DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 8/6/25 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claim 7 has been amended.
Claim Interpretation and Contingent Limitations
Claims 1-9 contain various conditional limitations which include:
claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 7:
(1) “in a case where the determination section determines that the moving body is stopped, the control section controlling the rocking device so that a rocking speed, which is a speed for rocking the seat, is set at a first speed, and
in a case where the determination section determines that the moving body is not stopped, the control section controlling the rocking device so that the rocking speed is set at a second speed, which is higher than the first speed”
Claim 2:
(2) “at a timing that a direction of the rocking of the seat is reversed, the control section changes the rocking speed”
Claim 4:
(3) “wherein in a case where the manipulation section accepts a given manipulation carried out by the passenger, the seat control device is started or stopped”
Claim 5:
(4) “while the rocking device is operating, the control section operates such that:
(a) in a case where the determination section determines that the passenger is sleeping, the control section stops the rocking device and
(b) in a case where the determination section does not determine that the passenger is sleeping, the control section does not stop the rocking device.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing the function of the above cited claim limitations (1) – (4) is sufficient to disclose the above cited claim limitations. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In addition, limitations (1)-(4) recited above, recite either computer processing steps carried out by a computing device or method steps that required a first step if a first condition happens and a second step if a second condition happens.
With respect to conditional limitations in such cases, MPEP 2111.04 guides
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Accordingly, Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to limitations (1)-(4). See MPEP 2111.04, II “contingent claims” ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed . . . [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);").
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require either 1) that the determination section determines the moving body is stopped or 2) that the determination section determines the moving body is not stopped.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, or for reciting a limitation that replaces or omits a limitation in a parent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements. See MPEP 608.01(n), section III “test for proper dependency” (“a claim in dependent form shall contain . . . (i) a reference to a claim previously set forth, and (ii) then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed . . . if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements.”)
Claim 2 consists entirely of a contingent limitation, wherein the limitations are not required since the claim does not require the condition occurs and/or they recite a limitation that replaces or omits a limitation in a parent claim (i.e., “at a timing that” does not require that this potential time ever occurs).
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230346125 to Kato et al. (Kato) in view of US 20210114487 to Han et al. (Han)
With respect to claims 1 and 7, Kato discloses
A seat control device which controls a seat disposed in a moving body, the seat control device comprising:
(¶ 22 “the seat 3 and the rocking device 1 are provided to a mobile body”)
a rocking device which rocks the seat;
(rocking device 1, FIG. 1 and corresponding description; seat 3, Fig. 1 and corresponding description)
a control section which controls operation of the rocking device; and
(i.e., controller 7, FIG. 1 and corresponding description)
However, Kato fails to explicitly disclose determining whether or not the moving body has stopped.
Han, from the same field of endeavor, discloses determining whether or not the moving body has stopped and further teaches automatically changing a seat configuration from a sleep mode configuration to a awake mode configuration since it is time for the passenger to exit the vehicle.
(FIG. 5 arrive destination, yes; ¶¶ 118-121 “If the vehicle arrives the destination in a state where the front seat and the rear seat have been in the postures by the simultaneous rest mode, the single seat rest mode of the front seat, the single seat rest mode of the rear seat, or the like as described above during the running of the vehicle, the seat controller 420 outputs a destination arrival alarm. For example, if the seat controller 420 receives the destination arrival information of the vehicle from a navigation device, the seat controller 420 outputs the destination arrival alarm. Subsequently, the seat controller 420 may perform a control of returning the front seat 200 and the rear seat 300 from the respective rest mode postures to their original postures as illustrated in FIG. 2, thereby inducing the sleep state of the passenger to the get-up state thereof).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement the vehicle stoppage detection automatically transitioning a seat mode from a rest mode to a get up mode as taught by Han, in the system of Kato such that in the system of Kato, when the vehicle stops at a destination, Kato in view of Han sets the rocking speed of the rocking device to a first speed of zero, i.e., exits rest mode, so the passenger can get up and exit the vehicle, wherein the rocking speed during use is a second speed, which is higher than zero, in order to facilitate a passengers exit from the vehicle when the vehicle stops at a destination.
In addition, as noted above in the contingent limitation section, the limitation:
in a case where the determination section determines that the moving body is stopped, the control section controlling the rocking device so that a rocking speed, which is a speed for rocking the seat, is set at a first speed, and
in a case where the determination section determines that the moving body is not stopped, the control section controlling the rocking device so that the rocking speed is set at a second speed, which is higher than the first speed
is not given patentable weight since the conditional limitations are not required to occur.
With respect to claim 2, Kato in view of Han disclose wherein at a timing that a direction of the rocking of the seat is reversed, the control section changes the rocking speed.
(Katz, ¶ 46; 37-42; FIG. 6 and corresponding description, i.e., second motion is opposite direction of motion of the first motion)
With respect to claim 3, Kato in view of Han disclose the determination section determines, at predetermined time intervals, whether or not the moving body is stopped because the check of whether the vehicle has arrived at the destination in FIG. 5 of Han inherently has a clock speed or loop interval to check whether the destination has been arrived at.
With respect to claim 4, Kato in view of Han disclose a manipulation section which accepts various kinds of manipulations carried out by a passenger, wherein in a case where the manipulation section accepts a given manipulation carried out by the passenger, the seat control device is started or stopped.
(Han, ¶¶ 79-80 “Meanwhile, inputting the rest mode of the rear seat may be performed (operation S201). For example, the passenger seated on the rear seat turns on the rear seat rest mode switch 412”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230346125 to Kato et al. (Kato) in view of US 20210114487 to Han et al. (Han) in view of JP 2010068941 to Wakiyama et al. (Wakiyama) (translation provided)
With respect to claim 5, Kato in view of Han fail to explicitly disclose a vital sensor which obtains biological information of a passenger of the moving body.
Wakiyama, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a vital sensor which obtains biological information of a passenger of the moving body, wherein:
the determination section determines, on a basis of the biological information obtained by the vital sensor, whether or not the passenger is sleeping;
while the rocking device is operating, the control section operates such that:
(a) in a case where the determination section determines that the passenger is sleeping, the control section stops the rocking device and
(b) in a case where the determination section does not determine that the passenger is sleeping, the control section does not stop the rocking device1.
(abstract, “a pulse wave sensor 10 for obtaining the pulse wave data of a passenger 3 of a vehicle 2, an electrocardiographic sensor 11 for obtaining heart beat data, an ECU20, controlling sleep induction, for detecting the sleepiness which the passenger has, a plurality of in-vehicle equipment for operating movements suitable for sleeping of the passenger 3 (a seat reclining device 30, a massage device 40, a seat air conditioner 50, an air conditioner 60, an addition device 70 for adding oxygen, an audio device 80, a device 90 for opening and closing a sun shade, a light 100, an ottoman 110, a monitor window 120)”; ¶¶ 5 a sleep apparatus and a sleep method that allow a user to sleep comfortably inside a vehicle; 8-9 when it is detected that the state is the first sleepy state, the sleep falling to prompt the passenger to fall asleep as an operation suitable for sleep On the other hand, when it is detected that the in-vehicle device is in the second drowsiness state, the in-vehicle device is caused to perform a sleep maintenance operation for maintaining the sleep state of the passenger as an operation suitable for sleep; 11-15; 18-21 passenger biometric data detected; 31 “sleepiness of the passenger 3 is detected in the sleepiness detection process”; 48 “By setting the second threshold value to a value that does not exceed the sleep threshold, the second sleepiness state can be detected as a state in which the passenger 3 is sleeping” 55-56)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230346125 to Kato et al. (Kato) in view of US 20210114487 to Han et al. (Han) in view of US 20200055362 to Anderson et al. (Anderson)
With respect to claim 6, Kato in view of Han disclose setting a rocking speed and a rocking period for rocking the seat and a control section that causes the rocking device to carry out rocking with the rocking speed and the rocking period having been set by the setting section.
(Kato, controller 7, FIG. 1; set rocking speed and rocking period, FIG. 6; and corresponding descriptions)
However, Kato in view of Han fail to explicitly disclose an identifying section which identifies a passenger of the moving body such that the setting and control sections tailor the rocking control to the identified passenger.
Anderson, from the same field of endeavor, also discloses changing seat settings and movement for passenger comfort and additionally discloses an identifying section which identifies a passenger of the moving body, and a setting section which sets a seat setting suitable for the identified passenger identified by the identifying section.
(¶¶ 113 one or more active suspension systems may be used to introduce desirable motions or suppress certain undesirable motions in one or more portions of the vehicle . . . one or more seats within a vehicle may be moved in a manner that would promote sleep . . . this motion may be at a predetermined frequency and/or amplitude, selected by another individual and/or automatically by a controller. In another embodiment, certain seats that are occupied may be controlled to reduce motion associated with certain frequency ranges to a greater degree than other seats that are not occupied. Alternatively, one or more seats within a vehicle may be controlled to suppress certain frequencies to a greater degree than other seats in the passenger compartment. Such an embodiment may be advantageous if: one or more occupants within a vehicle are more sensitive to motion sickness than other occupants located within the same vehicle; one or more occupants are in an orientation that is more likely to induce motion sickness; or an occupant has a particular ailment such as a back problem. Seats occupied by such individuals may be determined by using sensors, such as facial recognition cameras, or by using devices that enable passengers in a vehicle to provide data to a controller. Benefits associated with individually controlling various structures in a vehicle may include conserving energy, enhancing the overall comfort of all passengers, and avoiding unnecessary wear and tear on actuators; 119-121; 149 unique profiles may also be created and saved to a local and/or remotely located database to indicate personal suspension preferences previously input or determined for one or more occupants. For example, an occupant may be prone to motion sickness and may prefer a ride experience focused on comfort instead of speed. Each occupant can save a profile within the vehicle. Prior to the start of a trip, each occupant can indicate their presence to the vehicle, which will allow the vehicle to consider driving preferences based on the information stored in the local and/or remotely located database related to each indicated occupant before making decisions. In instances where individual seats are associated with separate secondary suspension systems. A performance profile can be set for each individual seat which will behave uniquely for each passenger according to personal preferences”; 197-199 detector may be used to read a personal identification device being carried or worn by a person, and/or a facial recognition device may be used to identify a person in the vicinity of the vehicle . . . [p]ersons may be recognized . . . through facial recognition, an input pass code, a pass code gesture detected by the vehicle, or any appropriate type of identification method and/or device”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement the identifying section teachings of Anderson into the system of Kato in view of Han such that the rocking speed and rocking period are altered in a manner suitable for the identified passenger in order to personalize the seat motion to the user in view of a users particular conditions, sleeping habits, injuries, motion sickness susceptibility or other personal information, in order to increase the effectiveness of sleep induction and increase comfort for the particular user (Anderson, ¶¶ 113; 119-121; 149; 197-199).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 The italicized portion is a conditional limitation and is not given patentable weight.
Prosecution Insights