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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 20, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ochiai et al., US 9707913 B1, hereinafter referred to as Ochiai.
As to claim 1, Ochiai discloses a method for adjusting a seat comprising the steps of:
inputting a desired position of at least one of a recline position of a seat, a fore-aft position of a seat, or swivel position of a seat (User adjustment – See at least Col. 9 Lines 4-8; Exemplary system includes adjustable component such as driver seat – See at least Col. 3 Lines 23-24; Recline angle – See at least Col. 1 Lines 52-55);
determining at least one of the current recline position, fore-aft position or swivel position (Control vehicle component to have optimal setting – See at least Col. 8 Lines 62-67 – Col. 9 Lines 1-4, and Fig. 4);
calculating a movement value based on the desired position, the current position, and a limiting value (Determine whether adjusted setting falls within acceptable range – See at least Col. 9 Lines 9-20; Examiner notes determining whether an adjusted setting falls within an acceptable range necessarily includes a movement value as that is the movement associated with the adjusted setting.);
activating a controllable device to limit or to force the position of at least one of the recline position, the fore-aft position, or the swivel position when the movement value is outside an predetermined acceptable range (Prevent setting outside acceptable range, i.e., “limit position” – See at least Col. 9 Lines 62-64; If driver continues to attempt to recline seat, ECU may allow seat to continue reclining, i.e., “force position” – See at least Col. 10 Lines 8-10).
As to claim 2, Ochiai discloses the controllable device forces movement of at least one of the recline position, the fore-aft position, or the swivel position of a seat (Recline angle – See at least Col. 1 Lines 52-55; If driver continues to attempt to recline seat, ECU may allow seat to continue reclining, i.e., “force position” – See at least Col. 10 Lines 8-10).
As to claim 3, Ochiai discloses the controllable device restricts movement of at least one of the recline position, the fore-aft position, or the swivel position of a seat (Prevent setting outside acceptable range, i.e., “limit position” – See at least Col. 9 Lines 62-64; Recline angle – See at least Col. 1 Lines 52-55).
As to claim 4, Ochiai discloses calculating the movement value comprises comparing the desired position, the current position, and the limiting value to determine whether movement to the desired position is permitted (Determine whether adjusted setting falls within acceptable range – See at least Col. 9 Lines 9-20; Examiner notes determining whether an adjusted setting falls within an acceptable range necessarily includes a movement value as that is the movement associated with the adjusted setting.).
As to claim 7, Ochiai discloses identifying a boundary condition based on a sensor input prior to calculating the movement value (Optimal setting based on sensor data – See at least Col. 8 Lines 35-38).
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 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai et al., US 9707913 B1, in view of Kim et al., US 20080009989 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ochiai, and Kim, respectively.
As to claim 5, Ochiai fails to explicitly disclose detecting a potential interference based on a set of stored seat position limits when calculating the movement value. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochiai and include the feature of detecting a potential interference based on a set of stored seat position limits when calculating the movement value, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kim teaches it is well-known and routine to store a set of positions indicative of an interference related to moving a vehicle seat (See at least Abstract and ¶31 of Kim).
As to claim 10, Ochiai fails to explicitly disclose activating the controllable device to force the adjustment is based on predefined interference criteria stored in memory. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochiai and include the feature of activating the controllable device to force the adjustment is based on predefined interference criteria stored in memory, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kim teaches it is well-known and routine to store a set of positions indicative of an interference boundary related to moving a vehicle seat (See at least Abstract and ¶31 of Kim).
Claims 6, 8, 9, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai et al., US 9707913 B1, hereinafter referred to as Ochiai.
As to claim 6, Ochiai fails to explicitly disclose activating the controllable device to force the position comprises adjusting a second seat parameter to enable continued movement toward the desired position. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochiai and include the feature of activating the controllable device to force the position comprises adjusting a second seat parameter to enable continued movement toward the desired position, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ochiai discloses performing the above forcing of a position with respect to a first parameter, i.e., a recline angle, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize the claim is merely duplicating the forced position of Ochiai to an additional parameter, wherein seat adjustment movement in various dimensions, is well-known and routine as they are commonplace to everyday driving experience.
As to claim 8, Ochiai discloses a method for adjusting a seat, comprising:
receiving a desired position for at least one of a recline position, a fore-aft position, or a swivel position of a seat (User adjustment – See at least Col. 9 Lines 4-8; Exemplary system includes adjustable component such as driver seat – See at least Col. 3 Lines 23-24; Recline angle – See at least Col. 1 Lines 52-55);
determining a current position of the seat corresponding to the desired position (Optimal setting – See at least Col. 8 Lines 62-67 – Col. 9 Lines 1-4);
comparing the desired position, the current position, and a limiting value to calculate a movement value (Control vehicle component to have optimal setting – See at least Col. 8 Lines 62-67 – Col. 9 Lines 1-4, and Fig. 4); and
determining whether the movement value is within an acceptable range (Determine whether adjusted setting falls within acceptable range – See at least Col. 9 Lines 9-20; Examiner notes determining whether an adjusted setting falls within an acceptable range necessarily includes a movement value as that is the movement associated with the adjusted setting.).
Ochiai fails to explicitly disclose when the movement value is within the acceptable range, activating a controllable device to adjust the seat toward the desired position; and when the movement value is outside the acceptable range, activating the controllable device to force adjustment of a different seat parameter to enable continued movement toward the desired position.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochiai and include the features of when the movement value is within the acceptable range, activating a controllable device to adjust the seat toward the desired position; and when the movement value is outside the acceptable range, activating the controllable device to force adjustment of a different seat parameter to enable continued movement toward the desired position, with a reasonable expectation of success, because performing the control when a movement value is within an acceptable range is the logical iimplication of Ochiai’s disclosure of preventing movement when a value is outside an acceptable range (See at least Col. 9 Lines 9-11 of Ochiai), and Ochiai discloses performing the above forcing of a position with respect to a first parameter, i.e., a recline angle, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize the claim is merely duplicating the forced position of Ochiai to an additional, i.e., different, parameter, wherein seat adjustment movement in various dimensions, is well-known and routine as they are commonplace to everyday driving experience.
As to claim 9, Ochiai discloses forcing adjustment of the different seat parameter comprises adjusting a recline angle to enable further fore-aft movement (If driver continues to attempt to recline seat, ECU may allow seat to continue reclining, i.e., “force position” – See at least Col. 10 Lines 8-10).
As to claim 13, Ochiai discloses the movement value comprises an offset between the current position and the desired position weighted by the limiting value (Determine whether adjusted setting falls within acceptable range – See at least Col. 9 Lines 9-20; Examiner notes determining whether an adjusted setting falls within an acceptable range necessarily includes a movement value as that is the movement associated with the adjusted setting with respect to a current position, i.e., “offset.”).
As to claim 14, Ochiai discloses a method for adjusting a seat based on controller logic, comprising:
receiving a desired position input for a seat (User adjustment – See at least Col. 9 Lines 4-8; Exemplary system includes adjustable component such as driver seat – See at least Col. 3 Lines 23-24; Recline angle – See at least Col. 1 Lines 52-55);
determining a current position of the seat (Optimal setting – See at least Col. 8 Lines 62-67 – Col. 9 Lines 1-4);
determining whether movement to the desired position is permitted based on a movement value calculated from the desired position, the current position, and a limiting value (Determine whether adjusted setting falls within acceptable range – See at least Col. 9 Lines 9-20; Examiner notes determining whether an adjusted setting falls within an acceptable range necessarily includes a movement value as that is the movement associated with the adjusted setting.);
Ochiai fails to explicitly disclose when movement is permitted, activating a controllable device to adjust the seat to the desired position; and when movement is not permitted, automatically overriding the desired position input and activating the controllable device to adjust the seat along a second axis to enable continued movement along a first axis.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochiai and include the features of when movement is permitted, activating a controllable device to adjust the seat to the desired position; and when movement is not permitted, automatically overriding the desired position input and activating the controllable device to adjust the seat along a second axis to enable continued movement along a first axis, with a reasonable expectation of success, because performing the control when a movement value is within an acceptable range is the logical implication of Ochiai’s disclosure of preventing movement when a value is outside an acceptable range (See at least Col. 9 Lines 9-11 of Ochiai), and Ochiai discloses performing the above forcing of a position with respect to a first axis, i.e., a recline angle, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize the claim is merely duplicating the forced position of Ochiai to an additional, i.e., different, axis, wherein seat adjustment movement in various dimensions, is well-known and routine as they are commonplace to everyday driving experience.
As to claim 15, Ochiai discloses recline movement (Recline angle – See at least Col. 1 Lines 52-55).
Ochia fails to explicitly disclose fore-aft movement.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochiai and include the feature of fore-aft movement, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ochiai discloses performing the above forcing of a position with respect to a first axis, i.e., a recline angle, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize the claim is merely duplicating the forced position of Ochiai to an additional, i.e., different, axis, wherein seat adjustment movement in various dimensions, is well-known and routine as they are commonplace to everyday driving experience.
As to claim 17, Ochiai discloses storing an override event in a system log (Store optimal setting and adjusted setting – See at least Col. 10 Lines 11-14).
Claims 11, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai et al., US 9707913 B1, in view of Zouzal et al., US 20170355282 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ochiai, and Zouzal.
As to claim 11, Ochiai fails to explicitly disclose displaying the desired position on a user interface before adjusting the seat. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochiai and include the feature of displaying the desired position on a user interface before adjusting the seat, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zouzal teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle seat control arts to display a desired position on a user interface to facilitate seat adjustment (Display variety of adjustments for assisting occupant – See at least ¶20, 22, and 23 of Zouzal).
As to claim 12, Ochiai fails to explicitly disclose receiving the desired position comprises accessing stored operator preference data. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochiai and include the feature of receiving the desired position comprises accessing stored operator preference data, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zouzal teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle seat control arts to retrieve stored user preferences (Predetermined/preferred seat positions – See at least ¶22 of Zouzal).
As to claim 19, Ochiai fails to explicitly disclose determining the current position comprises receiving data from multiple sensors monitoring the recline position and the fore-aft position. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochiai and include the feature of determining the current position comprises receiving data from multiple sensors monitoring the recline position and the fore-aft position, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zouzal teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle seat control arts to express vehicle seat position in terms of recline and fore-aft position as determined by appropriate sensors (Sensors for detecting seat position – See at least ¶18 of Zouzal).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai et al., US 9707913 B1, in view of Yetukuri et al., US 20200171979 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ochiai, and Yetukuri.
As to claim 18, Ochiai fails to explicitly disclose providing a visual notification to an operator when the desired position input is overridden. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochiai and include the feature of providing a visual notification to an operator when the desired position input is overridden, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Yetukuri teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle seat control arts to provide a manual override via a display which by its nature serves as a visual indication to a vehicle operator that a commanded positional movement is overridden (See at least ¶40 of Yetukuri).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai et al., US 9707913 B1, in view of Fang et al., US 20160292521 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ochiai, and Fang.
As to claim 20, Ochiai fails to explicitly disclose recalibrating the detection system during an inactive period of the seat adjustment system. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ochiai and include the feature of recalibrating the detection system during an inactive period of the seat adjustment system., with a reasonable expectation of success, because Fang teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle seat control arts to recalibrate a passenger detection sensor when the sensor is not in user (Recalibrate sensor when vehicle is empty, i.e., seat adjustment system not in use – See at least ¶92 of Fang).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
