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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 09/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30-33, 35, and 39 have been amended. Claims 23, 25, 27, 29, 36, 37, and 40 have been canceled. Claims 41-47 have been newly added. Claims 1-22, 24, 26, 28, 30-35, 38-39, and 41-47 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with regard to the previously presented 35 USC 103 arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In particular, regarding claim 21, applicant argues that neither Xiao (US 20180202212 A1) nor Oakley (US 20140265978 A1), alone or in combination covers the claimed subject matter, or specifically the door check method and resume functionality.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, regarding claim 21, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the amended limitation of a “door check position” as claimed appears to be disclosed within Xiao [0046]: “The position of the detents or door checks may be customized by the user and programmed into the controller 110 (FIG. 10), which is in communication with the power assist device 10, for controlling movement of the same. The door checks are contemplated for use with an automatic door opening sequence powered by the power assist device 10 in the direction as indicated by arrow 100. The torque required to stop the door 16 during an automatic door opening sequence powered by the power assist device 10 at a predetermined door check position is approximately 10-50 N/m and may take up to 60 seconds. In this way, the power assist device 10 can be preprogrammed by a user to open the door 16 to a desired door check position along the door swing path 30 and hold the door 16 at the selected door check position for the user to enter or exit the motor vehicle 12 without worry of the door 16 opening any further or possibly into an adjacent obstruction.”
As such, this argument is found unpersuasive.
In light of further amendments to the claim language, the arguments are moot, as the amendments made necessitated new rejections set forth below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 26, 41, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US 20180202212 A1), hereinafter Xiao in view of Oakley et al. (US 20140265978 A1), hereinafter Oakley.
Regarding claim 21, Xiao discloses:
A method of controlling a closure member of a vehicle with an actuator having an electric motor (See at least [0035]: “The drive nut 144 of the power assist device 10 in turn displaces the drive cylinder 158 inwardly and outwardly, along with the exteriorly extending shaft 162. With the power assist device 10 coupled between the inner panel 19 via chassis mounted bracket 72 and the door mounting bracket 56, the rotating motion of the motor 92 of the power assist device 10 creates a pivoting motion of the door 16 between opened and closed positions. As further shown in FIG. 4B, the power assist device 10 has an electrical connector 98 disposed thereon for receiving signal information from the controller 110 (FIG. 10) for translating user commands into power assisted door functionality.”)
the method comprising:
determining a force to move the closure member in a door check position using the actuator (See at least [0046]: “The position of the detents or door checks may be customized by the user and programmed into the controller 110 (FIG. 10), which is in communication with the power assist device 10, for controlling movement of the same. The door checks are contemplated for use with an automatic door opening sequence powered by the power assist device 10 in the direction as indicated by arrow 100. The torque required to stop the door 16 during an automatic door opening sequence powered by the power assist device 10 at a predetermined door check position is approximately 10-50 N/m and may take up to 60 seconds. In this way, the power assist device 10 can be preprogrammed by a user to open the door 16 to a desired door check position along the door swing path 30 and hold the door 16 at the selected door check position for the user to enter or exit the motor vehicle 12 without worry of the door 16 opening any further or possibly into an adjacent obstruction.”)
increasing the force to resist external forces moving the closure member away from the door check position and operating the electric motor to apply the increased force on the closure member (see at least [0045]: “At approximately position 30B, the door 16 will slow to a velocity V2 (approximately 0.33 rpm) by a resistance force imparted by the power assist device 10 on the upper hinge assembly 32 to slow the door movement between positions 30B and 30C from velocity V1 to velocity V2. It is contemplated that the torque required by the power assist device 10 to slow the door 16 to a slow and gentle close of 0.33 rpm along the door swing path 30 is approximately 200 N/m. The amount of time required for slowing the movement of the door 16 from velocity V1 to velocity V2 between door positions 30B to 30C is approximately 200-300 milliseconds. It is contemplated that the power assist device 10 will operate in this manner to absorb the energy from the slamming door motion along swing path 30 while the vehicle is in a key-off operation. Driving operation is not required for the slow close functionality. In this way, the power assist device 10 provides a gentle close or slow close for the door 16, even when a user attempts to slam the door 16 shut.”)
Xiao fails to explicitly disclose, but Oakley, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches:
without a clutch mechanism between the electric motor and an output of the actuator (see at least [0004]: “In particular, it would be advantageous to replace structural control mechanisms, such as clutches and positive temperature coefficient (PTC) thermal breakers, with electronic control mechanisms that can be applied without consuming valuable space within or near the motor housing.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Xiao with the lack of a clutch between the electric motor and the output of the actuator because as stated by Oakley [0004], alternative control mechanisms “can be applied without consuming valuable space within or near the motor housing.”
Regarding claim 22, Xiao as modified by Oakley teaches the method of claim 21, and Xiao further discloses: further comprising detecting a motion input of a user manually moving a door and in response determining the force to move the closure member using the actuator (see at least [0045]: “At approximately position 30B, the door 16 will slow to a velocity V2 (approximately 0.33 rpm) by a resistance force imparted by the power assist device 10 on the upper hinge assembly 32 to slow the door movement between positions 30B and 30C from velocity V1 to velocity V2. It is contemplated that the torque required by the power assist device 10 to slow the door 16 to a slow and gentle close of 0.33 rpm along the door swing path 30 is approximately 200 N/m. The amount of time required for slowing the movement of the door 16 from velocity V1 to velocity V2 between door positions 30B to 30C is approximately 200-300 milliseconds. It is contemplated that the power assist device 10 will operate in this manner to absorb the energy from the slamming door motion along swing path 30 while the vehicle is in a key-off operation. Driving operation is not required for the slow close functionality. In this way, the power assist device 10 provides a gentle close or slow close for the door 16, even when a user attempts to slam the door 16 shut.”)
Regarding claim 24, Xiao as modified by Oakley teaches the method of claim 21, and Xiao further discloses: wherein the step of increasing the force to resist the external forces moving the closure member away from the door check position causes the actuator to apply the increased force on the closure member to resist a user moving the closure member with a resistance greater than a resistance holding the closure member in the door check position (see at least [0054]: “In some instances, instead of generating torque, the motor 92 may operate to resist torque applied to the door 16 from a source independent of the motor 92, such as torque exerted on the door 16 by a user ... According to one embodiment, the controller 110 controls a mechanical resistance applied by the motor 92 to the door 16 to resist door swing. The amount of mechanical resistance may be specified via the user-input device 122 and be a function of an angular position of the door 16…Additionally or alternatively, the amount of mechanical resistance may be a function of a door swing direction, thereby allowing a user to make mechanical resistance selections based on whether the door 16 is being opened or closed.”)
Regarding claim 26, Xiao as modified by Oakley teaches the method of claim 21, and Xiao further discloses: wherein adjusting increasing the force comprises increasing a resistance on the closure member in either of an open direction or a closed direction when a user moves the closure member away from the door check position (see at least [0046]: “The door checks are contemplated for use with an automatic door opening sequence powered by the power assist device 10 in the direction as indicated by arrow 100… In this way, the power assist device 10 can be preprogrammed by a user to open the door 16 to a desired door check position along the door swing path 30 and hold the door 16 at the selected door check position for the user to enter or exit the motor vehicle 12 without worry of the door 16 opening any further or possibly into an adjacent obstruction.” See further [0054]: “In some instances, instead of generating torque, the motor 92 may operate to resist torque applied to the door 16 from a source independent of the motor 92, such as torque exerted on the door 16 by a user or torque arising from environmental conditions, such as wind and gravity (due to the vehicle 12 being on an incline or decline). According to one embodiment, the controller 110 controls a mechanical resistance applied by the motor 92 to the door 16 to resist door swing.”)
Regarding claim 42, Xiao as modified by Oakley teaches the method of claim 21, and Xiao further discloses wherein the method further comprises using a controller configured to calculate increases in the force countering the external forces causing the closure member to move away from the door check position (see at least [0054]: “In some instances, instead of generating torque, the motor 92 may operate to resist torque applied to the door 16 from a source independent of the motor 92, such as torque exerted on the door 16 by a user or torque arising from environmental conditions, such as wind and gravity (due to the vehicle 12 being on an incline or decline). According to one embodiment, the controller 110 controls a mechanical resistance applied by the motor 92 to the door 16 to resist door swing.”)
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao and Oakley in view of Elie et al. (US 20170030118 A1), hereinafter Elie.
Regarding claim 28, Xiao as modified by Oakley teaches the method of claim 26. Xiao does not explicitly disclose, but Elie teaches: wherein increasing the force transitions from a resistive force to an assistive force after the closure member has moved away from the door check position by a certain amount (see at least [0050]: “It is noted that the signal from the door control device may be a signal requesting that a door be fully opened or moved to a predetermined detent position as well… Using the signal data from the one or more position sensors 25, the controller 11 identifies if the door 16 is in a proper position for closing the door 16 (step 156). A proper position can be determined by the torque required to close the door 16 from the position detected by the position sensors 25. For instance, with reference to Table 1 and FIG. 6, if the door 16 is in any one of the positions 30A, 30B or 30B2 when a door closing command is received, than the door 16 is far enough away from the vehicle body to generate inertia to close and latch the door 16. However, if the door 16 is in position 30C, or in a position between position 30C and 30B2 that would require a torque exceeding a predetermined threshold torque, such as more than 200 N.Math.m of torque, than the power assist device 10 may not be able to provide the necessary torque to close the door 16 from the hinge point 16B without bending the door 16. It is contemplated that the power assist device 10 functions properly and consistently with a standard door weighing 60-90 lbs at 250 N.Math.m of torque, and more preferably at 200 N.Math.m of torque or less. Therefore, if the door position is detected at a vehicle proximity or door angle that exceeds a predetermined torque threshold detected by the controller, the controller 11 will control the power assist device 10 to open the door 16 from the initial position (requiring an exceeding torque level) to a second position, which is the nearest position to accommodate a closing of the door 16 with a lower torque requirement (step 158).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Xiao with the force transitions as taught by Xiao because, as stated by Xiao [0002]: “Thus, a device is desired, wherein the door is opened and closed under the control of a power assistance device that is coupled to one or more hinges of the vehicle door, and further wherein the surrounding area in the path of the door swing is surveyed for clearance to open the door and for appropriate detent settings. A device having a confined overall package size is desired to carry out the power assist functionality within the standard confines of a vehicle door to vehicle body spacing. Further, a system and method of confirming a latched condition of a vehicle door when closed is desired.”
Claims 30, 31, 34, 35, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao and Oakley in view of McKee et al. (US 20100313477 A1), hereinafter McKee.
Regarding claim 30, Xiao discloses:
A power door actuation system for a door of a vehicle that is moveable relative to a vehicle body about a hinge axis between a closed position and a fully-open position the power door actuation system comprising: an actuator comprising an electric motor; (See at least [0035]: “The drive nut 144 of the power assist device 10 in turn displaces the drive cylinder 158 inwardly and outwardly, along with the exteriorly extending shaft 162. With the power assist device 10 coupled between the inner panel 19 via chassis mounted bracket 72 and the door mounting bracket 56, the rotating motion of the motor 92 of the power assist device 10 creates a pivoting motion of the door 16 between opened and closed positions. As further shown in FIG. 4B, the power assist device 10 has an electrical connector 98 disposed thereon for receiving signal information from the controller 110 (FIG. 10) for translating user commands into power assisted door functionality.”)
a geartrain coupled to the electric motor for receiving a motor output force from the electric motor (see at least [0040]: “In the second embodiment of the power assist device 10 shown in FIGS. 5A-E, the distal portion or drive shaft 80A of the output shaft 80 is operably coupled to a driven gear 204 disposed at the distal end or drive shaft 80A of the output shaft 80. The driven gear 204 is, in turn, operably coupled with a retractable check strap arm 206 attached to the chassis mounted bracket 72 extending through the check strap housing 202. In particular, the retractable check strap arm 206 is preferably configured as a curved structure provided with a rack gear 208 situated on an interior curved edge 210 thereon. As shown in FIGS. 5A-5C, the gear teeth 212 of the driven gear 204 engage the rack gear 208 of the retractable check strap arm 206 to drive the retractable check strap arm 206 inwardly and outwardly relative the check strap housing 202.”)
and an extensible member coupled to a geartrain output and configured for extension and retraction relative to a housing in response to actuation by the geartrain output, the extensible member being coupled to one of the door and the vehicle body (See at least [0041]: “As the output shaft 80 is driven by the motor 92 and drives the driven gear 204, the rotation of the driven gear teeth 212 engaged with the rack gear 208 on the retractable check strap arm 206 moves the retractable check strap arm 206 inwardly and outwardly relative the check strap housing 202. With the power assist device 10 coupled between the inner panel 19 via chassis mounting bracket 72 and the door mounting bracket 56, the retractable check strap arm 206 of the power assist device 10 creates a pivoting motion of the door 16 between opened and closed positions.”)
wherein the electric motor is operable in a power assist mode to output a force to assist a user manually moving the door (see at least [0054]: “As a user manually initiates a door slamming motion, the door 16 will move along the door swing path 30 at an initial velocity V1 (approximately 5-15 rpm) until the door 16 reaches position 30B. At approximately position 30B, the door 16 will slow to a velocity V2 (approximately 0.33 rpm) by a resistance force imparted by the power assist device 10 on the upper hinge assembly 32 to slow the door movement between positions 30B and 30C from velocity V1 to velocity V2.”)
wherein the electric motor is operable in an automatic mode to output a force to move the door without the user moving the door (see at least [0046]: “The door checks are contemplated for use with an automatic door opening sequence powered by the power assist device 10 in the direction as indicated by arrow 100.”)
Xiao fails to explicitly disclose:
a sensor configured to count revolutions of the electric motor;
wherein no clutch mechanism is provided between the electric motor and the extensible member such that the sensor provides absolute position information of the door;
wherein the electric motor is operable to resume the automatic mode after an interruption to the power assist mode in response to a resume command;
Oakley, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches:
a sensor configured to count revolutions of the electric motor (see at least [0014]: “Monitoring the rotational speed may include receiving the rotational speed from a hall sensor configured to detect the rotational speed of the drive shaft.”)
wherein no clutch mechanism is provided between the electric motor and the extensible member such that the sensor provides absolute position information of the door (see at least [0004]: “In particular, it would be advantageous to replace structural control mechanisms, such as clutches and positive temperature coefficient (PTC) thermal breakers, with electronic control mechanisms that can be applied without consuming valuable space within or near the motor housing.”)
McKee, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the electric motor is operable to resume the automatic mode after an interruption to the power assist mode in response to a resume command (see at least [0062]: “Additionally, should a safety switch be activated, the door may be reversed to a closed position or, preferably, a preset amount. Such reversal permits the safety hazard to be cleared and normal operation of the door may be resumed.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Xiao with the lack of a clutch between the electric motor and the output of the actuator because as stated by Oakley [0004], alternative control mechanisms “can be applied without consuming valuable space within or near the motor housing.” It would have further been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Xiao with the resume functionality as taught by McKee. This is because such a modification would reduce errors and user frustration in the case of an unexpected obstacle or emergency as discussed in McKee [0062]: “In addition, a lockout switch may be connected relative to the controller to override the outer door switch in favor of the inner door switch. The motor assist may be activated in response to a manual activation of an inside door handle. Additionally, should a safety switch be activated, the door may be reversed to a closed position or, preferably, a preset amount. Such reversal permits the safety hazard to be cleared and normal operation of the door may be resumed.”
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Xiao, Oakley, and McKee teaches the power door actuation system of claim 30.
Xiao does not explicitly disclose, but McKee, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches: The power door actuation system of claim 30, wherein the geartrain is operably coupled to the extensible member resume command comprises the user depressing an inside handle switch (see at least [0062]: “In addition, a lockout switch may be connected relative to the controller to override the outer door switch in favor of the inner door switch. The motor assist may be activated in response to a manual activation of an inside door handle. Additionally, should a safety switch be activated, the door may be reversed to a closed position or, preferably, a preset amount. Such reversal permits the safety hazard to be cleared and normal operation of the door may be resumed.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Xiao with the resume functionality as taught by McKee. This is because such a modification would reduce errors and user frustration in the case of an unexpected obstacle or emergency as discussed in McKee [0062]: “In addition, a lockout switch may be connected relative to the controller to override the outer door switch in favor of the inner door switch. The motor assist may be activated in response to a manual activation of an inside door handle. Additionally, should a safety switch be activated, the door may be reversed to a closed position or, preferably, a preset amount. Such reversal permits the safety hazard to be cleared and normal operation of the door may be resumed.”
Regarding claim 34, Xiao as modified by Oakley and McKee teaches the power door actuation system of claim 30, and Xiao further discloses: further comprising a controller configured to calculate a compensating net torque and supply a current to the electric motor using the compensating net torque (see at least [0054]: “In some instances, instead of generating torque, the motor 92 may operate to resist torque applied to the door 16 from a source independent of the motor 92, such as torque exerted on the door 16 by a user or torque arising from environmental conditions, such as wind and gravity (due to the vehicle 12 being on an incline or decline). According to one embodiment, the controller 110 controls a mechanical resistance applied by the motor 92 to the door 16 to resist door swing. The amount of mechanical resistance may be specified via the user-input device 122 and be a function of an angular position of the door 16. The amount of mechanical resistance for a given angular position of the door 16 may be selected from a range of available mechanical resistances or predetermined settings. Additionally or alternatively, the amount of mechanical resistance may be a function of a door swing direction, thereby allowing a user to make mechanical resistance selections based on whether the door 16 is being opened or closed.”)
Regarding claim 35, Xiao as modified by Oakley and McKee teaches the power door actuation system of claim 30, and Xiao further discloses: further comprising a controller configured to calculate a compensating torque about a door hinge axis negating an external force acting on the door relating to at least one of an inclination of the door (see at least [0047]: “Preferably, door opening and closing efforts can be reduced when the vehicle is parked on a hill or slope. The power assist device 10 is contemplated to be provided with signal information from the controller 110 to provide assistance in opening the door 16 in a slow and consistent manner when a vehicle position is declined, such that the door opening motion would generally be increased due to an downward angle of the motor vehicle 12 from the back to the front of the motor vehicle 12.”)
an inertia of the door (see at least [0044]: “The torque required to close the door 16 is shown in Table 1 as “with” and “without” inertia. For the purposes of this disclosure the term “with inertia” implies that the door 16 is shut from a distance sufficient to generate inertia in the door movement, such that less torque is required from the power assist device 10.”)
a friction resisting motion of the door, a dampening device acting on the door (see at least [0045-0046]: “The amount of time required for slowing the movement of the door 16 from velocity V1 to velocity V2 between door positions 30B to 30C is approximately 200-300 milliseconds. It is contemplated that the power assist device 10 will operate in this manner to absorb the energy from the slamming door motion along swing path 30 while the vehicle is in a key-off operation. Driving operation is not required for the slow close functionality. In this way, the power assist device 10 provides a gentle close or slow close for the door 16, even when a user attempts to slam the door 16 shut... The torque required to slow or stop the door 16 during the opening movement (swing path 30) is contemplated to be approximately 200 N/m and is further contemplated to take approximately 200-300 milliseconds during a user-initiated door opening sequence. Further, the power assist device 10 of the present concept provides the door 16 with an infinite number of detents (door checks) along the swing path 30.”)
and a force relating to a detent device (see at least [0046]: “The torque required to slow or stop the door 16 during the opening movement (swing path 30) is contemplated to be approximately 200 N/m and is further contemplated to take approximately 200-300 milliseconds during a user-initiated door opening sequence. Further, the power assist device 10 of the present concept provides the door 16 with an infinite number of detents (door checks) along the swing path 30.”)
Regarding claim 38, Xiao as modified by Oakley and McKee teaches the power door actuation system of claim 30, and Xiao further discloses: further comprising a controller configured to perform a boundary condition check prior to calculating the force (see at least [0046]: “With further reference to FIG. 8, a door opening direction is indicated by reference numeral 100. The door 16 of the present concept is contemplated to be in communication with a variety of sensors which are configured to detect an object positioned in the door swing path 30, such that the power assist device 10 of the present concept can slow or stop the door 16 to prevent the door 16 from opening into an object positioned along the door's swing path 30, when such an object is detected. The torque required to slow or stop the door 16 during the opening movement (swing path 30) is contemplated to be approximately 200 N/m and is further contemplated to take approximately 200-300 milliseconds during a user-initiated door opening sequence. Further, the power assist device 10 of the present concept provides the door 16 with an infinite number of detents (door checks) along the swing path 30.”)
Regarding claim 39, Xiao as modified by Oakley and McKee teaches the power door actuation system of claim 30, and Xiao further discloses: wherein the electric motor is operable to output a force that will resist motion of the door away from a position at which the user has stopped moving the door (see at least [0048]: “As already described herein, the motor 92 may act on the output shaft 80 (e.g., FIG. 4B) in a rotating manner, and the torque generated by the motor 92 may be used to assist a user in moving the door 16 between opened and closed positions, as well as various detent locations. Additionally, in some embodiments, the motor 92 may be configured to apply a mechanical resistance to the door 16 to resist door swing.”)
Claims 32, 33, 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao, Oakley and McKee further in view of Ghannam et al. (US 20180363353 A1), hereinafter Ghannam.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Xiao, Oakley, and McKee teaches the power door actuation system of claim 30.
Xiao does not explicitly disclose, but Ghannam, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches: The power door actuation system of claim 30, further comprising a controller configured to control the actuator and to start motion of the door after the resume command with a door motion profile that is the same as an original door motion profile before resumption (see at least [0042]: “At block 414, the door assister 132 determines whether a profile and/or settings is/are associated with the moving door. When a profile and/or settings is/are associated with the moving door, the method continues to block 416. Otherwise, when a profile and/or settings is/are not associated with the moving door, the method continues to block 418. At block 416, the door assister 132 determines the door adjustment force based on the roll and pitch angles of the vehicle 100, the environmental factors, the door movement classification, and the profile/settings information.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Xiao with the motion profile as taught by Ghannam. This is because certain parameters might be set by the occupant, as discussed in [0002] of Ghannam’s disclosure: “The muscle load and body kinematics required to open and close doors of a vehicle can vary based on various vehicle parameters and environmental factors. Often, the doors are hard to open and close, which can be difficult for drivers and passengers with reduced mobility and reduced strength.”
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Xiao, Oakley, McKee and Ghannam teaches the power door actuation system of claim 32.
Xiao does not explicitly disclose, but Ghannam, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to store system variables and data into a memory before interruption and recall the system variables and the data in response to receiving the resume command (see at least [0042]: “At block 414, the door assister 132 determines whether a profile and/or settings is/are associated with the moving door. When a profile and/or settings is/are associated with the moving door, the method continues to block 416. Otherwise, when a profile and/or settings is/are not associated with the moving door, the method continues to block 418. At block 416, the door assister 132 determines the door adjustment force based on the roll and pitch angles of the vehicle 100, the environmental factors, the door movement classification, and the profile/settings information.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Xiao with the motion profile as taught by Ghannam. This is because certain parameters might be set by the occupant, as discussed in [0002] of Ghannam’s disclosure: “The muscle load and body kinematics required to open and close doors of a vehicle can vary based on various vehicle parameters and environmental factors. Often, the doors are hard to open and close, which can be difficult for drivers and passengers with reduced mobility and reduced strength.”
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Xiao, Oakley, and McKee teaches the power door actuation system of claim 30.
Xiao does not explicitly disclose, but Ghannam, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches wherein the power door actuation system of claim 30 further comprises: a controller configured to control the actuator to control motion of the door after the resume command so as not to overshoot a speed of door profile motion profile to reduce occurrence of oscillation of the door (see at least [0042]: “At block 414, the door assister 132 determines whether a profile and/or settings is/are associated with the moving door. When a profile and/or settings is/are associated with the moving door, the method continues to block 416. Otherwise, when a profile and/or settings is/are not associated with the moving door, the method continues to block 418. At block 416, the door assister 132 determines the door adjustment force based on the roll and pitch angles of the vehicle 100, the environmental factors, the door movement classification, and the profile/settings information.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Xiao with the motion profile as taught by Ghannam. This is because certain parameters might be set by the occupant, as discussed in [0002] of Ghannam’s disclosure: “The muscle load and body kinematics required to open and close doors of a vehicle can vary based on various vehicle parameters and environmental factors. Often, the doors are hard to open and close, which can be difficult for drivers and passengers with reduced mobility and reduced strength.”
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Xiao, Oakley, and McKee teaches the power door actuation system of claim 30.
Xiao does not explicitly disclose, but Ghannam, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches wherein the power door actuation system of claim 30 further comprises: a controller configured to control the actuator to have continuity of operation without any discrete change in state and controlling variables in response to switching between the automatic mode and the power assist mode (see at least [0042]: “At block 414, the door assister 132 determines whether a profile and/or settings is/are associated with the moving door. When a profile and/or settings is/are associated with the moving door, the method continues to block 416. Otherwise, when a profile and/or settings is/are not associated with the moving door, the method continues to block 418. At block 416, the door assister 132 determines the door adjustment force based on the roll and pitch angles of the vehicle 100, the environmental factors, the door movement classification, and the profile/settings information.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Xiao with the motion profile as taught by Ghannam. This is because certain parameters might be set by the occupant, as discussed in [0002] of Ghannam’s disclosure: “The muscle load and body kinematics required to open and close doors of a vehicle can vary based on various vehicle parameters and environmental factors. Often, the doors are hard to open and close, which can be difficult for drivers and passengers with reduced mobility and reduced strength.”
Claims 41, 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao and Oakley in view of Scheuring et al. (US 20140150581 A1), hereinafter Scheuring.
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Xiao and Oakley teaches the method of claim 21. Xiao does not explicitly disclose, but Scheuring, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches wherein the method further comprises detecting a motion input of a user manually moving the closure member to transition the closure member from an automatic mode to a power assist mode (see at least [0033]: “In the case where the control system 154 determines that signals indicate that the user wants a manual opening of the swing door 102, the control system 154 energizes the clutch 136 at step 210 (FIG. 4a) and enters a manual opening mode 212… The control system 154 waits for further input from the user, either in the form of a power open or power close command at step 222 via the remote key fob or some other way, or by determining that the vehicle user desires to manually move the swing door 102 at step 224 as a result of changing Hall counts instigated by manual movement of the swing door 102… In the case where the control system 154 determines that the user desires to manually move the swing door 102, control is passed back to step 210 for manual movement of the swing door 102.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Xiao with the method of detecting manual control by a user as taught by Scheuring. This is because, as discussed in [0006] of Scheuring’s disclosure: “There are many vehicles that have a "power assist door close" or "soft-close" feature which draws the door in (cinches) once it gets to an almost-closed position. Typically this feature is combined with an infinite door check feature. In addition, there are commercially available power-sliding doors for minivans or similar vehicles. However, it would be desirable to provide a fully-powered open and close capability for a swing door. It would also be useful to provide a power swing door actuator with an infinite door check function. In addition, it would be useful to provide a power swing door actuator with optional manual capability so as enable the user to manually open and close the swing door with substantially no more effort than is typically necessary with some conventional manual doors.”
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Xiao and Oakley teaches the method of claim 21. Xiao does not explicitly disclose, but Scheuring, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches wherein the method further comprises configuring a controller to control motion of the closure member in a power assist mode after a user had moved the closure member past a release angular position (see at least [0033]: “In the case where the control system 154 determines that signals indicate that the user wants a manual opening of the swing door 102, the control system 154 energizes the clutch 136 at step 210 (FIG. 4a) and enters a manual opening mode 212… The control system 154 waits for further input from the user, either in the form of a power open or power close command at step 222 via the remote key fob or some other way, or by determining that the vehicle user desires to manually move the swing door 102 at step 224 as a result of changing Hall counts instigated by manual movement of the swing door 102… In the case where the control system 154 determines that the user desires to manually move the swing door 102, control is passed back to step 210 for manual movement of the swing door 102.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Xiao with the method of detecting manual control by a user as taught by Scheuring. This is because, as discussed in [0006] of Scheuring’s disclosure: “There are many vehicles that have a "power assist door close" or "soft-close" feature which draws the door in (cinches) once it gets to an almost-closed position. Typically this feature is combined with an infinite door check feature. In addition, there are commercially available power-sliding doors for minivans or similar vehicles. However, it would be desirable to provide a fully-powered open and close capability for a swing door. It would also be useful to provide a power swing door actuator with an infinite door check function. In addition, it would be useful to provide a power swing door actuator with optional manual capability so as enable the user to manually open and close the swing door with substantially no more effort than is typically necessary with some conventional manual doors.”
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao and Oakley in view of Rogers et al. (US 5361540 A), hereinafter Rogers.
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Xiao and Oakley teaches the method of claim 21. Xiao does not explicitly disclose, but Rogers, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches wherein the method further comprises: configuring a controller to control the actuator to return the closure member back to the door check position if a deviation of the closure member does not exceed an angular change in a position of the closure member (see at least Col. 3 lines 42-53: “To pull the door closed from the position shown in FIG. 1, the door will be pulled until surface 34 of the detent plate 26 engages a front surface 92 of the striker. Front surface 92 and surface 34 of the locking member 32 are configured in a manner such that a pull upon the door 4 causes the force transmittal to go through the center line 88 of the pivot pin 24, thereby achieving what is referred to as a zero backoff angle. Continued pulling on the door will cause the detent plate 26 to be translated rearwardly against the action of the spring 60.”
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Xiao with the method of returning the door to the checked position as taught by Rogers. This is because as stated in the background section of Rogers’ disclosure: “ It would be advantageous if a door checking system was arranged wherein the door would automatically be detented in the open position, would maintain that detented position even when the vehicle is parked on a steep slope and would allow the use of manual or automatic door opening systems wherein the door could then be closed without the expense of an added automatic release system or handle and would also allow the door to close by simply manually pulling the door closed.”
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao, Oakley and McKee in view of Partsch et al. (US 20190112858 A1), hereinafter Partsch.
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Xiao, Oakley and McKee teaches the power door actuation system of claim 30. Xiao does not explicitly disclose, but Partsch, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches wherein the system further comprises: a controller configured to control the actuator and to: determine whether the door has stopped at an angle less than a small angle position in response to receiving the resume command; and execute a small angle close routine in response to determining the door has stopped at the angle less than the small angle position (see at least [0038]: “As illustrated in velocity profile 500, a door may begin moving at start time 502, reach peak velocity 510 at start time 502 plus ramp-up time 504. Controller 100 may compare the detected open-door angle with a predetermined angle. Various values for the predetermined angle are contemplated, including, e.g., 20 degrees. When determining that the open-door angle is less than the predetermined angle, the control may skip braking mechanism 128 all together, and the actuator may control the door closing directly. The door may begin to slow down according to velocity profile 500, until the door reaches a ramp-down time 506 where, for example, cinching actuator 404 may take over from actuator 124 to quickly finish closing and sealing a vehicle door.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Xiao with the small angle closure as taught by Partsch. This is because as stated in the Background section of Partsch’s disclosure: “Although automatically closing a vehicle door may be easy to implement, there are some shortcomings. For example, when an actuator closes a powered door, the door may close at an untenable and/or unsafe velocity, may shake or jitter, or may fully close without a tight seal. In particular, when a user of the vehicle slams the door, the velocity may be particularly high and does not sufficiently slow down at closing. This may cause permanent damage to the door and/or vehicle. Therefore, it may be beneficial to control operation of one or more actuators and/or other vehicle components to ensure a proper closing of a vehicle door.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH NELESKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6064. The examiner can normally be reached 10 - 6.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/E.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658