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 .
Introduction
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed May 27, 2025 and June 5, 2025 have been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show:
With regard to Fig. 2, details regarding the blocks contained therein, as described in the specification.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 7 is directed to a computer program, i.e. “software per se”. “Software per se”, when claimed without any structural limitations, does not have a physical or tangible form. Therefore, it does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and is ineligible under 35 USC 101. see MPEP 2106.03.
If support is found within the specification, Applicant is advised to amend the claim(s) to recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, performs: [the claimed functions]”, or equivalent language. see MPEP 2106.03 (I). A claim directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium would comprise an article of manufacture and thus fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC §101 as being directed toward ineligible subject matter.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nivet (US 2002/0158497) in view of Yetukuri (US 2020/0171979).
Regarding claim 1, Nivet discloses A method for controlling an aircraft furniture installation, the furniture installation comprising a seat and a movable object (Nivet, Fig. 2 regarding a seat and the seat immediately in front & [0034] regarding the seat being for an airplane passenger), the method comprising:
receiving a command to move the seat (Nivet, [0055] regarding receiving an instruction from the passenger via a control pad to move a portion of the seat);
receiving a position of at least one element of the seat and at least one position of the movable object (Nivet, [0056] regarding determining the position of a set of predetermined critical points of the seat, [0063] regarding a boundary that must not be crossed by any of the critical points to avoid risk of collision with the seat located immediately in front, & [0088] regarding the virtual boundary being a function of the known position of the obstacle in the vicinity of the seat (i.e., seat located immediately in front));
determining a prohibited area for the seat as a function of the position of the movable object (Nivet, [0063] regarding a boundary that must not be crossed by any of the critical points to avoid risk of collision with the seat located immediately in front);
moving the seat in accordance with the command received (Nivet, [0067] regarding determining whether the user has instructed movement of a moving element of the seat and the main actuator for moving the moving element in question is set into operation); and
comparing the position of each of the at least one element of the seat with the prohibited area (Nivet, [0073] regarding computing the distance between the critical point and the associated boundary);
wherein, if the comparison indicates that the seat reaches the prohibited area (Nivet, [0079] regarding the distance between each of the critical points and the boundary being sufficient).
Nivet does not disclose the method further includes determining a movement of the movable object separating the prohibited area from the seat; and
moving the movable object according to the determined movement.
Yetukuri teaches the method further includes determining a movement of the movable object separating the prohibited area from the seat (Yetukuri, [0044] regarding determining whether the second seat may be moved to a second position out of the proposed movement path of the first seat); and
moving the movable object according to the determined movement (Yetukuri, [0044] regarding moving the second seat to a second position).
Nivet and Yetukuri are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle seating control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nivet to incorporate moving the second seat out of the way, as disclosed by Yetukuri, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the user to position their seat how they like.
Regarding claim 2, Nivet in view of Yetukuri teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the positions are determined in a Cartesian coordinate system (Nivet, [0060] regarding determining the Cartesian coordinates of the critical points.
Regarding claim 3, Nivet in view of Yetukuri teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the prohibited area is defined by one or more straight line segments (Nivet, [0063] regarding the boundary being defined by three successive segments S1, S2, and S3 & Fig. 2 regarding S1, S2, and S3 being straight lines).
Regarding claim 4, Nivet in view of Yetukuri teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the seat comprises several elements movable relative to one another, and wherein moving the seat comprises moving at least one of the elements of the seat (Nivet, [0036] regarding a hinged back that can be moved between a raised position and a folded-position, [0037] regarding a hinged leg rest which is movable between a substantially vertical folded-down position and a substantially horizontal position, [0040] regarding a first electric actuator 24 for moving the leg rest between its folded-down position and its extended position, [0042] regarding a third actuator 26 for moving the seat back between its raised position and its folded-down position, & [0046] regarding the seat having a control pad for independently controlling the actuators 24 and 26 to cause them to move).
Regarding claim 5, Nivet in view of Yetukuri teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the movable object comprises a plurality of elements that are movable relative to one another (Nivet, [0036] regarding a hinged back that can be moved between a raised position and a folded-position, [0037] regarding a hinged leg rest which is movable between a substantially vertical folded-down position and a substantially horizontal position, [0040] regarding a first electric actuator 24 for moving the leg rest between its folded-down position and its extended position, [0042] regarding a third actuator 26 for moving the seat back between its raised position and its folded-down position), wherein the position of the movable object is a position of at least one of the elements of the movable object (Nivet, [0063] regarding a boundary that must not be crossed by any of the critical points to avoid risk of collision with the seat located immediately in front & [0088] regarding the virtual boundary being a function of the known position of the obstacle in the vicinity of the seat (i.e., seat located immediately in front)).
Yetukuri further teaches wherein movement of the movable object comprises a movement of at least one of the elements of the movable object (Yetukuri, [0044] regarding moving the second seat to a second position including tilting the seat back).
Nivet and Yetukuri are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle seating control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nivet, as modified, to incorporate tilting the seat back to movie the second seat out of the way, as disclosed by Yetukuri, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the user to position their seat how they like.
Regarding claim 6, Nivet in view of Yetukuri teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the movable object is another seat (Nivet, Fig. 2 regarding a seat located immediately in front).
Regarding claim 7, Nivet in view of Yetukuri teaches a computer program downloaded from a communications network and/or recorded on a computer-readable medium,
the computer program comprising instructions for executing the steps of the method according to claim 1, when said program is executed on a computer (Nivet, [0050] regarding a data processor unit comprising a microprocessor for running a suitable program & [0054] regarding the data processor unit implementing a conventional program adapted to control the power supply interfaces to power the actuators as a function information received).
Regarding claim 8, Nivet in view of Yetukuri teaches a control system for a furniture installation of an aircraft, the furniture installation comprising a seat and a movable object (Nivet, [0050] regarding a data processor unit comprising a microprocessor for running a suitable program, Fig. 2 regarding a seat and the seat immediately in front, & [0034] regarding the seat being for an airplane passenger), being designed to implement the method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Nivet in view of Yetukuri teaches an aircraft comprising:
a furniture installation with a seat and a movable object (Nivet, Fig. 2 regarding a seat and the seat immediately in front & [0034] regarding the seat being for an airplane passenger); and
the control system according to claim 8 (Nivet, [0050] regarding a data processor unit comprising a microprocessor for running a suitable program).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights