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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner. Examiner notes that no copy of the Foreign Reference JP 2019-197570 was attached, so only the corresponding US reference US 2017/0199918 was reviewed fully.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a retrieval mechanism configured to move” in claim 1 wherein the retrieval mechanism is determined to be at least a sliding cover or seat portion as supported by the applicant’s specification page 12
“an imager configured to capture and image” in claim 1 wherein the imager is determined to be at least a lens or CCD sensor, CMOS sensor or other optical element as supported by the applicant’s specification page 20
“an object detecting unit configured to… determine” in claim 1 wherein the detecting unit is determined to be at least an image recognition or CNN system as supported by applicant’s specification page 18.
“the retrieval mechanism is further configured to … move” in claim 1 wherein the retrieval mechanism is determined to be at least a sliding cover or seat portion as supported by the applicant’s specification page 12
“a sliding portion configured to” in claim 2 wherein the sliding portion is determined to be at least a guide rail as supported by the applicant’s specification page 9
“a moveable portion configured to… rotate” in claim 2 wherein the moveable portion is determined to be at least an actuator such as an electric or magnetic or mechanical actuator as supported by applicant’s specification page 8.
“the retrieval mechanism is further configured to … move” in claim 2 wherein the retrieval mechanism is determined to be at least a sliding cover or seat portion as supported by the applicant’s specification page 12
“the retrieval mechanism is further configured to … move” in claim 3 wherein the retrieval mechanism is determined to be at least a sliding cover or seat portion as supported by the applicant’s specification page 12
“a retrieval mechanism configured to move” in claim 4 wherein the retrieval mechanism is determined to be at least a sliding cover or seat portion as supported by the applicant’s specification page 12
“an imager configured to capture and image” in claim 4 wherein the imager is determined to be at least a lens or CCD sensor, CMOS sensor or other optical element as supported by the applicant’s specification page 20
“a retrieval mechanism configured to move” in claim 5 wherein the retrieval mechanism is determined to be at least a sliding cover or seat portion as supported by the applicant’s specification page 12
“an imager configured to capture and image” in claim 5 wherein the imager is determined to be at least a lens or CCD sensor, CMOS sensor or other optical element as supported by the applicant’s specification page 20
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5 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 1 recites the limitations “a storage box in which an object is stored; a retrieval mechanism configured to move the object which is present on a seat to retrieve the object into the storage box” wherein it is unclear whether there is an additional item in the storage box already, and a secondary item is then moved into the storage box, or if the storage box is only capable of holding an object and the object on the seat is the item intended to be moved into the box. Examiner believes that potential translation issues have led to this ambiguity, and the intent of the limitations are to identify an item on a seat, and place the item in the storage box using the retrieval mechanism. Appropriate correction is required in order to clarify the claim and avoid further indefiniteness.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “a storage box in which an object is stored; a retrieval mechanism configured to move the object which is present on a seat to retrieve the object into the storage box” wherein it is unclear whether there is an additional item in the storage box already, and a secondary item is then moved into the storage box, or if the storage box is only capable of holding an object and the object on the seat is the item intended to be moved into the box. Examiner believes that potential translation issues have led to this ambiguity, and the intent of the limitations are to identify an item on a seat, and place the item in the storage box using the retrieval mechanism. Appropriate correction is required in order to clarify the claim and avoid further indefiniteness.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “a storage box in which an object is stored; a retrieval mechanism configured to move the object which is present on a seat to retrieve the object into the storage box” wherein it is unclear whether there is an additional item in the storage box already, and a secondary item is then moved into the storage box, or if the storage box is only capable of holding an object and the object on the seat is the item intended to be moved into the box. Examiner believes that potential translation issues have led to this ambiguity, and the intent of the limitations are to identify an item on a seat, and place the item in the storage box using the retrieval mechanism. Appropriate correction is required in order to clarify the claim and avoid further indefiniteness.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Should the applicant overcome the currently cited rejections, claims 1-5 appear to be allowable over prior art for the reasons found below.
Prior art fails to disclose or render obvious claim 1 disclosing a system for moving an item from a seat to a storage box.
Regarding claim 1 the relevant art Llorente et al. (Foreign Patent Publication No. FR 2710297 A1 hereinafter “Llorente”) in view of Jacques et al. (Foreign Patent Publication No. EP 3708429 A1 hereinafter “Jacques”) further in view of Lee et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2020/0012871 A1 hereinafter “Lee”) discloses a seat system with underneath storage (Jacques [0010]) using image information obtained a camera or imaging system to recognize and monitor objects (Lee [0029]) but fails to disclose recognizing the item on a seat and further moving the item into a box. Specifically, the relevant art fails to disclose “An object retrieval and storage device comprising: a storage box in which an object is stored; a retrieval mechanism configured to move the object which is present on a seat to retrieve the object into the storage box; an imager configured to capture an image which includes a condition of the seat; and an object detecting unit configured to, based on the captured image, determine whether or not the object is present on the seat, wherein the retrieval mechanism is further configured to, when the object detecting unit determines that the object is present on the seat, move the object to put the object into the storage box.”.
Claims 2-3 would also be allowed due to their dependence on claim 1. Additionally, claims 4-5 would be allowed over the prior art for similar reasons as those found above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6,648,393 B1 discloses sliding seats in a vehicle using a rail or roller systems
US 4,790,592 A discloses a seat cover with retractable roller systems
US 2021/0370860 A1 discloses a vehicle control system with internal recognition systems to determine when an object or person is left inside the vehicle
US 2020/0171979 A1 discloses a seat system with the ability to automatically move or configure the position or movement of the seats
US 2017/0182913 A1 discloses a seat control system adjusting the seat positions based on the luggage or items in the vehicle
FR 3092287 A1 discloses a vehicle seat with various configurations and a sliding drawer
FR 2908363 A1 discloses a seat storage system that travels below a seat
FR 2710297 A1 discloses a vehicle storage tray under a seat that pivots in and out from the seat
EP 3708429 A1 discloses a seat storage frame under the seat that opens and closes based on the need to store items
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is (303)297-4339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/KYLE T JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights