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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 11-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Reitmeier (2025/0075551).
For claim 1, Reitmeier discloses a door opening system (12) for a vehicle (2), comprising:
a motorized door (6; the door having a drive (30) that may have a motor, [0029], for partially automatic or fully automatic pivoting thereof);
a sensor (16) configured to detect obstacles ([0004]) within a travel path of the motorized door; and
one or more processors (‘control device’, [0011]) configured to:
receive a door control signal (which can be a recognizable gesture or ‘force pulse’, [0041], or ‘opening request’);
in response to the door control signal, determine ([0035]) whether an obstacle had been detected within the travel path of the motorized door; and
in response to determining that an obstacle has been detected, block activation ([0003], [0036]) of the motorized door.
For claim 11, Reitmeier inherently discloses the recited method.
PNG
media_image1.png
351
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
385
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claims 2 and 12, in response to the door control signal ([0042]) activate the sensor and the one or more processors.
For claims 3 and 13, in response to determining that an obstacle has not been detected, allow activation ([0029], [0033], [0039]) of the door.
For claims 4 and 14, the system comprises monitoring, via the sensor, the travel path ([0066]) of the motorized door while the motorized door is in motion.
For claims 5 and 14, in response to determining that an obstacle has been detected while the door is moving, the door opening system can activate the motorized door to move in a reverse direction (‘counter measures’, [0011], [0018]).
For claim 8, Reitmeier discloses the motorized door being a hatch ([0003]) and a PHOSITA understands that this can be a rear hatch as recited.
For claim 9, Reitmeier discloses the sensor being an optical sensor or camera.
For claim 10, the sensor is a parking sensor ([0038]).
For claim 16, Reitmeier discloses data memory ([0005]) (a storage device that holds data) for use with the system disclosed above. A PHOSITA understands that Reitmeier necessarily includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for performing the functions set forth above. That PHOSITA likewise understands that Reitmeier implicitly includes a NTCRM for allowing the obstacle identification system to be used again and again (in each instance) when the vehicle (and consequently the control device) is turned/powered on after being turned/powered off while, for example, parked for a prolonged period of time. Providing physical storage of the process steps above allows the steps (Instructions) to be held and remembered (not lost) when the power to the control device is not present.
As such, Reitmeier discloses claims 16-19.
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 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.
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.
Claims 6-7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitmeier, as applied above, and in view of Sugiura et al. (2015/0025751).
Reitmeier discloses activating “warning signals” but does not specify the type of signal and is therefore is silent on the warning signals being lights or sounds as recited.
Sugiura et al. teach using lights or sounds as warning devices to send an alarm to a user ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided as the warning signals of Reitmeier either of lights or sounds as taught by Sugiura et al. as obvious alternatives in order to alert a user to danger.
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR) supports this rationale of a simple substitution.
Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sugiura et al. (2015/0025751) discloses limitations for at least claims 1-3, 6-9, and 11-13.
For claim 1, Sugiura et al. disclose a door opening system (100) for a vehicle (1), comprising:
a motorized door (BD; back door having a drive device (108a), [0047]);
a sensor (105) configured to detect obstacles (701, [0091]) within a travel path of the motorized door; and
one or more processors (‘control device’ 107, [0112]) configured to:
receive a door control signal ([0112]);
in response to the door control signal, determine whether an obstacle had been detected within the travel path of the motorized door; and
in response to determining that an obstacle has been detected, block activation ([0103]) of the motorized door.
PNG
media_image3.png
173
297
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For claim 11, Sugiura et al. inherently disclose the recited method.
For claims 2 and 12, in response to the door control signal (input such as a foot portion) activate the sensor and the one or more processors.
For claims 3 and 13, in response to determining that an obstacle has not been detected, allow activation ([0093]) of the door.
For claims 6 and 7, in response to determining that an obstacle has been detected, activate one or more lights or sound generator ([0047]).
For claim 8, Sugiura et al. disclose the motorized door being a rear hatch (BD) configured to provide access to a storage compartment of the vehicle.
For claim 9, the sensor is a camera.
Cheringal et al. (12215531) discloses at least all of the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 16 including a memory (718) computing device (704) and the memory (748) are examples of NTCRM as recited.
For claims 2 and 12, in response to the door control signal (102) activate the sensor and the one or more processors (114).
For claims 3 and 13, in response to determining that an obstacle has not been detected, allow activation (Col 6, line 64-Col 7, line 56) of the door.
For claims 5 and 14, in response to determining that an obstacle has been detected while the door is moving, the door opening system can activate the motorized door to move in a reverse direction (Col 2, lines 36-39).
For claim 9, the sensor being a camera.
For claim 16, Cheringal et al. disclose a NTCRM (748) for the computing device (704).
As such, Cheringal et al. disclose at least claims 16-18.
PNG
media_image4.png
727
501
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614