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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered.
In regards to the independent claims 1 and 13, Applicant argues Hermann (US 20180023330) does not teach or suggest the newly recited acceleration sensor located within a door lock or deriving an adjustment position from the lock mounted acceleration sensor and subsequent powered adjustment after manual adjustment. Applicant argues the Office’s broad interpretation of adjustment position is inconsistent with the amended claim language and the claims now require the adjustment position be determined using the measurement signal from the lock mounted acceleration sensor and that a parameter value representative of the determined adjustment position be generated and subsequently used to command the drive device to perform a power operated adjustment about the pivot axis after manual adjustment. Therefore, Applicant argues Herman does not anticipate independent claims 1 and 13
Indeed, Herman alone does not teach each and every feature of the amended independent claims 1 and 13, as the amendment has necessitated the incorporation of previously cited reference Johnson (US 20160343188) which teaches incorporating an accelerometer into a vehicle door lock, where Herman depicts such a vehicle lock as located at a distal end of a door opposite a pivot end of the door at least in figures 1A and 1B. As such, this portion of the arguments are moot.
Further, the claims have canceled all limitations reciting deriving any sort of adjustment position and instead merely the accelerometer generically determines a measurement signal, and then the door drive is actuated in some way based on the measurement signal during or after manual adjustment, without any sort of adjustment position ever being derived. In fact, not once is such an adjustment position recited within any of the claims as now amended. As such, by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the claims do not cover the applicant’s argued deriving of an adjustment position form the lock mounted acceleration sensor and subsequent powered adjustment after manual adjustment. Further, there is no inconsistency with the Office’s previous interpretation of an adjustment position and any currently recited adjustment position within the claims because the claims never recite or further define the adjustment position. The claims do not appear to require at any point that the adjustment position be determined using the measurement signal for the lock mounted acceleration sensor and that a parameter value representative of the determined adjustment position be generated and used to command the drive device to perform an operation. Instead the claims only recite a drive device which provides powered operation of a door with an acceleration sensor in a lock at the far end of a pivot axis, where the acceleration sensor provides a measurement signal, which is then used to control a vehicle door during or after manual movement of the door. The claims do not recite any adjustment position, derivation of the adjustment position, parameter value, or that command of powered operation of the door is based on the parameter value. If the Applicant believes these features to be key to their invention, the Examiner strongly encourages the Applicant to amend the claims to actually recite such features, rather than merely arguing features the claims simply do not reflect.
As such, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues Johnson does not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and only hindsight reasoning could be used to incorporate the reference into any such rejection.
However, Johnson does remedy the deficiencies of Hermann for the reasons and motivation explicitly provided below. As the Applicant has provided no explanation of why this would be hindsight, and merely instead relied upon conclusory statements, it is difficult to provide a detailed response to the Applicant. No impermissible hindsight has at any point been taken and Johnson as modified into Hermann reads comfortably upon the amended claims. If the Applicant firmly believes impermissible hindsight to be taken, the Examiner strongly encourages the Applicant to provide substantial arguments explaining the details of why they believe impermissible hindsight has been taken.
As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues Herman does not teach the limitations of dependent claims 6 and 17.
As the applicant has provided solely conclusory statement with no details of their arguments, it is difficult to fully respond. For the reasons as previously laid out and repeated below, the Examiner finds that Herman teaches the limitations of these claims. If the Applicant firmly believes these features to be lacking, the Examiner strongly encourages the Applicant to provide substantial arguments explaining the details of why they believe such features to be lacking.
As such, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the remaining references do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims and broadly do not teach the limitations they have been cited for.
As the applicant has provided solely conclusory statement with no details of their arguments, it is difficult to fully respond. For the reasons as previously laid out and given below, the Examiner finds that the references provide the teachings they have been asserted to provide and comfortably teach the limitations of the corresponding claims. If the Applicant firmly believes these features to be lacking, the Examiner strongly encourages the Applicant to provide substantial arguments explaining the details of why they believe such features to be lacking.
As such, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: recites “providing power-operated adjustment of a vehicle door of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle door or the liftgate” (emphasis added) however no such “liftgate” has been previously introduced, as such this has been interpreted to read “providing power-operated adjustment of a vehicle door of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle door or a liftgate” (emphasis added). Claim 13 also recites “the liftgate and the comprises” which should read “the liftgate and the vehicle door or liftgate comprises” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 13, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al. (US 20180023330) in view of Johnson (US 20160343188).
In regards to claim 1, Hermann teaches an electronics system for use in a vehicle, the electronics system comprising: (Fig 1A, 1B, 2.)
a drive device for a power-operated adjustment of a vehicle door, wherein the vehicle door is pivotable about a pivot axis at a first end of the vehicle door and comprises a lock distant from the pivot axis at a second end of the vehicle door; ([0041] door drive provides for power-operated door adjustment of the door and manual adjustment based on sensor information. Fig 1A, 1B door pivots about hinge at one end, which is a first axis, and includes lock at opposite end from pivot.)
an acceleration sensor configured to provide a measurement signal; ([0047] control device is connected to a sensors, including acceleration sensor 31, which measures acceleration.) and
an electronic control unit configured to, responsive to a manual adjustment of the vehicle door or after the manual adjustment of the vehicle door, command the drive device to perform, based on the measurement signal, a power operated adjustment of the vehicle door about the pivot axis. ([0041], [0042], [0047], [0048] control device actuates door drive in different ways based on sensor information. door is operated in both manual and powered modes and acceleration sensor determines operating event of user manually operating door, which is interpreted by control device including an interpretation of the door position. This determines at least whether the door is being closed or opened, which includes that the door is relatively open and being closed or relatively closed and being opened, all of which may be an adjustment position. Then door is actuated within permitted adjustment range using door drive and/or manual operation, which includes a subsequent activation of the door after a manual adjustment based on acceleration sensor measurements to pivot the door about the door’s pivot axis.)
Hermann does not teach:
an acceleration sensor disposed on or within the lock of the vehicle door
However, Johnson teaches a smart lock equipped with an accelerometer that may be installed within vehicle doors ([0022], [0122], [0145]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the door control system of Hermann, by incorporating the teachings of Johnson, such that the lock of the door of Hermann includes the accelerometer.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Johnson, this allows for remote locking and unlocking of the door ([0022]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized improves convenience of the driver and passengers.
In regards to claim 6, Hermann, as modified by Johnson, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to generate and provide a control signal to the drive device, wherein the control signal is based on the measurement signal, wherein the drive device is configured to, responsive to receiving the control signal, ([0048] control unit varies activation of drive motor of door drive by adjusting duration or speed based on sensor information.)
at least partially decouple the vehicle door from a drive motor of the drive device, ([0041], [0047], [0048] when manual operation is detected from the sensors, the drive motor of the drive device may be decoupled.) or
vary an adjusting movement of the vehicle door as the vehicle door is adjusted. ([0048] vehicle door is actuated by door drive in different ways depending on the detected conditions and situation.)
In regards to claim 13, Hermann teaches a method of providing power-operated adjustment of a vehicle door of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle door or the liftgate is pivotable about a pivot axis at a first end of the vehicle door or of the liftgate and the comprises a lock distant from the pivot axis at a second end of the vehicle door or the liftgate, the method comprising: (Fig 4, [0041] door drive provides for power-operated door adjustment of the door and manual adjustment based on sensor information. Fig 1A, 1B door pivots about hinge at one end, which is a first axis, and includes lock at opposite end from pivot.)
receiving, by an electronic control unit, a measurement signal from the acceleration sensor, wherein the measurement signal is generated by the acceleration sensor during a manual adjustment of the vehicle door or the liftgate or after manual adjustment of the of the vehicle door or the liftgate; ([0041], [0042], [0047], [0061] control device is connected to a sensors, including acceleration sensor, including while a user manually adjusts the door. The door is operated in both manual and powered modes and the acceleration sensor determines an operating event of a user manually operating the door. This occurs along with step A1. This determines at least whether the door is being closed or opened, which includes that the door is relatively open and being closed or relatively closed and being opened, which is a measurement signal during or after a manual adjustment.) and
controlling, by the electronic control unit and based on the measurement signal, a drive device to provide power-operated adjustment of the vehicle door or the liftgate about the pivot axis. ([0041], [0042], [0047], [0048] control device actuates door drive in different ways based on sensor information. door is operated in both manual and powered modes and acceleration sensor determines operating event of user manually operating door, which is interpreted by control device including an interpretation of the door position. This determines at least whether the door is being closed or opened, which includes that the door is relatively open and being closed or relatively closed and being opened, all of which may be an adjustment position. Then door is actuated within permitted adjustment range using door drive and/or manual operation, which includes a subsequent activation of the door after a manual adjustment based on acceleration sensor measurements to pivot the door about the door’s pivot axis. [0061], [0062] this occurs in steps A2 and A3.)
Hermann does not teach:
wherein an acceleration sensor is disposed on or within the lock,
However, Johnson teaches a smart lock equipped with an accelerometer that may be installed within vehicle doors ([0022], [0122], [0145]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the door control method of Hermann, by incorporating the teachings of Johnson, such that the lock of the door of Hermann includes the accelerometer.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Johnson, this allows for remote locking and unlocking of the door ([0022]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized improves convenience of the driver and passengers.
In regards to claim 17, Hermann, as modified by Johnson teaches the method of claim 16.
Claim 17 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 6 above, therefore claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
In regards to claim 22, Hermann teaches a system for use in a vehicle, the electronics system comprising: (Fig 1A, 1B, 2.)
a drive device for a power-operated adjustment of a vehicle door, wherein the vehicle door is pivotable about a pivot axis at a first end of the vehicle door and comprises a lock distant from the pivot axis at a second end of the vehicle door; ([0041] door drive provides for power-operated door adjustment of the door and manual adjustment based on sensor information. Fig 1A, 1B door pivots about hinge at one end, which is a first axis, and includes lock at opposite end from pivot.)
an acceleration sensor configured to provide a measurement signal; ([0047] control device is connected to a sensors, including acceleration sensor 31, which measures acceleration.) and
an electronic control unit configured to command the drive device to provide power-operated adjustment about the pivot axis based on the measured signal. ([0041], [0042], [0047], [0048] control device actuates door drive in different ways based on sensor information. door is operated in both manual and powered modes and acceleration sensor determines operating event of user manually operating door, which is interpreted by control device including an interpretation of the door position. This determines at least whether the door is being closed or opened, which includes that the door is relatively open and being closed or relatively closed and being opened, all of which may be an adjustment position. Then door is actuated within permitted adjustment range using door drive and/or manual operation, which includes a subsequent activation of the door after a manual adjustment based on acceleration sensor measurements to pivot the door about the door’s pivot axis.)
Hermann does not teach:
an acceleration sensor disposed on or within the lock
However, Johnson teaches a smart lock equipped with an accelerometer that may be installed within vehicle doors ([0022], [0122], [0145]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the door control system of Hermann, by incorporating the teachings of Johnson, such that the lock of the door of Hermann includes the accelerometer.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Johnson, this allows for remote locking and unlocking of the door ([0022]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized improves convenience of the driver and passengers.
Claims 4, 5, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann in view of Johnson, in further view of Voit et al. (DE 102016223701).
In regards to claim 4, Hermann, as modified by Johnson, teaches the system of claim 1.
Hermann, as modified by Johnson, does not teach: wherein the electronic control unit is configured to generate and provide a control signal to the drive device based on the measurement signal wherein the control signal is superimposed on a motor signal to control an electric drive motor of the drive device.
However, Voit teaches superimposing a signal on the driving motor to reduce the noise of the motor, where the motor controls a door of a vehicle (Page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the door control system of Hermann, as already modified by Johnson, by incorporating the teachings of Voit, such that a superimposing signal is place on the driving motor of the drive device by the control unit.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Voit, this allows for a reduction in noise (Page 8) and therefore an increase in comfort of the driver and occupants of the vehicle.
In regards to claim 5, Hermann, as modified by Johnson and Voit, teaches the system of claim 4.
Voit teaches superimposing a signal on the driving motor to reduce the noise of the motor, where the motor controls a door of a vehicle (Page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the door control system of Hermann, as already modified by Johnson and Voit, by further incorporating the teachings of Voit, such that a superimposing signal is place on the driving motor of the drive device by the control unit providing active noise cancellation.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Voit in regards to claim 4.
In regards to claim 16, Hermann, as modified by Johnson, teaches the method of claim 13.
Claim 16 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 4 above, therefore claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
In regards to claim 19, Hermann, as modified by Johnson, teaches the method of claim 13.
Claim 19 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 5 above, therefore claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann in view of Johnson, in further view of Cumbo (US 20200270928).
In regards to claim 7, Hermann, as modified by Johnson teaches the system of claim 6.
Hermann, as modified by Johnson, does not teach: wherein the drive device is configured to, responsive to receiving the control signal, actuate an overload clutch of the drive device in order to at least partially decouple the vehicle door from the drive motor of the drive device.
However, Cumbo teaches operating an overload clutch to adjust a door of a vehicle based on a received control signal of the load on a door, allowing for pivoting of the door ([0015], [0038], [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the door control system of Hermann, as already modified by Johnson, by incorporating the teachings of Cumbo, such that an overload clutch is actuated allowing for pivoting of the door, when control signals are received from the control device of Hermann based on the sensor information which at least partially decouples the door from the drive motor.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Cumbo, this allows for a highly applicable power door operation that has a reduced cost and complexity ([0008]).
In regards to claim 18, Hermann, as modified by Johnson, teaches the method of claim 17.
Claim 18 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 7 above, therefore claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann in view of Johnson and Cumbo, in further view of Fukui et al. (US 20130024076).
In regards to claim 8, Hermann, as modified by Johnson and Cumbo, teaches the system of claim 7.
Hermann, as modified by Johnson and Cumbo, does not teach: wherein drive device is configured to, responsive to receiving the control signal,
actuate a brake of the drive device and/or
open a motor terminal of an electric drive motor of the drive device to vary the adjusting movement of the vehicle door as the vehicle door is adjusted.
However, Fukui teaches incorporate a brake control portion that controls braking of a power door control of a vehicle at least based on the speed of the door ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the door control system of Hermann, as already modified by Johnson and Cumbo, by incorporating the teachings of Fukui such that the door drive of Hermann includes a brake control portion that actuates a brake of the door drive based on control signals from the control device of Herman from the sensor information.
The motivation to do so is that as acknowledged by Fukui, this prevents the doors from moving too fast ([0041]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized either may cause damage or be dangerous, and thereby be uncomfortable for a driver or occupant.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann in view of Johnson, in further view of Non-patent Literature “Understanding the Servo Signal” (“Servo”).
In regards to claim 23, Hermann teaches an electronics system for use in a vehicle, the electronics system comprising: (Fig 1A, 1B, 2.)
a drive device for a power-operated adjustment of a vehicle door, wherein the vehicle door is pivotable about a pivot axis at a first end of the vehicle door, and comprises a lock distant from the pivot axis at a second end of the vehicle door; ([0041] door drive provides for power-operated door adjustment of the door and manual adjustment based on sensor information. Fig 1A, 1B door pivots about hinge at one end, which is a first axis, and includes lock at opposite end from pivot.)
an acceleration sensor configured to provide a measurement signal; ([0047] control device is connected to a sensors, including acceleration sensor 31, which measures acceleration.) and
an electronic control unit configured to, responsive to a manual adjustment of the vehicle door of the vehicle or after the manual adjustment of the vehicle door, control the drive device to provide power-operated adjustment of the vehicle door after the manual adjustment based on the measurement signal, ([0041], [0042], [0047], [0048] control device actuates door drive in different ways based on sensor information. door is operated in both manual and powered modes and acceleration sensor determines operating event of user manually operating door, which is interpreted by control device including an interpretation of the door position. This determines at least whether the door is being closed or opened, which includes that the door is relatively open and being closed or relatively closed and being opened, all of which may be an adjustment position. Then door is actuated within permitted adjustment range using door drive and/or manual operation, which includes a subsequent activation of the door after a manual adjustment based on acceleration sensor measurements to pivot the door about the door’s pivot axis.)
Hermann does not teach:
an acceleration sensor disposed on or within the lock
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control the drive motor via control signals having an S-shaped profile over time.
However, Johnson teaches a smart lock equipped with an accelerometer that may be installed within vehicle doors ([0022], [0122], [0145]).
Further, Servo teaches that an S-curve profile is widely used in many drive systems (Page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the door control system of Hermann, by incorporating the teachings of Johnson and Servo, such that the lock of the door of Hermann includes the accelerometer and an S-curve profile is used.
The motivation to use an accelerometer in a door lock is that, as acknowledged by Johnson, this allows for remote locking and unlocking of the door ([0022]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized improves convenience of the driver and passengers. The motivation to do use an S-curve profile is that, as acknowledged by Servo, this gives the smoothest response to large mechanical loads (Page 2).
In regards to claim 24, Servo teaches an S-curve profile of particularly a sigmoid function, is widely used in many drive systems (Page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the door control system of Hermann, as already modified by Johnson and Servo, by further incorporating the teachings of Servo, such that particularly a sigmoid function is used.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Servo in regards to claim 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kojima et al. (US 20150096233) teaches applying regenerative braking to a door power operation of a vehicle.
Xu et al. (CN 104453532) teaches a vehicle door with an acceleration sensor.
Non-patent Literature Shin et al. “Corrective Learning of Assistance Force for Opening/Closing of Automobile Door Based on Support Vector Machine” teaches motor assistance control for operating a vehicle door using a sigmoid function.
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 MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya Burgess can be reached on Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661