DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 7 May 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1, 9, 10, 16 and 19; Applicant did not cancel or add any new claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukop (DE 102018212118, see attached machine translation for referenced citations) in view of Ohashi (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0105102).
For claim 1, Soukop teaches a motor vehicle, comprising: a seat (see paras. 0013-0014), the seat further comprising an illuminated portion (see paras. 0013-0014); wherein the motor vehicle is configurable in a first driving mode and a second driving mode (see para. 0011); and wherein the illuminated portion has a first color in the first driving mode and wherein the illuminated portion has a second color in the second driving mode (see para. 0024), wherein the second color is different from the first color (see para. 0024). Soukop does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
A teaching from Ohashi discloses at least one sensor for detecting q-forces experienced by the vehicle (see paras. 0071, 0074); and wherein the illuminated portion has an illumination intensity that varies in response to q-forces detected by the at least one sensor (see paras. 0046, 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Soukop to include the teachings of Ohashi based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a production lighting system that produces visual effects corresponding to acceleration feel from vehicle launch up to a predetermined speed, deceleration feel when braking, feel when subjected to lateral G-forces in a turn, and the like (see para. 0005).
With reference to claim 2, Soukop further discloses wherein the motor vehicle operates differently in the first driving mode than in the second driving mode (see para. 0011).
Pertaining to claim 3, Soukop further teaches wherein the first driving mode is an autonomous driving mode and wherein the second driving mode is a manual driving mode (see para. 0011).
For claim 4, Soukop does not explicitly disclose the type of color as being warmer or cooler. Ohashi discloses changing the color based on warning (see para. 0050). However, the specific colors selected for each mode is considered to be an obvious design choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have the requisite skill to select a color that properly conveys the selected mode without any undue experimentation. It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Soukop to include a warm or cool color based on the vehicle mode based on motivation to improve a display and a method for displaying the driving mode of a vehicle, which provides the driver with reliable information about the driving mode in every situation and in every position of the driver (see para. 0004).
Regarding claim 7, Soukop further discloses wherein the motor vehicle is further configurable in a third driving mode, and wherein the illuminated portion has a third color in the third driving mode, wherein the third color is different from both the first color and the second color (see para. 0024).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukop (DE 102018212118, see attached machine translation for referenced citations) and Ohashi (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0105102) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Salter, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,694,741).
For claim 5, Soukop does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from Salter discloses wherein the illuminated portion comprises a ring-like region around a portion of the seat (see Fig. 5). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Soukop to include a ring-like illumination around the seat based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve ambient functional lighting of a vehicle seat (see col. 1:6-8).
Pertaining to claim 6, Salter further discloses wherein the illuminated portion comprises a ring-like region around a portion of the seat (see Fig. 5, #46).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukop (DE 102018212118, see attached machine translation for referenced citations) and Ohashi (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0105102) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Yamada (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0028987).
With reference to claim 8, Soukop does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from Yamada discloses wherein the seat is configurable in a first position and wherein the seat is configurable in a second position (see Figs. 3A-3C), and wherein the seat is automatically adjusted to the first position when the motor vehicle enters the first driving mode and wherein the seat is automatically adjusted to the second position when the motor vehicle enters the second driving mode (see Figs. 5, 7). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Soukop to include the teachings of Yamada based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve when the vehicle switches from autonomous driving mode to manual driving mode, it takes time for the driver to switch their mental attitude and their postural attitude and to become acquainted with the movements and situation of the vehicle (see para. 0008).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukop (DE 102018212118, see attached machine translation for referenced citations) and Ohashi (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0105102) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Kim (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0180555).
For claim 9, Soukop does not explicitly disclose the first limitation. A teaching from Kim discloses a harness having a retracted configuration and an extended configuration (see Figs. 3, 5 and 6). Soukop discloses making changes to the seat when the motor vehicle is in the first driving mode and when the motor vehicle is in the second driving mode (see paras. 0013, 0014, 0018, 0024). As Kim teaches the applicability to autonomous vehicles (see para. 0006), it would have been obvious to modify Soukop to include the seat changes that include retracting the harness in one mode and extend the harness in another mode based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve seat belts that are also integrated into a seat that is freely rotated or moved in position in an autonomous vehicle (see para. 0006).
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0028987) and in view of Maloney, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0222835).
For claim 10, Yamada discloses a motor vehicle, comprising: a seat, wherein the seat is configurable in a first position and wherein the seat is configurable in a second position (see Figs. 3A-3C); wherein the motor vehicle is configurable in a first driving mode and a second driving mode (see para. 0014); and wherein the seat is automatically adjusted to the first position when the motor vehicle enters the first driving mode and wherein the seat is automatically adjusted to the second position when the motor vehicle enters the second driving mode (see para. 0021, Figs. 3A, 3C, 5, 7), and wherein in the first position and the second position the seat faces toward a forward end of the motor vehicle (see Figs. 3A, 3C). Yamada does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
A teaching from Maloney discloses a third position (see Fig. 4, #228); and a welcome mode in which the motor vehicle is parked (see para. 0097, ingress/egress mode equivalent to welcome mode); wherein the seat is automatically adjusted to the third position when the motor vehicle enters the welcome mode (see para. 0098); and wherein in the third position the seat faces toward a rearward end of the motor vehicle (see paras. 0098-0099). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Yamada to include the teachings of Maloney based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a motor vehicle having an adjustable seating arrangement within the passenger compartment of the vehicle (see para. 0001).
With reference to claim 11, Yamada further discloses wherein in the motor vehicle operates differently in the first driving mode than in the second driving mode (see at least para. 0011).
Regarding claim 12, Yamada further teaches wherein the first driving mode is an autonomous driving mode and wherein the second driving mode is a manual driving mode (see at least para. 0011).
Pertaining to claim 14, Yamada further teaches wherein a distance between the seat and a front console of the motor vehicle changes between the first position and the second position (see para. 0021, Figs. 5, 7).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0028987) and Maloney, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0222835) as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of Morris, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0001825).
For claim 13, Yamada does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from Morris discloses wherein the seat further comprises: a body and a curved spine member attached to the body (see Fig. 2); a base attachment member attached at a first end to the curved spine member and at a second end to a floor of the motor vehicle (see Fig. 2); wherein the first end of the base attachment member may slide along the curved spine member to change an orientation of the body (see para. 0018); wherein the seat has a first position in which the first end of the base attachment member is attached to a first portion of the curved spine member and wherein the seat has a second position in which the first end of the base attachment member is attached to a second portion of the curved spine member (see paras. 0018, 0028, implied by “recline”). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Yamada to include the teachings of Morris based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve autonomous vehicles that frees the driver to perform other activities, such as socializing with other passengers of the vehicle and include vehicle seat assemblies able to rotate to facilitate the socializing and to recline at greater angles (see para. 0002).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0028987) and Maloney, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0222835) as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of Soukop (DE 102018212118, see attached machine translation for referenced citations).
Referring to claim 15, Yamada does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations. A teaching from Soukop discloses wherein the seat further comprises an illuminated portion (see paras. 0013-0014); and wherein the illuminated portion changes colors between the first driving mode and the second driving mode (see paras. 0013-0014, 0018, 0024). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Yamada to include the teachings of Soukop based on motivation to improve a display and a method for displaying the driving mode of a vehicle, which provides the driver with reliable information about the driving mode in every situation and in every position of the driver (see para. 0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Examiner previously stated at the end of the previous rejection that Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. The cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. The entire reference must be taken as a whole. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the new rejection of the currently amended claims.
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 ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights