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 Objections
Claims 15-16, 18, and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, line 3, it appears Applicant intended “test data; training” to read --test data; and training--
In claim 15, line 4, it appears Applicant intended “the training data.” to read --the training data set.--
In claim 16, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “the test person” to read --a respective test person--
In claim 18, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “when comparing the electrical signal with the reference” to read --when comparing the electrical signal with the respective reference--
In claim 20, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “when the seat is occupied” to read --when the seat is determined to be occupied--
In claim 20, line 4, it appears Applicant intended “switching on the air bag for the seat in all other cases.” to read --switching on the air bag for the seat in all other cases in which the seat is determined to be occupied.--
In claim 21, line 10, it appears Applicant intended “the comparison” to read --the comparison.--, adding a period (“.”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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. The instant claims use the phrase “transport means” in claims 12, 21, and 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the respective actual mass" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim(s) 16-17 depend(s) from claim(s) 15, (respectively,) fail(s) to cure said indefiniteness issues, and is/are thereby similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the test data" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim(s) 16-17 depend(s) from claim(s) 15, (respectively,) fail(s) to cure said indefiniteness issues, and is/are thereby similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second 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.
Claim(s) 12, 14, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ewert (US PGPub. No. 2018/0065505).
Regarding claim 12, Ewert discloses a method for categorizing a passenger of a transport means, comprising:
ascertaining an electrical signal of a motor for adjusting a passenger seat (¶0034);
detecting the passenger by means of an optical sensor for generating an image (¶0052);
comparing the electrical signal and the image with a respective reference (¶0017, ¶0080-0081); and
categorizing the passenger as a child-on-a-child-seat or as an adult based on a result of the comparison (¶0009, ¶0080). Examiner understands a determination of occupant classification as a “small child … present in a seat shell” reads on “categorizing the passenger as a child-on-a-child-seat”, and further that classification of an occupant’s size and weight (¶0022, ¶0032, ¶0078) that is capable of classifying a “small child” is also capable of classifying a non-“small child” (i.e. an “adult”).
Regarding claim 14, Ewert discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the electrical signal represents a current or a torque (¶0034).
Regarding claim 19, Ewert discloses the method of claim 12, wherein a signal of a pressure sensor is not incorporated in the comparison (¶0017, ¶0080-0081).
Regarding claim 20, Ewert discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
switching off an air bag for the seat when the seat is occupied and the category is child-on-a-child-seat (¶0009); and
switching on the air bag for the scat in all other cases (¶0009, ¶0022, ¶0080).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Ewert discloses a system for categorizing a passenger of a transport means, comprising:
a data input (¶0034);
a data output (¶0009, ¶0080); and
an evaluation unit configured to:
ascertain, via the data input, an electrical signal of a motor for adjusting a passenger seat (¶0034),
detect the passenger by means of an optical sensor for generating an image (¶0052),
compare the electrical signal and the image with a respective reference (¶0017, ¶0080-0081), and
categorize, via the data output, the passenger as a child-on-a-child-seat or as an adult based on a result of the comparison (¶0009, ¶0080), and as previously discussed in regard to claim 12, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewert as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Han (US PGPub. No. 2023/0080898).
Regarding claim 13, Ewert discloses the method of claim 12, but appears to be silent on the method wherein the motor is a brushless DC motor.
Han, however, teaches a vehicle having a powered adjustable seat that uses a brushless DC motor for controlling seat position (Han ¶0081). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Ewert in view of Han. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Ewert, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include wherein the motor is a brushless DC motor, as doing so was a known type of motor for use in seat position control, as recognized by Han (Han ¶0081).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim(s) 18, Examiner deems a method for categorizing a passenger of a transport means, comprising: ascertaining an electrical signal of a motor for adjusting a passenger seat; detecting the passenger by means of an optical sensor for generating an image; comparing the electrical signal and the image with a respective reference; and categorizing the passenger as a child-on-a-child-seat or as an adult based on a result of the comparison; wherein, when comparing the electrical signal with the reference, a posture is detected by means of the optical sensor, which posture is predefined for a valid ascertainment of the mass of the passenger to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a method for categorizing a passenger of a transport means specifically including posture detection for qualifying a valid ascertainment of mass of the passenger. While Ewert does teach “when comparing the electrical signal with the reference, a posture is detected by means of the optical sensor” (Ewert ¶0022, ¶0031), Ewert appears to be silent qualifying a valid ascertainment of mass of the passenger in this way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
