DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This Non-final communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/12/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Nagata (US 20210101547 A1)
Claim 15:
Nagata teaches the following limitations:
A method for automatically adjusting the configuration of a vehicle seat implemented by a controller and comprising: (Nagata - [0061] Further, when the body load information indicates that the occupant experiences physical fatigue, the seat control unit 22 controls the operation outputs so that the seat 61 is turned into a form that relieves the physical fatigue of the occupant. …)i. determining a first set of seat occupant-specific indicators as a function of signals from a set of sensors, at least some of the sensors being integrated in the seat; ii. determining a first set of target values as a function of the first set of indicators; (Nagata – [0053] The gesture input determination unit 17 determines whether or not the behavior of the occupant seated on the seat 61 is a gesture for performing an operation input, based on the statistically processed pressure distribution data supplied from the load change statistical processing unit 13. … For example, when a gesture based on the pressure distribution data matches a preset gesture or a learned gesture, the gesture input determination unit 17 can determine that the behavior of the occupant is a gesture for an operation input. Then, the gesture input determination unit 17 supplies gesture input information indicating that the gesture has been input to the device operation unit 21 and the seat control unit 22.)iii. transmitting command signals to mobile mechanisms of the seat so that the mechanisms are actuated and values measured via the sensors approach the determined target values; (Nagata – [0061] - …For example, the seat control unit 22 detects reseating of the occupant based on the body load information, and evaluates the pressure distributions after the reseating in an integral manner for each corresponding part. If there is the resulting value for a part exceeds a set threshold value, the seat control unit 22 controls the seat 61 so as to relieve the pressure at that part. …) iv. checking that preset conditions have been met to interrupt the method and the actuation of the mechanisms, at least some of the preset conditions involving reaching the target values determined by the measured values. (Nagata - [0199] That is, when the following are all TRUE: … the gesture input determination unit 17 determines that the stable seating determination conditions are satisfied. ; [0206] When the gesture input determination unit 17 determines in step S83 that the stable seating determination conditions are satisfied, the processing proceeds to step S84, a transition from the gesture waiting state to the stable seating state is performed, and then the processing ends.)
Claim 16:
Nagata teaches the following limitations:
Claim 16:
The method of claim 15, wherein the command signals are generated for mobile seat mechanisms capable of modifying at least one of the following parameters: - the forward position of the squab of the seat in relation to the rest of the vehicle; - the height of the squab of the seat relative to the rest of the vehicle; - the tilt of the squab of the seat, or of the front part of the squab of the seat, around a pitch axis; - the tilt between the squab of the seat and the backrest of the seat.
(Nagata – [0060] The seat control unit 22 controls various operation outputs to the movable parts of the seat 61 (the headrest part 62, the backrest part 63, the seat surface part 64, and the footrest part 65) according to the gesture input information supplied from the gesture input determination unit 17 and body load information supplied from the body load determination unit 18. For example, the seat control unit 22 controls the operation outputs so that the seat 61 is turned into forms, as described below with reference to FIGS. 3 and 4, corresponding to the gestures of the occupant according to the gesture input information.; [see also Figure 4] )
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata (US 20210101547 A1) as modified by Migneco (US 20190193591 A1)
Claim 1:
Nagata teaches the following limitations:
A method for controlling the configuration of a vehicle seat, the seat having a squab and a backrest, the method being implemented by a controller, the method comprising: (Nagata - [0009] A control method according to one aspect of the present disclosure includes measuring pressure distributions for a plurality of measurement ranges of a seat on which a user is seated, and time variations of the pressure distributions; and controlling a device according to a measurement result from the measuring.)
b) calculating at least two attributes from at least two of the three acquired pressure values, (Nagata - [0050] For example, regions indicated by gray hatching in FIG. 2 is set as measurement ranges, and the head part pressure distribution measurement unit 31 measures the distribution of pressure applied to the measurement range set for the headrest part 62. Similarly, the back part pressure distribution measurement unit 32 measures the distribution of pressure applied to the measurement range set for the backrest part 63, and the seating part pressure distribution measurement unit 33 measures the distribution of pressure applied to the measurement range set for the seat surface part 64. … [See also Figures 2 and 5])
a sum, and a first ratio; (Nagata - [0078] Using such pressure distribution data Wmn, the load change statistical processing unit 13 can obtain a load sum Wsum according to the following Equation (1).) c) determining a seat destination configuration from the calculated attributes, by applying a trained classification model; d) transmitting at least one motion command signal to mobile and motorized mechanisms, the at least one motion command signal being suitable for driving at least one movement of the seat towards the determined destination configuration. (Nagata - [0060] The seat control unit 22 controls various operation outputs to the movable parts of the seat 61 (the headrest part 62, the backrest part 63, the seat surface part 64, and the footrest part 65) according to the gesture input information supplied from the gesture input determination unit 17 and body load information supplied from the body load determination unit 18. For example, the seat control unit 22 controls the operation outputs so that the seat 61 is turned into forms, as described below with reference to FIGS. 3 and 4, corresponding to the gestures of the occupant according to the gesture input information.)
Nagata does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Migneco teaches:
a) acquiring, at a defined frequency, at least three pressure values by at least three sensors arranged on at least three defined zones of the squab; (Migneco - [0027] FIG. 2 illustrate a display image from an interface, such as a tablet. The display may collect data from the occupant as described in Pereny et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0351692 A1, which is incorporated in its entirety by reference herein. Each of the air bladder assemblies 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52 may include a pressure sensor to detect air pressure in the respective air bladder assemblies 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52. … ; [See also Figures 1, 2, and 10])
the calculated attributes being selected from a standard deviation,
(Migneco - [0035] - FIG. 8 is a graph of an example of a detected fidget with time in minutes on the abscissa, and with a vector magnitude at the ordinate. FIG. 8 is a graph of one identified fidget; and fidgets may vary in magnitude, pattern, period and frequency depending upon the seating application, the sensors employed, the air bladder assemblies and the arrangement thereof, the occupant, and the like. Fidgets take on specific behavior in many cases. A fidget may include an initial spike, initiating at approximately 0.232 minutes on the graphed example, or earlier. A vector magnitude of a standard deviation of six has been identified as a representation of a fidget for this example. …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagata to include a means of taking pressure measurements from sensors arranged into defined zones and to further calculate the pressure values as a standard deviation as taught in Migneco. Using defined zones in combination with standard deviation techniques provides a comprehensive data analysis picture which includes the data from all sensors and facilitates decision making for the controller in terms of changing the seating configuration.
Claim 2:
Nagata teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 1, wherein the calculation step comprises the calculation of three attributes. (Nagata - [0050] For example, regions indicated by gray hatching in FIG. 2 is set as measurement ranges, and the head part pressure distribution measurement unit 31 measures the distribution of pressure applied to the measurement range set for the headrest part 62. Similarly, the back part pressure distribution measurement unit 32 measures the distribution of pressure applied to the measurement range set for the backrest part 63, and the seating part pressure distribution measurement unit 33 measures the distribution of pressure applied to the measurement range set for the seat surface part 64. … [See also Figures 2, 5, and 14])
Claim 3:
Nagata does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Migneco teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the squab comprises at least one first sensor arranged on a right rear zone, at least one second sensor arranged on a left rear zone, and at least one third sensor arranged on a right front zone, and (Migneco - [0027] FIG. 2 illustrate a display image from an interface, such as a tablet. The display may collect data from the occupant as described in Pereny et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0351692 A1, which is incorporated in its entirety by reference herein. Each of the air bladder assemblies 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52 may include a pressure sensor to detect air pressure in the respective air bladder assemblies 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52. … ; [See also Figures 1, 2, and 10]) wherein the standard deviation is calculated from at least one pressure value acquired by the first sensor, at least one pressure value acquired by the second sensor, and at least one pressure value acquired by the third sensor. (Migneco - [0005] According to at least another embodiment, a seat assembly is provided with a seat bottom and a seat back adapted to extend upright and adjacent to the seat bottom. A plurality of sensors is provided in the seat bottom and the seat back. A controller is in communication with the plurality of sensors and is programmed to receive input from the sensors indicate of a seating position of a seated occupant, and detect a fidget from the seated occupant. ; [0035] - FIG. 8 is a graph of an example of a detected fidget with time in minutes on the abscissa, and with a vector magnitude at the ordinate. FIG. 8 is a graph of one identified fidget; and fidgets may vary in magnitude, pattern, period and frequency depending upon the seating application, the sensors employed, the air bladder assemblies and the arrangement thereof, the occupant, and the like. Fidgets take on specific behavior in many cases. A fidget may include an initial spike, initiating at approximately 0.232 minutes on the graphed example, or earlier. A vector magnitude of a standard deviation of six has been identified as a representation of a fidget for this example. …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagata to include a means of taking pressure measurements from sensors arranged into defined zones and to further calculate the pressure values as a standard deviation as taught in Migneco. Using defined zones in combination with standard deviation techniques provides a comprehensive data analysis picture which includes the data from all sensors and facilitates decision making for the controller in terms of changing the seating configuration.
Claim 8:
Nagata teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 3, wherein the sum is calculated from at least one pressure value acquired by the first sensor and at least one pressure value acquired by the second sensor. (Nagata - [0077] In a physical arrangement table illustrated in B of FIG. 5, the X coordinate and the Y coordinate (in millimeter) of each pressure sensor are registered as a physical arrangement of n×m pressure sensors. Then, based on pressure data output from the n×m pressure sensors, pressure distribution data Wmn as illustrated in C of FIG. 5 is acquired. ; [0078] Using such pressure distribution data Wmn, the load change statistical processing unit 13 can obtain a load sum Wsum according to the following Equation (1). ; [See also Figures 2 and 5])
Examiner’s Note:
The pressure sensors of Nagata are summed in rows arranged from the back of the seat to the front of the seat (see cited figures). Further the Examiner is interpreting the First Sensor and Second Sensor of the instant application as representing two sensors located at the rear of the seat (or squab). Therefore the summing of the sensors of Nagata correspond to the summing of the sensors of the instant application.
Claim 10:
Nagata does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Migneco teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the squab comprises at least one fourth sensor located on a front-left zone, and wherein the standard deviation is calculated from at least one pressure value acquired by the first sensor, at least one pressure value acquired by the second sensor, at least one pressure value acquired by the third sensor and at least one pressure value acquired by the fourth sensor. (Migneco - [0005] According to at least another embodiment, a seat assembly is provided with a seat bottom and a seat back adapted to extend upright and adjacent to the seat bottom. A plurality of sensors is provided in the seat bottom and the seat back. A controller is in communication with the plurality of sensors and is programmed to receive input from the sensors indicate of a seating position of a seated occupant, and detect a fidget from the seated occupant. ; [See also Figures 2 & 9] ; [0035] - FIG. 8 is a graph of an example of a detected fidget with time in minutes on the abscissa, and with a vector magnitude at the ordinate. FIG. 8 is a graph of one identified fidget; and fidgets may vary in magnitude, pattern, period and frequency depending upon the seating application, the sensors employed, the air bladder assemblies and the arrangement thereof, the occupant, and the like. Fidgets take on specific behavior in many cases. A fidget may include an initial spike, initiating at approximately 0.232 minutes on the graphed example, or earlier. A vector magnitude of a standard deviation of six has been identified as a representation of a fidget for this example. …)
Examiner’s Note:
The Examiner is interpreting the First Sensor and Second Sensor of the instant application as representing two sensors located at the rear of the seat (or squab) and the Third and Fourth Sensors as being two sensors located at the front of the squab.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagata to include a means of taking pressure measurements from sensors arranged into defined zones as taught in Migneco. Using defined zones provides a specific data analysis pressure map of the seat and provides for improved decision making for the controller in terms of changing the seating configuration.
Claim(s) 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata (US 20210101547 A1) as modified by Migneco (US 20190193591 A1) in view of Yin (US 20190389330 A1)
Claim 4:
Nagata in combination with Migneco does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Yin teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein, after the at least one motion command signal has been transmitted, the method comprises: e) calculating a ratio between the pressure value acquired by the third sensor and the pressure value acquired by the first sensor; f) comparing the ratio with a first threshold; (Yin- [0107] The first comparison value is equal to a ratio of the pressure value output by the front pressure sensor 21 to the pressure value output by the rear pressure sensor 22. In Step 152, the adjusting fore-and-aft positions of the seat 1 according to the first comparison value may comprise: maintaining a current position of the seat 1 in the front-rear direction when the first comparison value is greater than or equal to a backward-adjusting threshold and less than or equal to a forward-adjusting threshold; controlling the seat 1 to move backward when the first comparison value is less than the backward-adjusting threshold; controlling the seat 1 to move forward when the first comparison value is greater than the forward-adjusting threshold. … ) g) when the ratio is greater than the first threshold, at least one stop command signal is emitted to the mobile motorized mechanisms , the at least one stop command signal being suitable for stopping the at least one movement of the seat, and (Yin - [0052] maintaining a current position of the seat in the front-rear direction when the first comparison value is greater than or equal to a backward-adjusting threshold and less than or equal to a forward-adjusting threshold ; ) when the ratio is less than the first threshold, steps e) and f) are iterated with the next pressure value acquired by the third sensor and the next pressure value acquired by the first sensor. (Yin - [0110] When the first comparison value is greater than 1.05, the seat 1 is adjusted forward for a certain distance, 1 cm for example. Next, the step of obtaining the pressure values output by the front pressure sensor 21 and the rear pressure sensor 22 is repeated. If the first comparison value is still greater than 1.05, the seat 1 needs to be adjusted forward for another and yet another 1 cm until the first comparison value is less than or equal to 1.05.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagata and Migneco to include a means of calculating a ratio between the pressures sensors at the rear of the seat and the pressure sensors at the front of the seat and then comparing that ratio to a threshold to determine whether to stop the reconfiguration of the seat positioning as taught in Yin. Having the ability to calculate the ratio of pressures as they are distributed across the seat provides information on the current state of the seat occupant which in turn helps to determine if the seat should continue to be reconfigured or halt its movement.
Claim 9:
Nagata in combination with Migneco does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Yin teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the first ratio is calculated from at least one pressure value acquired by the third sensor and at least one pressure value acquired by the first sensor. (Yin- [0107] The first comparison value is equal to a ratio of the pressure value output by the front pressure sensor 21 to the pressure value output by the rear pressure sensor 22. In Step 152, the adjusting fore-and-aft positions of the seat 1 according to the first comparison value may comprise: maintaining a current position of the seat 1 in the front-rear direction when the first comparison value is greater than or equal to a backward-adjusting threshold and less than or equal to a forward-adjusting threshold; controlling the seat 1 to move backward when the first comparison value is less than the backward-adjusting threshold; controlling the seat 1 to move forward when the first comparison value is greater than the forward-adjusting threshold. … )
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagata and Migneco to include a means of calculating a ratio between the pressures sensors at the rear of the seat and the pressure sensors at the front of the seat and then comparing that ratio to a threshold to determine whether to stop the reconfiguration of the seat positioning as taught in Yin. Having the ability to calculate the ratio of pressures as they are distributed across the seat provides information on the current state of the seat occupant which in turn helps to determine if the seat should continue to be reconfigured or halt its movement.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata (US 20210101547 A1) as modified by Migneco (US 20190193591 A1) in view of Bove (US 20210039522 A1)
Claim 5:
Nagata in combination with Migneco does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Bove teaches:
The method of claim 1, which comprises placing the seat in a reference position wherein a front edge of the squab is placed at a distance from a vehicle pedal,
preferably an accelerator pedal; (Bove - [0044] In one example of the disclosure, based on the body measurements 242 (including the leg length from knee to ankle and the overall leg length), vehicle settings module 232 may generate vehicle settings for the seats and/or pedals of vehicle 112 such that the distance from the seat to the pedals is adjusted so that the knee of vehicle occupant 112 is slightly bent when the pedals are fully depressed.)
Examiner’s Note:
Bove discloses the claimed invention except for, “the distance being between 450 millimeters and 520 millimeters”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify a distance range from the seat to the pedal, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagata and Migneco to include a method of determining a reference distance between the seat and the accelerator pedal as taught in Bove. Having the ability to determine a reference position for the seat allows the controller to optimize the occupant’s seating position in the longitudinal direction and standardizes future measurements of the seats position within the reference frame of the vehicle.
Claims 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata (US 20210101547 A1) as modified by Migneco (US 20190193591 A1) in view of Lem (US 20180297488 A1)
Claim 6:
Nagata in combination with Migneco does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Lem teaches:
The method of claim 1, which comprises the detection of at least one start of pedal depression, preferably of an accelerator pedal; and wherein the at least two attributes entered in the trained classification model are acquired (Lem - [0010] According to a further embodiment, driver behavior is captured and taken into account when determining the control dataset. For example, depressing a pedal such as, for example, depressing a brake pedal can be captured together with the pressure distribution as driver behavior. When the evaluation shows that the person located on the seat is located on a front portion of the seat surface of the seat, it can be considered as an indicator that the seat height needs to be reduced. It can moreover be provided that, after the driver behavior has ended, the original seat position is restored.)
Examiner’s Note:
Lem discloses the claimed invention except for, “within the second”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify a range of time prior to pressure detection for acquiring model attributes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagata and Migneco to include a method of detecting a pedal depressions and associated seat pressure data as taught in Lem. Having the ability to detect the initiation of pedal depression and relate that action to a set of pressure sensor values allows the controller to make decisions regarding the status of the driver’s position and the seat movements required to optimize the drivers positioning.
Claim 7:
Nagata in combination with Migneco does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Lem teaches:
The method of claim 1, which comprises detection of a degree of pedal depression of at least 50% of its stroke, the detection triggering the determination of a seat destination configuration. (Lem - [0010] … For example, depressing a pedal such as, for example, depressing a brake pedal can be captured together with the pressure distribution as driver behavior. When the evaluation shows that the person located on the seat is located on a front portion of the seat surface of the seat, it can be considered as an indicator that the seat height needs to be reduced. It can moreover be provided that, after the driver behavior has ended, the original seat position is restored.; [0024] In the present exemplary embodiment, the electric seat adjustment system is designed as a 6-way adjustment system which makes it possible to move the seat as a whole forward and backward on seat rails in order to allow people with different body sizes to satisfactorily operate the driver control pedals for the accelerator, the brake, …)
Examiner’s Note:
Lem discloses the claimed invention except for, “of at least 50%”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify a range of pedal depression for triggering a seat configuration, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagata and Migneco to include a method of detecting a pedal depressions and associated seat pressure data as taught in Lem. Having the ability to detect the initiation of pedal depression and relate that action to a set of pressure sensor values allows the controller to make decisions regarding the status of the driver’s position and the seat movements required to optimize the drivers positioning.
Claim 11:
Nagata in combination with Migneco does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Lem teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the backrest comprises at least one fifth sensor located in an upper-right zone and/or at least one sixth sensor located in an upper-left zone, and which comprises the calculation of an additional attribute, the additional attribute comprising a second ratio between, on the one hand, at least one pressure value acquired by at least one of the fifth sensor and the sixth sensor, and, on the other hand, at least one pressure value acquired by at least one of the third sensor and the fourth sensor. (Lem - [0033] … The seat control device 12 can moreover be designed to determine the control dataset AD in such a way that, for example, a ratio of a pressure distribution on the backrest 8 and the seat surface 6 remains constant or lies within a predetermined optimum range. …)
Examiner’s Note:
The Examiner is interpreting the fifth Sensor or sixth Sensor of the instant application as representing two sensors located on the backrest and the Third and Fourth Sensors as being two sensors located on the seat or squab.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagata and Migneco to include a method of calculating a ratio relationship between the backrest seat pressure and the pressure on the horizontal portion of the seat (or squab) as taught in Lem. Having the ability to calculate and relate the seat pressures exerted on both the backrest and the horizontal portion of the seat allows the controller to make decisions regarding the status of the driver’s position and the seat movements required to optimize the drivers positioning.
Claim 12:
Nagata in combination with Migneco does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Lem teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the backrest comprises at least one fifth sensor located in an upper-right zone and at least one sixth sensor located in an upper-left zone, the calculation of an additional attribute, the additional attribute comprising a second ratio between, on the one hand, (Lem - [0033] … The seat control device 12 can moreover be designed to determine the control dataset AD in such a way that, for example, a ratio of a pressure distribution on the backrest 8 and the seat surface 6 remains constant or lies within a predetermined optimum range. …)
Nagata teaches the following limitations:
the sum of at least one pressure value acquired by the fifth sensor and at least one pressure value acquired by the sixth sensor and, on the other hand, the sum of at least one pressure value acquired by the third sensor and at least one pressure value acquired by the fourth sensor. (Nagata - [0077] In a physical arrangement table illustrated in B of FIG. 5, the X coordinate and the Y coordinate (in millimeter) of each pressure sensor are registered as a physical arrangement of n×m pressure sensors. Then, based on pressure data output from the n×m pressure sensors, pressure distribution data Wmn as illustrated in C of FIG. 5 is acquired. ; [0078] Using such pressure distribution data Wmn, the load change statistical processing unit 13 can obtain a load sum Wsum according to the following Equation (1). ; [See also Figures 2 and 5])
Examiner’s Note:
The Examiner is interpreting the limitation as a ratio between the summation of at least two sensors located on the backrest and the summation of at least two sensors located on the seat or squab.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagata and Migneco to include a method of calculating a ratio relationship between the backrest seat pressure and the pressure on the horizontal portion of the seat (or squab) as taught in Lem. Having the ability to calculate and relate the seat pressures exerted on both the backrest and the horizontal portion of the seat allows the controller to make decisions regarding the status of the driver’s position and the seat movements required to optimize the drivers positioning.
Claim 14:
Nagata in combination with Migneco does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Lem teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein the motion command signal emitted is configured to cause at least one movement from among: - moving the squab backwards or forwards relative to the reference position in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle;- lowering or raising the squab relative to the reference position in a vertical direction; -tilting the squab relative to the reference position at and along a transverse axis, - raising or lowering the headrest relative to the reference position. (Lem - [0010] … For example, depressing a pedal such as, for example, depressing a brake pedal can be captured together with the pressure distribution as driver behavior. When the evaluation shows that the person located on the seat is located on a front portion of the seat surface of the seat, it can be considered as an indicator that the seat height needs to be reduced. It can moreover be provided that, after the driver behavior has ended, the original seat position is restored.; [0024] In the present exemplary embodiment, the electric seat adjustment system is designed as a 6-way adjustment system which makes it possible to move the seat as a whole forward and backward on seat rails in order to allow people with different body sizes to satisfactorily operate the driver control pedals for the accelerator, the brake, …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagata and Migneco to include a method of creating a signal that would cause the movement of various seat components based on detecting a pedal depression associated seat pressure data as taught in Lem. Having the ability to create a command signal in response to pedal depression and a set of pressure sensor values allows the controller to move various seat components required to optimize the drivers positioning.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata (US 20210101547 A1) as modified by Migneco (US 20190193591 A1) in view of Heurlin (US 20250033533 A1)
Claim 13:
Nagata in combination with Migneco does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Heurlin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the trained classification model is a decision tree.
(Heurlin - [0280] Using the training data, a machine learning model 902 may be trained so that it recognizes features of input data that signify or correlate to certain event types. For example, a trained machine learning model 902 may recognize data features that signify the likelihood of an emergency situation, as an actionable event. .... Any suitable machine learning model and training algorithm may be used, including, e.g., neural networks, decision trees, clustering algorithms, and any other suitable machine learning techniques. Once trained, the machine learning model 902 may take input data associated with a vehicle, an occupant and output one or more predictions that indicate a jerk and/or collision event probability based on the real time data and may suggest/adjust a seat position and/or a seating position.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagata and Migneco to include a decision tree technique for classifying data relating to the seat pressure, seat positioning, stored attributes and seat configuration data as taught in Heurlin. Using a decision tree to classify data and make decisions provides a means for the processor to send accurate commands that will control and monitor the seating configuration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Pereny (US 20150351692 A1) describes a seat assembly and a plurality of sensors connected to at least one of the seat cushion and the seat back to detect a seating position of an occupant. A controller is in electrical communication with the plurality of sensors and is configured to receive data from the plurality sensors, compare the data to determine if the occupant is seated evenly. The displayed pressure distribution of the seat assembly is from measured pressure values from a plurality of sensors in a plurality of zones of the seat assembly.
Perkins (US 20190152349 A1) describes a vehicle that includes a controller programmed to identify a seating position in the vehicle corresponding to each of a plurality of devices in communication with the vehicle. The controller is configured to receive at least one seating profile and adjust seating parameters for each of the seating positions according to the seating profile received from the corresponding device.
Zenk (US 20100276973 A1) describes a method and a device for adjusting a seat. The method includes the acts of detecting a pressure exerted by a user on the seat via a pneumatic sensor and/or a hydraulic sensor, and adjusting the seat based on the pressure exerted by the user. The device includes a pneumatic or hydraulic lifting element, a pneumatic or hydraulic pressure sensor connected to the lifting element, and a control unit connected to the pressure sensor. The pressure sensor detects a pressure exerted by a user on the seat, and the control unit controls the first lifting element to adjust the seat based on the pressure exerted by the user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW whose telephone number is (703)756-1854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 5.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270 5376. 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 LINDSAY OSTROW/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights