Ex Parte Bothe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 4, 2013

10543645 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/543,645 02/21/2006 Hans-Dieter Bothe 10191/3790 2437 26646 7590 04/04/2013 KENYON & KENYON LLP ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10004 EXAMINER GIRMA, FEKADESELASS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HANS-DIETER BOTHE, HOANG TRINH, HEIKO FREIENSTEIN, and THOMAS ENGELBERG ____________ Appeal 2010-010856 Application 10/543,645 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-10 and 13-20. Claims 1-7, 11, and 12 have been cancelled. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention automatically adjusts a vehicle seat’s contour based on a signal from an image-generating sensor. See generally Abstract. Claim 8 is illustrative: Appeal 2010-010856 Application 10/543,645 2 8. A device for automatically adjusting at least one vehicle seat, comprising: a sensory system for a contactless detection and measurement of an occupant of the at least one vehicle seat, wherein the sensory system is configured to record at least one of a pose of the occupant of the at least one vehicle seat and an orientation of the occupant of the at least one vehicle seat; and at least one actuator for changing a contour of the at least one vehicle seat as a function of a signal from the sensory system indicating the at least one of the pose of the occupant of the at least one vehicle seat and the orientation of the occupant of the at least one vehicle seat. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 8-10 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Breed (US 2003/0121704 A1; July 3, 2003). Ans. 3-7.1 CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that Breed discloses every recited element of representative claim 8 including at least one actuator (motors 191-193) for changing a vehicle seat contour as a function of a sensory system signal indicating at least one of a seat occupant’s pose and orientation. Ans. 3-5, 7- 13. According to the Examiner, the occupant’s detected pose and orientation corresponds to, among other things, (1) various recorded “morphological characteristics” including the occupant’s height, arm and leg length, etc., and (2) an occupant’s particular “sitting state” indicative of posture. Id. Appellants argue that Breed does not identically disclose an actuator for changing a vehicle seat contour as a function of at least one of occupant 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 15, 2010 (“Br.”) and the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 6, 2010 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2010-010856 Application 10/543,645 3 pose and orientation since these recited characteristics are narrower than Breed’s detected “morphological characteristics.” Br. 4-5. Appellants add that the Examiner’s reliance on Breed’s evaluating the “seated state” (i.e., a seat’s occupancy) is misplaced regarding changing seat contour based on recorded pose or orientation as claimed. Br. 5-6. Appellants also argue other recited limitations summarized below. ISSUES Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Breed discloses: (1) at least one actuator for changing a vehicle seat contour as a function of a signal from a sensory system indicating at least one of a seat occupant’s pose and orientation as recited in claim 8? (2) the actuator changes the seat’s contour to support the occupant’s movements by adapting the contour to conform to changes in body posture as recited in claim 13? (3) a further sensor for detecting kinematic variables from which a driving state is determined, where a signal from that sensor is considered in changing the contour of the at least one vehicle seat responsive to changes in the driving state which indicate at least one of reverse driving and an imminent crash as recited in claim 15? ANALYSIS Claims 8-10, 17, and 18 We begin by noting that claim 8 recites an actuator for changing a vehicle seat’s contour as a function of a signal from the recited sensory system indicating at least one of occupant pose and orientation. That is, Appeal 2010-010856 Application 10/543,645 4 only one of these two indications (i.e., pose or orientation) need be met to satisfy this limitation. Turning to the rejection, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s equating Breed’s motors 191-193 to the recited “actuator” for changing vehicle seat contour (Ans. 4),2 but rather dispute the Examiner’s reliance on Breed for disclosing the recited pose and orientation parameters on which this contour change is based. See Br. 4-6. As shown in Breed’s Figure 8, the relied-upon “actuators” (motors) automatically adjust a vehicle seat 100 with a movable headrest 110 based on the seat occupant’s height via ultrasonic transmitter 120, receiver 121, and control module 150. Breed ¶¶ 0182-88. Specifically, after the headrest is vertically adjusted to an optimum position via motors 160, 170 based on the occupant’s detected head position, the seat is moved to a particular position based on the occupant’s height. Breed ¶¶ 0186-88. These motor-based actuated adjustments of the seat’s movable parts in Breed reasonably comport with Appellants’ description of the recited seat contour change in the Specification. See Spec. 5:10-19 (noting that actuators for adjusting seat contour are characterized by corresponding electric motors that are able to adjust the seat’s movable parts, including head rests and pads). Moreover, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Breed’s height-based seat contour adjustments noted above, for an occupant’s height with respect to the seat is a “morphological characteristic” that fully meets at least one of an occupant’s pose and orientation as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 4 (citing Breed ¶ 0019); see also Breed ¶ 0190. Appellants’ argument 2 But see Ans. 5 (mapping motor 170 to the recited actuator in connection with claim 13). Appeal 2010-010856 Application 10/543,645 5 regarding the recited occupant pose and orientation limitation as being “much narrower” than Breed’s detecting “morphological characteristics” (Br. 4) is unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that Breed’s actuator changes a seat contour based on the seat occupant’s “pose” which is fully met by any seated occupant position under the Examiner’s definition. See Ans. 12 (defining “pose” in pertinent part as “[t]he attitude or position of a person; the position of the body or of any member of the body”). The Examiner refers to various “sitting states” based on different occupant postures in connection with the recited occupant pose. Ans. 8 (citing Breed ¶¶ 0153-54). Although these particular states are used to train a neural network circuit 25 as Appellants indicate (Br. 6), this neural network is nonetheless part of Breed’s seated-state detection unit as shown in Figure 3—a unit that is a key element of a “component” (e.g., a seat)3 adjustment system. See Breed ¶¶ 0086, 0182, 0184-85 (noting that control module 150 may be within the same microprocessor as neural network circuit 25). As the Examiner indicates, the seated-state detection unit is used in a component adjustment system to automatically adjust a “component” (seat) based at least partly on these detected “sitting states” or “poses” under the Examiner’s definition of the term. See Ans. 8 (citing Breed ¶¶ 0178-80); see also Ans. 11-13; Breed ¶ 0182, 0184-85. Notably, the seat adjustment system of Figure 8 not only uses the detected occupant’s “pose” when 3 Breed’s “components” include seat-based components. See Breed ¶ 0018 (noting that a “component” may be any adjustable vehicle component including a seat’s bottom portion, backrest, and armrest); ¶ 0180 (including seats as preferred “components” for which the system is most useful); ¶ 0182 (noting that a seat is an example of a vehicle component). Appeal 2010-010856 Application 10/543,645 6 seated, but also the previously-detected “poses” used to train the neural network circuit to determine whether an adult or child occupant is seated on the seat. See Breed ¶¶ 0184, 0179. We therefore see no error in the Examiner’s position that these poses are used by the adjustment system to change the vehicle seat’s contour. See id. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 8, and claims 9, 10, 17, and 18 not separately argued with particularity. Claims 13 and 14 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 13 reciting, in pertinent part, the actuator changes the seat’s contour to support the occupant’s movements by adapting the contour to conform to changes in body posture. Despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (Br. 7), we see no error in the Examiner’s position (Ans. 5, 10-11) at least to the extent that Breed’s system adjusts the component’s (seat’s) location based on the occupant’s “morphological characteristics” that include different detected posture-based characteristics as noted above. We see no reason why the seat’s contour would not be adapted to conform to posture changes based on these characteristics, particularly since Breed’s system remembers preferred driving positions and component locations for particular occupants, and incorporates those preferences into component adjustments the next time that person enters the vehicle and sits in the same seat. Breed ¶ 0180. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings based on these occupant movements which would involve at least some changes in body posture and corresponding seat- Appeal 2010-010856 Application 10/543,645 7 contour adaptation. See Ans. 11 (noting that Breed stores a driver’s changed seat position and recognizes that driver to adjust the seat when the driver reenters the vehicle). We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 13, and claim 14 not separately argued with particularity. Claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 15 reciting, in pertinent part, a further sensor for detecting kinematic variables from which a driving state is determined, where a signal from that sensor is considered in changing the contour of at least one vehicle seat responsive to changes in the driving state which indicate at least one of reverse driving and an imminent crash. As the Examiner indicates, Breed controls a vehicle component (seat) based on (1) the seat occupant’s weight and (2) acceleration measured by accelerometers. Ans. 14 (citing Breed ¶ 0133). The accelerometers are considered along with strain gage outputs to not only accurately assess seat occupancy, but also dynamically determine the occupant’s mass and location—a particularly important determination when sensing occupant position during crash events. Breed ¶ 0135; Fig. 23. Accord Breed ¶ 0267 (noting that the output of a crash accelerometer can accurately project the occupant’s position during pre-crash braking and eventually the impact itself); ¶ 0276 (noting that accelerometers provide accurate crash discrimination). Breed’s accelerometers therefore detect kinematic variables to determine a driving state change indicating at least an imminent crash as claimed. Appeal 2010-010856 Application 10/543,645 8 Although Breed’s accelerometers can be also used to assess whether the occupant is a human being and whether a seatbelt is used as Appellants indicate (Br. 8 (citing Breed ¶ 0135)), Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that the accelerometers are also used to control the vehicle component, namely the seat’s contour as noted above. Ans. 14 (citing Breed ¶ 0133). That Breed discusses automatic vehicle seat adjustment in Paragraph 0269 in connection with accelerometer-based dynamic motion determinations in the surrounding Paragraphs 0267, 0268, and 0270 through 0276 only bolsters the Examiner’s position that accelerometers are also used to automatically change seat contour. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 15, and claims 16, 19, and 20 not separately argued with particularity. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8-10 and 13-20 under § 102. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-10 and 13-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED babc