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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,147. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the recite the use of sensors and a controller that determines the changes in the output of the sensors based on a reference posture as well as determine the motion of a heel or foot being lifted.
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 21-22 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz (2017/0251979) in view of Nelson et al (2011/0269601). Franz shows the use of a seat comprising: a seat body (101); sensors configured to acquire measurement values for use in identifying motion of an occupant seated on the seat body; and a controller (103) connected to the sensors and thereby allowed to acquire values of pressure from the sensors (see para[0040]), wherein the seat body comprises a seat cushion and a seat back (Fig. 1), wherein the sensors comprise a first cushion sensor (107) provided at the seat cushion in a position thereof corresponding to buttocks of the occupant, a second cushion sensor (107) provided at the seat cushion and located farther frontward than the first cushion sensor (Fig. 1); wherein the controller is configured to acquire the values of the pressure from the sensors (para[0040]); determine if a value of pressure of the first cushion has become larger than a value of a pressure of the first cushion (from predefined values) that would correlate to an inherent reference posture of the occupant and if a value of pressure of the second cushion has become smaller than a value of pressure of the second cushion sensor (from predefined values) acquired when the occupant was inherently in a referenced posture (see para [0042]), [0053]). Regarding claim 22, Franz shows the use of a first back sensor (107) provided at the seat back and located in a lower position thereof, and a second back sensor (107) provided at the seat back and located above the first back sensor (as shown in Fig. 1), and wherein the controller is configured determine the values of pressure of the first cushion sensor and the first back sensor have become larger than corresponding values of pressure of the first cushion sensor and the first back sensor (from predefined values) that inherently correlate to a reference posture (see para [0042])); and if a value of pressure of the second cushion has become smaller than a value of pressure of the second cushion sensor (from predefined values) acquired when the occupant was inherently in a referenced posture (see para [0042]), [0053]). Franz shows all the teachings of the claimed invention except that the controller is configured to determine that a heel/foot lift motion has been done if its determined that a value of pressure of the first cushion has become larger than a value of a pressure of the first cushion (from predefined values) that would correlate to an inherent reference posture of the occupant and if a value of pressure of the second cushion has become smaller than a value of pressure of the second cushion sensor (from predefined values) acquired when the occupant was inherently in a referenced posture. Nelson et al. teaches the use of a controller (10) that identifies a motion of the occupant lifting a heel or foot up from the floor. The controller is connected to sensors (39c) to determine the foot lift motion of the occupant heel lift motion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the seat of Franz with the teachings of Nelson et al. in order to allow the controller to identify if correct posture is being maintained and instruct the user to perform correct motions after determination of any changes therein. Regarding claim 27, Franz in view Nelson et al. further shows all of the teachings of the claimed invention except the second cushion sensor located 280mm frontward from seat surface of the seat back. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try a second seat cushion sensor spaced 280mm frontward of a seat surface of the seat back since applicant has not disclosed any criticality in using those distances and one of ordinary skill in the art would tried various distances for optimal collection of data. See KSR
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D BARFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6852. 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. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY D BARFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
adb
August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights