and/or computer program products can be utilizing various systems and technologies located on a vehicle to determine a position of a seat or posture/physiology of an occupant to determine whether a submarining incident is probable, and if so, the position of the seat can be automatically adjusted to reduce the probability of the submarining incident.”).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, David R. Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-6670. 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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights