DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 03/05/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended;
Claims 2, 9 and 16 were previously cancelled.
Therefore, Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are pending examination, in which Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations: "and wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles, and… wherein the generated plan includes instructions to engage and lock or disengage a portion of the first subset and the second subset in a position required for the contextual orientation";
“Applicant submits neither Salter, McGoff, Bilyard, nor Hernvall teach the amended limitations of "wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles" and "wherein the generated plan includes instructions to engage and lock or disengage a portion of the first subset and the second subset in a position required for the contextual orientation". Thus, the Salter, McGoff, Bilyard, and Hernvall references fail to disclose, suggest, or render predictable "wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles" and "wherein the generated plan includes instructions to engage and lock or disengage a portion of the first subset and the second subset in a position required for the contextual orientation". Therefore, for at least the above reasons, independent claim 1 is patentable over Salter, McGoff, Bilyard, and Hernvall.”.
Applicant's arguments A. and B. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over combination of Salter et al. (US 11,091,949 B2, henceforth Salter), McGoff et al. (US 8,740,279 B1, henceforth McGoff), Bilyard et al. (US 6,764,123 A, henceforth Bilyard), and Hernvall et al. (US 2022/0185163 A1, henceforth Hernvall).
Regarding Claim 1, Salter explicitly recites the limitations: a processor-implemented {control module 60, Fig. 8, and “a controller (e.g., in a liftgate control module)”, Col. 4, Lns. 4-5} method, the method comprising: determining, by a processor {control module 60, Fig. 8}, that an occurrence of a cargo loading or unloading activity {“The liftgate and its mounting components are configured to provide an opening height that is sufficient to facilitate loading and unloading of cargo while providing enough space to allow a user to walk beneath the opened liftgate without hitting their head”, Col. 1, Lns. 29-33} utilizing a vehicle access point {opening in vehicle 10 created by opening of liftgate 11, Figs. 1-2} is to occur within a preconfigured period of time {“step 55 tracks the moving objects to determine whether all moving objects vacate the predetermined zone for a predetermined time (e.g., about 10 seconds) sufficiently long to indicate that the persons are done loading/unloading. If the predetermined zone is vacated for the predetermined time, then an automatic closing operation is attempted. First, a warning is generated in step 56 by flashing vehicle exterior lights and chirping the horn. Then a check is performed in step 57 for a user response that may cancel the automatic closing operation”, Col. 6, Lns. 22-30 and Fig. 7}; identifying a contextual orientation of a door of the vehicle access point {liftgate 11, Figs. 1-2} based on environmental data of terrain and obstacles {object detection 46 and 54 in Figs. 6-7, respectively, corresponding to detection of location/position in the vicinity of the rear of a vehicle of a person 26 in Fig. 3, and objects 31-35 in Fig. 4} within a preconfigured distance of the door as captured by onboard sensors {the distance/proximity sensors corresponding to “sensor array 30” in Fig. 4 (i.e., “sensor array 30 for detecting objects in a detection zone behind vehicle 10”) have limited functional range, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, thus obstacles (such as the person in Figs. 1-3), or an equivalent object in the “detection zone” - be it a parking barrier, a tree, a mound of dirt, a bicycle, etc. – will only be detected within the functional range of the sensors}, the activity {loading and unloading, Col. 1, Lns. 29-33}, vehicle components {liftgate 11, Figs. 1-2, and liftgate actuator 61, Fig. 8}, and historical data {“The determined opening height is also stored in memory in order to make the most recent historical value available for use as a default value when the liftgate is opened at a later time without a person being detected.”, Col. 7, Lns. 9-23}, and wherein the onboard sensors comprise a proximity sensor, a light sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and a sound sensor {use of multiple sensors: “As shown in FIG. 2, vehicle 10 includes an active sensor system 20 performing object detection. Sensor system 20 may preferably be comprised of an array of ultrasonic sensors which is commonly employed on vehicles as a backup aid for detecting crossing traffic and other object while backing up the vehicle. In order to differentiate between persons and other objects, a backup camera system 21”, Col. 2, Ln. 67 – Col. 3, Ln. 15; one skilled in the art will appreciate that combinations of standard sensors to detect object and obstacles are well known}; generating a plan to for opening the door according to the identified contextual orientation {“3) determines a user height according to the respective image location and distance of at least one respective person visible in the search image, and 4) sets the variable opening height in response to the user height.”, Abstract}; and wherein the plan comprises opening the door according to the generated plan {“initiating the automatic opening of the liftgate”, Col. 3, Lns. 58-59 and Fig. 3, via sensors 30 in Fig. 4; and flowcharts for the method of opening and closing the liftgate are provided in Figs. 6-7, respectively; steps 51 and 52, detect and open liftgate, Fig. 6, and steps 55 and 58 identify the absence of people/objects in liftgate zone and closing of liftgate, Fig. 7}.
Salter does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the door has one or more hinges on two or more sides of a door frame, and wherein the door comprises an array of flat surface panels connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions and is customizable in size and type based on an engagement and a disengagement of a first subset and a second subset of hinges in the array of flat surface panels; and wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles, and wherein identifying the contextual orientation further comprises: identifying a type of vehicle involved; wherein the plan comprises engaging or disengaging the one or more hinges on a side of the two or more sides; wherein the generated plan includes instructions to engage and lock or disengage a portion of the first subset and the second subset in a position required for the contextual orientation; and engaging hinges according to the generated plan.
However, McGoff explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the door has one or more hinges on two or more sides of a door frame {dual pairs of hinges 252, plus associated electro-mechanical latches 170, in Fig. 2: “Doors 40, 44 can be pivotably coupled to the respective upper members 114 via hinges 252, as shown in FIG. 2 with reference to FIG. 5. Doors 40, 44 can also be selectively coupled to the second strikers 178 via the second latches 184, as shown for example in FIG. 6 with reference to FIG. 2.”, Col. 5, Lns. 14-18}, and wherein the door comprises panels {doors 40, 44, Fig. 3} and is customizable in size and type based on an engagement and a disengagement of a first subset and a second subset of hinges in the array of flat surface panels {dual pairs of hinges 252, allowing doors 40/44 to swing open, Fig. 2: “Doors 40, 44 can be pivotably coupled to the respective upper members 114 via hinges 252, as shown in FIG. 2 with reference to FIG. 5.”, Col. 5, Lns. 14-16; and electro-mechanical latches 170 and rotational couplings 154/158, allow the doors to fold down as in Figs. 4A&6: “the outer couplings 154 and inner couplings 158 together with the central coupling member 164 can facilitate independent rotation of each L-frame 104, 108 about the horizontal axis 128”, Col. 4, Lns. 38-41}; wherein the generated plan includes instructions to engage and lock or disengage a portion of the first subset and the second subset in a position required for the contextual orientation {the choice of swing-open configuration, Fig. 5, or fold-down configuration, Fig. 6, for multifunctional tailgate 10, Fig. 1 is generated by the electronics and software associated with the operation of control modules 258, 262, Fig. 9A, via touchpads 86, 90, Figs. 9B-9C: “Actuation of one or both of the first and second sets of touchpads in various different configurations can facilitate opening one or both of the first and second doors independent of or with each other in a first configuration pivoting about the first axis with the respective frame members or in a second configuration pivoting about the second axis relative to the respective frame members between open and closed positions.”, Col. 1, Lns. 46-53} and engaging hinges according to the generated plan {the combination of hinges, latches and coupling allowing door or doors to swing open as in Fig. 3, and the combination of hinges, latches and coupling allowing door or doors to fold down as in Fig. 5}.
Salter and McGoff are analogous art because they both deal with accessing a vehicle compart that includes a door or gate covering all or part of the compartment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Salter and McGoff before them, to modify the teachings of Salter to include the teachings of McGoff to make it easier and more convenient to load and unload a vehicle by allowing a door to both swing open and fold down {Figs. 2-6}.
The combination of Salter and McGoff does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the door comprises an array of flat surface panels connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions; and wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles, and wherein identifying the contextual orientation further comprises: identifying an orientation of the door based on a type of vehicle involved.
However, Bilyard, explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the door comprises an array of flat surface panels connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions {“Folding Tailgate Extension 10 comprises three essentially rectangular panels 12, 14, 16 connected to each other by hinges 20”, Col. 3, Lns. 56-58 and Figs. 1-2}.
The combination of Salter, McGoff and Bilyard are analogous art because they deal with accessing a vehicle compart that includes a door or gate covering all or part of the compartment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Salter, McGoff and Bilyard before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Salter and McGoff to include the teachings of Bilyard to make it easier and more convenient to load and unload a vehicle {Figs. 1-2}.
The combination of Salter, McGoff and Bilyard does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles; and wherein identifying the contextual orientation further comprises: identifying an orientation of the door based on a type of vehicle involved.
However, Hernvall explicitly recites limitation: and wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles; and wherein identifying the contextual orientation further comprises: identifying a type of vehicle involved {with respect to Figs. 1-5, vehicle access opening door 200 – termed a “load handling arrangement”, ¶[0065] – can take multiple different forms, to aid in the loading and unloading of vehicle/trailer 120, depending on the nature of the platform (i.e., stationary ground portion 106) the contents of vehicle 120 are being transferred to; one skilled in the art will that the bridging of the gap between vehicle 120 and stationary ground portion 106 is comparable to bridging the gap in vehicle-to-vehicle load transfer, and that communication for the “second vehicle” in a vehicle-to-vehicle load transfer is provided by the control station}.
The combination of Salter, McGoff and Bilyard and Hernvall are analogous art because they deal with accessing a vehicle compart that includes a door or gate covering all or part of the compartment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Salter, McGoff and Bilyard to include the teachings of Hernvall to enable a trailer door to take various configuration during an unloading process to adapt to a multitude of factors that may impact each individual unloading process {Figs. 1-5}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the door is supported by a support device, and wherein the support device is selected from a group consisting of a piston, a hydraulic arm, a pneumatic device, or a motor {“The actuator system may have an electric motor drive with a clutch that enables the opening of the liftgate to be halted at any desired position”, Col. 4, Lns. 32-34}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the occurrence is determined using one or more on-board sensors embedded or communicatively coupled to the vehicle {“The vehicle has an active sensor adapted to detect objects and their respective distances within a detection zone and a camera adapted to capture a search image with a field-of-view showing objects in the detection zone”, Abstract, and sensors 63 and 65 associated with liftgate control module 60 in Fig. 8}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein identifying the contextual orientation of the door is further based on a type of activity to be performed {opening and closing of a liftgate based on person’s position: “Detected objects may be tracked as either moving or fixed, and only those objects corresponding to a person need to be considered in initiating the automatic opening of the liftgate”, Col. 3, Lns. 56-59, and “the invention can optionally monitor user activity and automatically close the liftgate. After steps 51 or 52 in FIG. 6, the method can proceed via a point B to a flowchart in FIG. 7 in order to reclose the liftgate after the users move away”, Col. 5, Lns. 12-16}, and an entity type performing the activity {“1) performs facial recognition on the search image to detect image locations containing a face of each respective person visible in the search image, 2) identifies distances for each respective person according to coincidence with the detected objects, 3) determines a user height according to the respective image location and distance of at least one respective person visible in the search image, and 4) sets the variable opening height in response to the user height.”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the vehicle further comprises any entity, moveable or immoveable, that has a door and is, or can be, equipped to maneuver the door to various positions {“A vehicle includes a liftgate system with a vertically-opening liftgate and a power actuator…for opening the liftgate to a variable opening height… sets the variable opening height in response to the user height.”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the environmental data comprises surface slope, terrain type, weather conditions, moveable obstacles surrounding vehicle, and obstacles each surrounding the vehicle {object detection 46 and 54 in Figs. 6-7, respectively, corresponding to detection of location/position in the vicinity of the rear of a vehicle of a person 26 in Fig. 3, and objects 31-35 in Fig. 4}.
Regarding Claim 8, Salter explicitly recites the limitations: a computer system {control module 60, Fig. 8, and “a controller (e.g., in a liftgate control module)”, Col. 4, Lns. 4-5}, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories {control module 60, Fig. 8}, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising: determining, by a processor {control module 60, Fig. 8}, that an occurrence of a cargo loading or unloading activity {“The liftgate and its mounting components are configured to provide an opening height that is sufficient to facilitate loading and unloading of cargo while providing enough space to allow a user to walk beneath the opened liftgate without hitting their head”, Col. 1, Lns. 29-33} utilizing a vehicle access point {opening in vehicle 10 created by opening of liftgate 11, Figs. 1-2} is to occur within a preconfigured period of time {“step 55 tracks the moving objects to determine whether all moving objects vacate the predetermined zone for a predetermined time (e.g., about 10 seconds) sufficiently long to indicate that the persons are done loading/unloading. If the predetermined zone is vacated for the predetermined time, then an automatic closing operation is attempted. First, a warning is generated in step 56 by flashing vehicle exterior lights and chirping the horn. Then a check is performed in step 57 for a user response that may cancel the automatic closing operation”, Col. 6, Lns. 22-30 and Fig. 7}; identifying a contextual orientation of a door of the vehicle access point {liftgate 11, Figs. 1-2} based on environmental data of terrain and obstacles {object detection 46 and 54 in Figs. 6-7, respectively, corresponding to detection of location/position in the vicinity of the rear of a vehicle of a person 26 in Fig. 3, and objects 31-35 in Fig. 4} within a preconfigured distance of the door as captured by onboard sensors {the distance/proximity sensors corresponding to “sensor array 30” in Fig. 4 (i.e., “sensor array 30 for detecting objects in a detection zone behind vehicle 10”) have limited functional range, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, thus obstacles (such as the person in Figs. 1-3), or an equivalent object in the “detection zone” - be it a parking barrier, a tree, a mound of dirt, a bicycle, etc. – will only be detected within the functional range of the sensors}, the activity {loading and unloading, Col. 1, Lns. 29-33}, vehicle components {liftgate 11, Figs. 1-2, and liftgate actuator 61, Fig. 8}, and historical data {“The determined opening height is also stored in memory in order to make the most recent historical value available for use as a default value when the liftgate is opened at a later time without a person being detected.”, Col. 7, Lns. 9-23}; and wherein the onboard sensors comprise a proximity sensor, a light sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and a sound sensor {use of multiple sensors: “As shown in FIG. 2, vehicle 10 includes an active sensor system 20 performing object detection. Sensor system 20 may preferably be comprised of an array of ultrasonic sensors which is commonly employed on vehicles as a backup aid for detecting crossing traffic and other object while backing up the vehicle. In order to differentiate between persons and other objects, a backup camera system 21”, Col. 2, Ln. 67 – Col. 3, Ln. 15; one skilled in the art will appreciate that combinations of standard sensors to detect object and obstacles are well known}; generating a plan to for opening the door according to the identified contextual orientation {“3) determines a user height according to the respective image location and distance of at least one respective person visible in the search image, and 4) sets the variable opening height in response to the user height.”, Abstract}; and wherein the plan comprises opening the door according to the generated plan {“initiating the automatic opening of the liftgate”, Col. 3, Lns. 58-59 and Fig. 3, via sensors 30 in Fig. 4; and flowcharts for the method of opening and closing the liftgate are provided in Figs. 6-7, respectively; steps 51 and 52, detect and open liftgate, Fig. 6, and steps 55 and 58 identify the absence of people/objects in liftgate zone and closing of liftgate, Fig. 7}.
Salter does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the door has one or more hinges on two or more sides of a door frame, and wherein the door comprises an array of flat surface panels connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions and is customizable in size and type based on an engagement and a disengagement of a first subset and a second subset of hinges in the array of flat surface panels, and wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles, and wherein identifying the contextual orientation further comprises: identifying a type of vehicle involved; wherein the plan comprises engaging or disengaging the one or more hinges on a side of the two or more sides; wherein the generated plan includes instructions to engage and lock or disengage a portion of the first subset and the second subset in a position required for the contextual orientation; and engaging hinges according to the generated plan.
However, McGoff explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the door has one or more hinges on two or more sides of a door frame {dual pairs of hinges 252, plus associated electro-mechanical latches 170, in Fig. 2: “Doors 40, 44 can be pivotably coupled to the respective upper members 114 via hinges 252, as shown in FIG. 2 with reference to FIG. 5. Doors 40, 44 can also be selectively coupled to the second strikers 178 via the second latches 184, as shown for example in FIG. 6 with reference to FIG. 2.”, Col. 5, Lns. 14-18}, and wherein the door comprises panels {doors 40, 44, Fig. 3 } and is customizable in size and type based on an engagement and a disengagement of a first subset and a second subset of hinges in the array of flat surface panels {dual pairs of hinges 252, allowing doors 40/44 to swing open, Fig. 2: “Doors 40, 44 can be pivotably coupled to the respective upper members 114 via hinges 252, as shown in FIG. 2 with reference to FIG. 5.”, Col. 5, Lns. 14-16; and electro-mechanical latches 170 and rotational couplings 154/158, allow the doors to fold down as in Figs. 4A&6: “the outer couplings 154 and inner couplings 158 together with the central coupling member 164 can facilitate independent rotation of each L-frame 104, 108 about the horizontal axis 128”, Col. 4, Lns. 38-41}; wherein the generated plan includes instructions to engage and lock or disengage a portion of the first subset and the second subset in a position required for the contextual orientation {the choice of swing-open configuration, Fig. 5, or fold-down configuration, Fig. 6, for multifunctional tailgate 10, Fig. 1 is generated by the electronics and software associated with the operation of control modules 258, 262, Fig. 9A, via touchpads 86, 90, Figs. 9B-9C: “Actuation of one or both of the first and second sets of touchpads in various different configurations can facilitate opening one or both of the first and second doors independent of or with each other in a first configuration pivoting about the first axis with the respective frame members or in a second configuration pivoting about the second axis relative to the respective frame members between open and closed positions.”, Col. 1, Lns. 46-53} and engaging hinges according to the generated plan {the combination of hinges, latches and coupling allowing door or doors to swing open as in Fig. 3, and the combination of hinges, latches and coupling allowing door or doors to fold down as in Fig. 5}.
The combination of Salter and McGoff does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the door comprises an array of flat surface panels connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions; and wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles, and wherein identifying the contextual orientation further comprises: identifying an orientation of the door based on a type of vehicle involved.
However, Bilyard, explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the door comprises an array of flat surface panels connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions {“Folding Tailgate Extension 10 comprises three essentially rectangular panels 12, 14, 16 connected to each other by hinges 20”, Col. 3, Lns. 56-58 and Figs. 1-2}.
The combination of Salter, McGoff and Bilyard does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles; and wherein identifying the contextual orientation further comprises: identifying an orientation of the door based on a type of vehicle involved.
However, Hernvall explicitly recites limitation: and wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles; and wherein identifying the contextual orientation further comprises: identifying a type of vehicle involved {with respect to Figs. 1-5, vehicle access opening door 200 – termed a “load handling arrangement”, ¶[0065] – can take multiple different forms, to aid in the loading and unloading of vehicle/trailer 120, depending on the nature of the platform (i.e., stationary ground portion 106) the contents of vehicle 120 are being transferred to; one skilled in the art will that the bridging of the gap between vehicle 120 and stationary ground portion 106 is comparable to bridging the gap in vehicle-to-vehicle load transfer, and that communication for the “second vehicle” in a vehicle-to-vehicle load transfer is provided by the control station}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the door is supported by a support device, and wherein the support device is selected from a group consisting of a piston, a hydraulic arm, a pneumatic device, or a motor {“The actuator system may have an electric motor drive with a clutch that enables the opening of the liftgate to be halted at any desired position”, Col. 4, Lns. 32-34}.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the occurrence is determined using one or more on-board sensors embedded or communicatively coupled to the vehicle {“The vehicle has an active sensor adapted to detect objects and their respective distances within a detection zone and a camera adapted to capture a search image with a field-of-view showing objects in the detection zone”, Abstract, and sensors 63 and 65 associated with liftgate control module 60 in Fig. 8}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein identifying the contextual orientation further comprises: wherein identifying the contextual orientation of the door is further based on a type of activity to be performed {opening and closing of a liftgate based on person’s position: “Detected objects may be tracked as either moving or fixed, and only those objects corresponding to a person need to be considered in initiating the automatic opening of the liftgate”, Col. 3, Lns. 56-59, and “the invention can optionally monitor user activity and automatically close the liftgate. After steps 51 or 52 in FIG. 6, the method can proceed via a point B to a flowchart in FIG. 7 in order to reclose the liftgate after the users move away”, Col. 5, Lns. 12-16}, and an entity type performing the activity {“1) performs facial recognition on the search image to detect image locations containing a face of each respective person visible in the search image, 2) identifies distances for each respective person according to coincidence with the detected objects, 3) determines a user height according to the respective image location and distance of at least one respective person visible in the search image, and 4) sets the variable opening height in response to the user height.”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the vehicle further comprises any entity, moveable or immoveable, that has a door and is, or can be, equipped to maneuver the door to various positions {“A vehicle includes a liftgate system with a vertically-opening liftgate and a power actuator…for opening the liftgate to a variable opening height… sets the variable opening height in response to the user height.”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the environmental data comprises surface slope, terrain type, weather conditions, moveable obstacles surrounding vehicle, and obstacles each surrounding the vehicle {object detection 46 and 54 in Figs. 6-7, respectively, corresponding to detection of location/position in the vicinity of the rear of a vehicle of a person 26 in Fig. 3, and objects 31-35 in Fig. 4}.
Regarding Claim 15, Salter explicitly recites the limitations: a computer program product {control module 60, Fig. 8, and “a controller (e.g., in a liftgate control module)”, Col. 4, Lns. 4-5}, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium {control module 60, Fig. 8}, the program instructions executable by a processor capable of performing a method: determining, by a processor {control module 60, Fig. 8}, that an occurrence of a cargo loading or unloading activity {“The liftgate and its mounting components are configured to provide an opening height that is sufficient to facilitate loading and unloading of cargo while providing enough space to allow a user to walk beneath the opened liftgate without hitting their head”, Col. 1, Lns. 29-33} utilizing a vehicle access point {opening in vehicle 10 created by opening of liftgate 11, Figs. 1-2} is to occur within a preconfigured period of time {“step 55 tracks the moving objects to determine whether all moving objects vacate the predetermined zone for a predetermined time (e.g., about 10 seconds) sufficiently long to indicate that the persons are done loading/unloading. If the predetermined zone is vacated for the predetermined time, then an automatic closing operation is attempted. First, a warning is generated in step 56 by flashing vehicle exterior lights and chirping the horn. Then a check is performed in step 57 for a user response that may cancel the automatic closing operation”, Col. 6, Lns. 22-30 and Fig. 7}; identifying a contextual orientation of a door of the vehicle access point {liftgate 11, Figs. 1-2} based on environmental data of terrain and obstacles {object detection 46 and 54 in Figs. 6-7, respectively, corresponding to detection of location/position in the vicinity of the rear of a vehicle of a person 26 in Fig. 3, and objects 31-35 in Fig. 4} within a preconfigured distance of the door as captured by onboard sensors {the distance/proximity sensors corresponding to “sensor array 30” in Fig. 4 (i.e., “sensor array 30 for detecting objects in a detection zone behind vehicle 10”) have limited functional range, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, thus obstacles (such as the person in Figs. 1-3), or an equivalent object in the “detection zone” - be it a parking barrier, a tree, a mound of dirt, a bicycle, etc. – will only be detected within the functional range of the sensors}, the activity {loading and unloading, Col. 1, Lns. 29-33}, vehicle components {liftgate 11, Figs. 1-2, and liftgate actuator 61, Fig. 8}, and historical data {“The determined opening height is also stored in memory in order to make the most recent historical value available for use as a default value when the liftgate is opened at a later time without a person being detected.”, Col. 7, Lns. 9-23}; and wherein the onboard sensors comprise a proximity sensor, a light sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and a sound sensor {use of multiple sensors: “As shown in FIG. 2, vehicle 10 includes an active sensor system 20 performing object detection. Sensor system 20 may preferably be comprised of an array of ultrasonic sensors which is commonly employed on vehicles as a backup aid for detecting crossing traffic and other object while backing up the vehicle. In order to differentiate between persons and other objects, a backup camera system 21”, Col. 2, Ln. 67 – Col. 3, Ln. 15; one skilled in the art will appreciate that combinations of standard sensors to detect object and obstacles are well known}; generating a plan to for opening the door according to the identified contextual orientation {“3) determines a user height according to the respective image location and distance of at least one respective person visible in the search image, and 4) sets the variable opening height in response to the user height.”, Abstract}; and wherein the plan comprises opening the door according to the generated plan {“initiating the automatic opening of the liftgate”, Col. 3, Lns. 58-59 and Fig. 3, via sensors 30 in Fig. 4; and flowcharts for the method of opening and closing the liftgate are provided in Figs. 6-7, respectively; steps 51 and 52, detect and open liftgate, Fig. 6, and steps 55 and 58 identify the absence of people/objects in liftgate zone and closing of liftgate, Fig. 7}.
Salter does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the door has one or more hinges on two or more sides of a door frame, and wherein the door comprises an array of flat surface panels connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions and is customizable in size and type based on an engagement and a disengagement of a first subset and a second subset of hinges in the array of flat surface panels, and wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles, and wherein identifying the contextual orientation further comprises: identifying a type of vehicle involved; wherein the plan comprises engaging or disengaging the one or more hinges on a side of the two or more sides; wherein the generated plan includes instructions to engage and lock or disengage a portion of the first subset and the second subset in a position required for the contextual orientation; and engaging hinges according to the generated plan.
However, McGoff explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the door has one or more hinges on two or more sides of a door frame {dual pairs of hinges 252, plus associated electro-mechanical latches 170, in Fig. 2: “Doors 40, 44 can be pivotably coupled to the respective upper members 114 via hinges 252, as shown in FIG. 2 with reference to FIG. 5. Doors 40, 44 can also be selectively coupled to the second strikers 178 via the second latches 184, as shown for example in FIG. 6 with reference to FIG. 2.”, Col. 5, Lns. 14-18}, and wherein the door comprises panels {doors 40, 44, Fig. 3} and is customizable in size and type based on an engagement and a disengagement of a first subset and a second subset of hinges in the array of flat surface panels {dual pairs of hinges 252, allowing doors 40/44 to swing open, Fig. 2: “Doors 40, 44 can be pivotably coupled to the respective upper members 114 via hinges 252, as shown in FIG. 2 with reference to FIG. 5.”, Col. 5, Lns. 14-16; and electro-mechanical latches 170 and rotational couplings 154/158, allow the doors to fold down as in Figs. 4A&6: “the outer couplings 154 and inner couplings 158 together with the central coupling member 164 can facilitate independent rotation of each L-frame 104, 108 about the horizontal axis 128”, Col. 4, Lns. 38-41}; wherein the generated plan includes instructions to engage and lock or disengage a portion of the first subset and the second subset in a position required for the contextual orientation {the choice of swing-open configuration, Fig. 5, or fold-down configuration, Fig. 6, for multifunctional tailgate 10, Fig. 1 is generated by the electronics and software associated with the operation of control modules 258, 262, Fig. 9A, via touchpads 86, 90, Figs. 9B-9C: “Actuation of one or both of the first and second sets of touchpads in various different configurations can facilitate opening one or both of the first and second doors independent of or with each other in a first configuration pivoting about the first axis with the respective frame members or in a second configuration pivoting about the second axis relative to the respective frame members between open and closed positions.”, Col. 1, Lns. 46-53} and engaging hinges according to the generated plan {the combination of hinges, latches and coupling allowing door or doors to swing open as in Fig. 3, and the combination of hinges, latches and coupling allowing door or doors to fold down as in Fig. 5}.
The combination of Salter and McGoff does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the door comprises an array of flat surface panels connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions; and wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles, and wherein identifying the contextual orientation further comprises: identifying an orientation of the door based on a type of vehicle involved.
However, Bilyard, explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the door comprises an array of flat surface panels connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions connected by hinges aligned in parallel and capable of movement in two directions {“Folding Tailgate Extension 10 comprises three essentially rectangular panels 12, 14, 16 connected to each other by hinges 20”, Col. 3, Lns. 56-58 and Figs. 1-2}.
The combination of Salter, McGoff and Bilyard does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles; and wherein identifying the contextual orientation further comprises: identifying an orientation of the door based on a type of vehicle involved.
However, Hernvall explicitly recites limitation: and wherein the contextual orientation is determined by communicating with one or more other vehicles within a preconfigured distance to coordinate a shared access between the vehicle and the one or more other vehicles; and wherein identifying the contextual orientation further comprises: identifying a type of vehicle involved {with respect to Figs. 1-5, vehicle access opening door 200 – termed a “load handling arrangement”, ¶[0065] – can take multiple different forms, to aid in the loading and unloading of vehicle/trailer 120, depending on the nature of the platform (i.e., stationary ground portion 106) the contents of vehicle 120 are being transferred to; one skilled in the art will that the bridging of the gap between vehicle 120 and stationary ground portion 106 is comparable to bridging the gap in vehicle-to-vehicle load transfer, and that communication for the “second vehicle” in a vehicle-to-vehicle load transfer is provided by the control station}.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 15, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the door is supported by a support device, and wherein the support device is selected from a group consisting of a piston, a hydraulic arm, a pneumatic device, or a motor {“The actuator system may have an electric motor drive with a clutch that enables the opening of the liftgate to be halted at any desired position”, Col. 4, Lns. 32-34}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 15, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the occurrence is determined using one or more on-board sensors embedded or communicatively coupled to the vehicle {“The vehicle has an active sensor adapted to detect objects and their respective distances within a detection zone and a camera adapted to capture a search image with a field-of-view showing objects in the detection zone”, Abstract, and sensors 63 and 65 associated with liftgate control module 60 in Fig. 8}.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 15, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein identifying the contextual orientation of the door is further based on a type of activity to be performed {opening and closing of a liftgate based on person’s position: “Detected objects may be tracked as either moving or fixed, and only those objects corresponding to a person need to be considered in initiating the automatic opening of the liftgate”, Col. 3, Lns. 56-59, and “the invention can optionally monitor user activity and automatically close the liftgate. After steps 51 or 52 in FIG. 6, the method can proceed via a point B to a flowchart in FIG. 7 in order to reclose the liftgate after the users move away”, Col. 5, Lns. 12-16}, and an entity type performing the activity {“1) performs facial recognition on the search image to detect image locations containing a face of each respective person visible in the search image, 2) identifies distances for each respective person according to coincidence with the detected objects, 3) determines a user height according to the respective image location and distance of at least one respective person visible in the search image, and 4) sets the variable opening height in response to the user height.”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Salter, McGoff, Bilyard and Hernvall discloses all the limitations of Claim 15, as discussed supra. In addition, Salter explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the vehicle further comprises any entity, moveable or immoveable, that has a door and is, or can be, equipped to maneuver the door to various positions {“A vehicle includes a liftgate system with a vertically-opening liftgate and a power actuator…for opening the liftgate to a variable opening height… sets the variable opening height in response to the user height.”, Abstract}.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
GB 2494509 A – Vehicle liftgate sensor system to prevent a liftgate from fully opening when detecting an obstacle in the close vicinity to the rear of the vehicle.
ES 1221410 U – A rear vehicle gate capable being opened in multiple configurations due to a plurality of hinges along each edge of the gate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm. 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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights