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 .
Status of the Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 08/22/2025. Claims 1-20 were previous pending, of which claims 1, 4, 7-9, 12, 14-20 are amended, and no new claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
3. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 7-14, filed on 08/22/2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed below.
4. With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the limitation “…configured to generate an optical pattern including an array of shapes in a non-visible wavelength…” and “…by capturing changes in relative spacing between the shapes in the array of shapes;” as amended in claim 1. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search…
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1 – 2, 4, 7 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018203161A (hereinafter, “Ieda”), and further in view of US20170210282A1 (hereinafter, “Rodriguez”), and further in view of US20080040004A1 (hereinafter, “Breed”).
Regarding claim 1, Ieda discloses a monitoring system for preventing a door of a vehicle from contacting an object in a travel path of the door (see [0005] Fig. 1); A vehicle obstacle detection device that comprises of a distance detection unit which detects a distance of an obstacle in the rotatably motion range of a vehicle door along with an irradiation unit configured to emit light towards the object/obstacle once it is detected.
the monitoring system comprising:
a structured light assembly including at least one optical projector (see [0040] Fig. 7c]) and at least one image capturing module configured (see [0060]) to detect an object in the travel path of the door; Uses a projector that can irradiate patterns to notify occupant that the door is close to an obstacle/object along with a distance detection unit that may be constituted by a distance camera.
an alarm device (see [0042]); Has an informing/notification/notifying unit that notifies the occupant of a warning.
and a control system configured to generate a notification, with the alarm device, upon a detected presence of the object in the travel path of the door (see [0048]); Notifying unit gives user notification based on determined proximity of the obstruction to the vehicle door.
8. Ieda teaches a structured light assembly including at least one optical projector (see [0040] Fig. 7c])…and at least one image capturing module configured (see [0060]) to detect an object in the travel path of the door… Uses a projector that can irradiate patterns to notify occupant that the door is close to an obstacle/object along with a distance detection unit that may be constituted by a distance camera.
Ieda does not explicitly teach …configured to generate am optical pattern including an array of shapes in a non-visible wavelength…by capturing changes in relative spacing between the shapes in the array of shapes;
However, Rodriguez teaches …configured to generate am optical pattern including an array of shapes in a non-visible wavelength… ([0045] Fig. 15) Optical projector laser can project infrared light which is non-visible [0045]. This optical projector laser can also emit an array of shapes in the form of dots as shown in figure 15. A dot is considered a minimal shape so we can reasonably say that this optical projector laser is emitting an array of shapes.
The combination of Ieda and Rodriguez does not appear to explicitly teach …by capturing changes in relative spacing between the shapes in the array of shapes;
However, Breed teaches …by capturing changes in relative spacing between the shapes in the array of shapes [0085]; Breed teaches on capturing the changes in a reflected pattern of structured light arranged in an array. This constitutes as capturing changes in spacing between an array of shapes. Rodriguez emits an array of dots so incorporating Breed into Ieda and Rodriguez would give Ieda and Rodriguez the ability to capture these changes in spacing.
The combination of Ieda and Rodriguez along with Breed are analogous art because Ieda teaches on the structure of having a structured light assembly with an optical projector to detect objects in the path of the door while Rodriguez teaches on having an optical laser projector emit different shapes in the form of dots in which these dots are still considered a minimal shape. Breed teaches on determination logic by capturing the reflected pattern of these array of shapes emitted from the projector in order to determine the object and distance of the object.
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 Ieda, Rodriguez, and Breed, to modify the teachings of the combination of Ieda to include the teachings of Rodriguez and Breed because incorporating all three would give a structured light assembly that can accurately detect objects in the travel path of the vehicle door to prevent any sort of bump from occurring.
Regarding claim 2, Ieda discloses the monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the control system is further configured to generate at least one of an audible notification, a haptic notification, or an optical notification with the alarm device (see [0042]); Notifying unit can notify the user by sound, light, or a vibration.
Regarding claim 4, Ieda discloses the monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the control system is further configured to generate a second notification, with the alarm device, once the door is moved in a position that is a predetermined distance from the object (see [0049]); When the distance between the obstacle and the vehicle door is less than the second predetermined distance a second pattern is permitted to notify the occupant.
Regarding claim 7, Ieda discloses the monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the at least one optical projector is configured to project the optical pattern towards the travel path of the door and a second travel path of a second door (see [0040]); Projector projects patterns such as letters, figures, and images and can also project two types of patterns based on distance to obstacle. Ieda discloses teaching the monitoring system on the right-side door of the vehicle. The left-side door of the vehicle is symmetrically the same as the right-side door. Inherently, because of this it should be known that Ieda’s monitoring system would work on the left-side door of the vehicle as well. The left-side door having Ieda’s monitoring system constitutes as also projecting an optical pattern on a second travel path of a second door.
Regarding claim 8, Ieda discloses the monitoring system of claim 1, wherein, upon the detected presence of the object in the travel path of the door, the at least one optical projector is configured to project a visible optical pattern within a visible wavelength (see [0011], [0021]) that is confined between the travel path and a door frame (see Fig. 4a – Fig. 4c). Irradiation unit projects an optical pattern that is visible light (visible wavelength) onto an obstacle when an obstacle is detected (see [0011]). The detection unit (50) which contains the irradiation unit is (51) located on the outside of the vehicle door so for when the vehicle door is opened, the irradiation unit shines a line onto the travel path of the vehicle door to prevent the door from hitting an obstacle. When the irradiation unit shines that visible optical pattern, the path the visible optical pattern takes as the door opens is confined to detecting objects between the travel path and the door frame (see Fig. 4a – Fig. 4c).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018203161A (hereinafter, “Ieda”), and further in view of US20170210282A1 (hereinafter, “Rodriguez”), and further in view of US20080040004A1 (hereinafter, “Breed”), and further in view of US20200165848A1 (hereinafter, “Shimizu”).
Regarding claim 3, Ieda as modified by Rodriguez and Breed does not explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 1, further including a locking device wherein the control system is further configured to actuate the locking device when the door reaches a threshold distance from the object to prevent further travel of the door.
Shimizu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the monitoring system of claim 1, further including a locking device wherein the control system is further configured to actuate the locking device when the door reaches a threshold distance from the object to prevent further travel of the door (see [0057]); The braking unit is activated once the distance between the door and the object is shorter than the specified threshold that was calculated.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ieda with the teachings of Shimizu, to have a braking unit, which is a locking device, configured to be actuated when the door teaches a threshold distance from the object that locks the vehicle door when a specific distance threshold is surpassed to prevent further damage to the vehicle door (see [0007] Line 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018203161A (hereinafter, “Ieda”), and further in view of US20170210282A1 (hereinafter, “Rodriguez”), and further in view of US20080040004A1 (hereinafter, “Breed”), and further in view of JP2006316497A (hereinafter, “Ohira”).
Regarding claim 5, Ieda as modified by Rodriguez and Breed does not explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the travel path of the door includes both opening and closing the door.
Ohira, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the travel path of the door includes both opening and closing the door (see [Pg. 1] Description: Para. 1 Fig. 1 - 3); Laser detection area provides both object detection for opening and closing of the doors.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ieda with the teachings of Ohira, to create a more accurate door warning system that operates for both opening and closing of the doors (see [Pg. 1] Description: Para. 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018203161A (hereinafter, “Ieda”), and further in view of US20170210282A1 (hereinafter, “Rodriguez”), and further in view of US20080040004A1 (hereinafter, “Breed”), and further in view of JP2006316497A (hereinafter, “Ohira”), and further in view of US20190145150A1 (hereinafter, “Kidena”).
Regarding claim 6, Ieda as modified by Rodriguez and Breed does not explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 5, wherein the control system includes a memory with a saved door pathway model.
Kidena, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the monitoring system of claim 5, wherein the control system includes a memory with a saved door pathway model (see [0019] Lines 7 – 13); Stores the opening degree of the host vehicle into the storage device.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ieda with the teachings of Kidena, to create a more efficient door monitoring system that saves and stores the doors pathway model to prevent the door from making contact with an object based off of that saved door pathway (see [0019] Lines 1 – 2).
Claims 9 – 10, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018203161A (hereinafter, “Ieda”), and further in view of US20200165848A1 (hereinafter, “Shimizu”), and further in view of US20050280284A1 (hereinafter, “McLain”), and further in view of NPL TWM531401U (hereinafter, “Wu”), and further in view of US20200386033A1 (hereinafter, “Battlogg”), and further in view of US20150102898A1 (hereinafter, “Huennekens”).
Regarding claim 9, Ieda discloses a monitoring system for preventing a door of a vehicle from contacting an object in a travel path of the door (see [0005] Fig. 1); Uses a vehicle detection device that prevents the vehicle door from making contact with an object in its existing range of rotation.
the monitoring system comprising: a vision system including at least one image capturing module configured (see [0060]) to detect an object in the travel path of the door; Has a distance detection unit that may be constituted by a distance camera.
an alarm device (see [0042]); Has an informing/notification/notifying unit that notifies the occupant of a warning.
However, Ieda further does not explicitly teach a locking device;
Shimizu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a locking device (see [0057]); The braking unit is activated once the distance between the door and the object is shorter than the specified threshold that was calculated.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ieda with the teachings of Shimizu, to have a braking unit, which is a locking device, configured to be actuated when the door teaches a threshold distance from the object that locks the vehicle door when a specific distance threshold is surpassed to prevent further damage to the vehicle door (see [0007] Line 1).
Ieda further does not explicitly teach a control system configured to: generate a first notification, with the alarm device, upon a detected presence of the object in the travel path of the door after actuation of a latch of the door;
Wu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a control system configured to: generate a first notification, with the alarm device, upon a detected presence of the object in the travel path of the door after actuation of a latch of the door (see [Pg. 6] Para. 4 “In summary, the central control module 7 activates the design of the multi-directional environment sensing module 3 when the vehicle 900 is turned off or when the door handle is operated”); The central control module is actuated after the door handle is operated. The door handle being operated correlates to the actuation of a latch of the door. Whenever an object is detected, the door is immediately locked and a warning is sent to the driver.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ieda with the teachings of Wu, to create a locking system that actuates a latch into the door. Once the latch has been actuated, then a warning is sent to the occupant by a warning system/alarm device (see [Pg. 4] Para. 4).
Ieda further does not explicitly teach generate a second notification that is different than the first notification, with the alarm device, once the door is moved in a position that is a predetermined distance from the object;
McLain, in the same field of endeavor, teaches generate a second notification that is different than the first notification, with the alarm device, once the door is moved in a position that is a predetermined distance from the object (see [0020] Line 10 – 19); Second notification that is generated can be configured to be different from the first notification.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ieda with the teachings of McLain, to be able to generate a second notification that different from the first notification to differentiate the two notifications (see [0020] Line 10 – 19).
Ieda further does not explicitly teach actuate the locking device when the door reaches a threshold distance from the object to prevent further travel of the door, the threshold distance being closer than the predetermined distance; and
Shimizu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches actuate the locking device when the door reaches a threshold distance from the object to prevent further travel of the door, the threshold distance being closer than the predetermined distance; and (see [0057]); The braking unit is activated once the distance between the door and the object is shorter than the specified threshold that was calculated.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ieda with the teachings of Shimizu, to have a braking unit that locks the vehicle door when a specific distance threshold is surpassed to prevent further damage to the vehicle door (see [0007] Line 1).
25. Idea further does not explicitly teach de-actuate the locking device after a predetermined number of attempts to open the door past the threshold distance.
Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches de-actuate the locking device after… to open the door past the threshold distance [0095] – [0096]. Battlogg teaches a user overriding the braking force. This braking force being applied constitutes as a locking mechanism/device. Attempts to push past the breaking force will de-actuate the locking mechanism/device to open the vehicle door overriding the locking mechanism/device. Due to a locking mechanism being used, an attempt to push the vehicle door open causes a spike when a user applies extra force. This spike can cause the vehicle door to move slightly beyond its limit which in turn will give the sensor reads a force above the threshold or threshold distance.
The combination of Ieda as modified by Shimizu, Mclain, Wu, and Battlogg does not appear to explicitly teach …a predetermined number of attempts…
Huennekens, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …a predetermined number of attempts… [0059], [0066] Huennekens doesn’t explicitly recite opening a vehicle door a predetermined number of attempts, but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to implement a predetermined number of attempts as a condition in order to de-actuate a locking mechanism/device.
The combination of Battlogg and Huennekens are analogous art because Battlogg teaches on a locking mechanism/device that de-actuates the locking mechanism/device when the vehicle door is attempted to be open past a threshold distance. The locking mechanism/device is override and causes the door to open up. Huennekens incorporates a predetermine number of attempts when it comes to many of the steps it uses when trying to access a vehicle. Therefore, if Huennekens incorporates a predetermine number of attempts when it comes to attempting to access the vehicle it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill to implement this same feature when attempting to open a vehicle door.
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 Ieda, Shimizu, Mclain, Wu, Battlogg, and Huennekens, to modify the teachings of the combination of Ieda as modified by Shimizu, Mclain, and Wu to include the teachings of Battlogg and Huennekens because this will give the user the flexibility to push pass the locking system if need be.
Regarding claim 10, Ieda does not explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 9, wherein the first notification is audible and includes a first volume and the second notification is audible and includes a second volume that is louder than the first volume.
McLain, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the monitoring system of claim 9, wherein the first notification is audible and includes a first volume and the second notification is audible and includes a second volume that is louder than the first volume (see [0020]); This constitutes a second volume louder than the first volume because it gets louder as the obstruction becomes closer.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ieda with the teachings of McLain, because it would’ve been obvious to include McLain to increase the volume in order to increase the urgency to the occupant that a door bump is imminent (see [0020]).
Regarding claim 13, Ieda discloses the monitoring system of claim 9, wherein the control system is further configured to generate at least one of an audible notification, a haptic notification, or an optical notification (see [0042]) with the alarm device in the first and second notifications (see [0049]); Informing unit can generate a sound, light, or vibration for any of the following notifications that warn the occupant when an obstacle is detected and when the vehicle door is getting under a threshold distance to the vehicle door.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018203161A (hereinafter, “Ieda”), and further in view of US20200165848A1 (hereinafter, “Shimizu”), and further in view of US20050280284A1 (hereinafter, “McLain”), and further in view of NPL TWM531401U (hereinafter, “Wu”), and further in view of US20200386033A1 (hereinafter, “Battlogg”), and further in view of US20150102898A1 (hereinafter, “Huennekens”), and further in view of DE102019119591A1 (hereinafter, “Enders”).
Regarding claim 11, Ieda as modified by Shimizu, Mclain, and Wu does not explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 9, wherein the vision system is configured to operate under the principle of at least one of structured light, LIDAR, and stereovision.
Enders, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the monitoring system of claim 9, wherein the vision system is configured to operate under the principle of at least one of structured light, LIDAR, and stereovision (see [Pg. 2] Para. 1 & 3); Uses a light projector to emit light from a vehicle door.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ieda with the teachings of Enders, to use a light projector with a vision system to more accurately detect objects within the doors travel path (see [Pg. 2] Para. 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018203161A (hereinafter, “Ieda”), and further in view of US20200165848A1 (hereinafter, “Shimizu”), and further in view of US20050280284A1 (hereinafter, “McLain”), and further in view of NPL TWM531401U (hereinafter, “Wu”), and further in view of US20200386033A1 (hereinafter, “Battlogg”), and further in view of US20150102898A1 (hereinafter, “Huennekens”), and further in view of US20180286188A1 (hereinafter, “Von Novak”).
Regarding claim 12, Ieda teaches …and further configured to generate the optical pattern within a visible wavelength that is confined within the travel path and a door frame… (see [0011], [0021]) Irradiation unit projects an optical pattern that is visible light (visible wavelength) onto an obstacle when an obstacle is detected (see [0011]). The detection unit (50) which contains the irradiation unit is (51) located on the outside of the vehicle door so for when the vehicle door is opened, the irradiation unit shines a line onto the travel path of the vehicle door to prevent the door from hitting an obstacle. When the irradiation unit shines that visible optical pattern, the path the visible optical pattern takes as the door opens is confined to detecting objects between the travel path and the door frame (see Fig. 4a – Fig. 4c).
Ieda as modified by Shimizu, Mclain, Battlogg, and Huennekens does not appear to explicitly teach …once an object is detected after the actuation of the latch of the door;
However, Wu teaches …once an object is detected after the actuation of the latch of the door (see [Pg. 6] Para. 4 “In summary, the central control module 7 activates the design of the multi-directional environment sensing module 3 when the vehicle 900 is turned off or when the door handle is operated”); The central control module is actuated after the door handle is operated. The door handle being operated correlates to the actuation of a latch of the door.
Ieda as modified by Shimizu, Mclain, Wu, Battlogg, and Huennekens does not appear to explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 9, further including an optical projector configured to project an optical pattern within a non-visible wavelength to detect the object…
Von Novak, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the monitoring system of claim 9, further including an optical projector configured to project an optical pattern within a non-visible wavelength (see [0023]) to detect the object… Uses a LIDAR transmitter to emit a ranging light. LIDAR operates at non-visible wavelengths.
The combination of Ieda and Wu, along with Von Novak are analogous art because Ieda teaches an optical projector that emits an optical pattern that is within a visible wavelength in which that path of detecting an object is confined within the travel path and the door frame. Wu teaches on the concept of having an action occur after the actuation of a the latch of a door. Von Novak teaches on including an optical projector that emits an optical pattern that is in a non-visible wavelength.
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 Von Novak to modify the teachings of the combination of Ieda as modified by Shimizu, Mclain, Wu, Battlogg, and Huennekens to include the teachings of Von Novak because with the teachings of Von Novak, to have a more accurate object detecting optical projector that can emit both types of patterns onto an object when detected (see [0023]).
32. Claims 14 – 15, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018203161A (hereinafter, “Ieda”), and further in view of US20140168415A1 (hereinafter, “Ihlenburg”).
Regarding claim 14, Ieda discloses a vehicle comprising: a plurality of doors (see Fig. 1); Obstacle detection device requires a vehicle door. Inherently, a vehicle comprises of a plurality of doors.
at least one monitoring system for preventing the plurality of doors of the vehicle from contacting an object in a travel path of the plurality of doors, the at least one monitoring system comprising (see [0005] Fig. 1): Inherently, a vehicle will have a plurality of doors. Therefore, this monitoring system can be implemented on both the right and left side doors. A vehicle obstacle detection device that comprises of a distance detection unit which detects a distance of an obstacle in the rotatably motion range of a vehicle door along with an irradiation unit configured to emit light towards the object/obstacle once it is detected.
an alarm device (see [0042]); Has an informing/notification/notifying unit that notifies the occupant of a warning.
and a control system configured to upon detecting a presence of the object in the travel path of one of the plurality of doors [0011] – [0012], determine which of the plurality of doors has the presence of the object in the travel path [0021] – [0022]; and
generate a first notification, with the alarm device, including which of the plurality of doors has the presence of the object in the travel path (see [0042]). Ieda has an irradiation unit that detects the presence of an obstacle/object in the door path of the vehicle [0011] – [0012]. The detection device (50) which contains the irradiation unit (51) emits a light onto the object on the side of the door where the object is detected [0021] – [0022]. The door that is emitting the light onto the object is already an indicator of which door has detected the object. If the right-side door detected an object, then that will be known because that right-side door is the door emitting the light onto the object. Same goes for the left-side door when implementing this system for the other side of the vehicle which is inherently possible. A first notification to notify the occupant, the informing unit (64) which constitutes as an alarm device, will notify the user with a warning sound or light (see [0042]). Based on the position of the informing unit (64) on the vehicle door, that specific door that has detected the presence of an object/obstacle will emit a sound or light which in itself is already an indicator of which door out of the plurality of doors has detected the presence of the object in its travel path. If the right door emits the warning sound/light, then the object/obstacle is in the presence of the right door. Same rule will apply to the left door.
34. Ieda further doesn’t explicitly teach at least one structural pillar located adjacent to the plurality of doors defining an aperture;
Ihlenburg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches at least one structural pillar located adjacent to the plurality of doors defining an aperture ([0042] Fig. 8); Ihlenburg teaches on integrating cameras into the structural pillars of a vehicle. Integrating a camera into the structural pillar of a vehicle will inherently require an aperature to be made due to it being “integrated” which implies that the camera is within the structural pillar having to point out through some sort of aperature in order to gather video or images.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ieda with the teachings of Ihlenburg, to gather information on the surroundings of the vehicle or detect objects/obstacles in specific areas near a vehicle.
Ieda further doesn’t explicitly teach the monitoring system comprising: a vision system including an image capturing module located within the at least one structural pillar and aligned with the aperture configured to detect an object in the travel path of the plurality of doors;
Ihlenburg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the monitoring system comprising: a vision system including an image capturing module located within the structural pillar and aligned with the aperture configured to detect an object in the travel path of the door ([0042] Fig. 8); Ihlenburg teaches on integrating cameras, an image capturing module, into the structural pillars of a vehicle. Integrating a camera into the structural pillar of a vehicle will inherently require an aperture to be made due to it being “integrated” which implies that the camera is within the structural pillar having to point out through some sort of aperture in order to gather video or images. The camera locations on pillar B of the vehicle would definitely capture any object in the travel path of the door (Fig. 8)
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ieda with the teachings of Ihlenburg, to implement a camera, also known as an image capturing module, that can more accurately view objects to prevent vehicle door bumps from occurring in specific area paths.
36. Regarding claim 15, Ieda discloses the vehicle of claim 14, wherein the control system is further configured to generate a second notification that is different than the first notification, with the alarm device, once the door that has the presence of the object in the travel path is moved in a position that is a predetermined distance from the object (see [0049]); The irradiation unit emits a PT2 (pattern 2) when the vehicle from the obstacle is close within a predetermined distance to notify the occupant. The detection device (50) which contains the irradiation unit (51) emits a PT2 onto the object on the side of the door where the object is detected [0021] – [0022]. The door that is emitting the PT2 onto the object is already an indicator of which door has detected the object. If the right-side door detected an object, then that will be known because that right-side door is the door emitting the PT2 onto the object. Same goes for the left-side door when implementing this system for the other side of the vehicle which is inherently possible.
Regarding claim 19, Ieda teaches the vehicle of claim 14, wherein the at least one monitoring system further includes an optical projector configured to project an optical pattern…
Ieda does not appear to explicitly teach …through the aperture.
However, Ihlenburg teaches …through the aperture ([0042] Fig. 8). Ihlenburg
teaches on integrating cameras, an image capturing module, into the structural pillars of a vehicle. Integrating a camera into the structural pillar of a vehicle will inherently require an aperture to be made due to it being “integrated” which implies that the camera is within the structural pillar having to point out through some sort of aperture in order to gather video or images.
Ieda and Ihlenburg are analogous art because Ieda teaches an optical projector that can project optical patterns onto a detected object in the travel path of a door while Ihlenburg teaches on incorporating apertures into the structural pillars of a vehicle where cameras can be integrated into.
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 Ieda and Ihlenburg to modify the teachings of the combination of Ieda to include the teachings of Ihlenburg to have a camera located within an aperture imbedded into the pillars of the vehicle in order to cover hard to reach areas with a camera.
38. Claims 16 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018203161A (hereinafter, “Ieda”), and further in view of US20140168415A1 (hereinafter, “Ihlenburg”), and further in view of US20200165848A1 (hereinafter, “Shimizu”).
Regarding claim 16, Ieda teaches …of the door that has the presence of the object in the travel path [0021] – [0022]. The detection device (50) which contains the irradiation unit (51) emits a light onto the object on the side of the door where the object is detected [0021] – [0022]. The door that is emitting the light onto the object is already an indicator of which door has detected the object. If the right-side door detected an object, then that will be known because that right-side door is the door emitting the light onto the object. Same goes for the left-side door when implementing this system for the other side of the vehicle which is inherently possible.
Ieda does not appear to explicitly teach the vehicle of claim 15, further
including a locking device configured to receive an instruction from the control system to selectively prevent further travel…
However, Shimizu teaches the vehicle of claim 15, further including a locking device configured to receive an instruction from the control system to selectively prevent further travel of the door… (see [0009] & [0040] Lines 2 – 10) Has a control unit that communicates with the braking device, the locking device, to brake the door to prevent further travel when an object is detected.
Ieda and Shimizu are analogous art because Ieda teaches on detecting which door has the presence of an object in its travel path by emitting light from that respective door that has detected that object while Shimizu teaches a braking device that can be implemented into a vehicle door which is in communication with a control unit to prevent further travel of the vehicle door when an object is detected.
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 Ieda and Shimizu to modify the teachings of the combination of Ieda to include the teachings of Shimizu to create a door protective warning system that can more safely prevent the door from bumping an object (see [0009]).
Regarding claim 17, Ieda teaches …that has the presence of the object in the travel path…that has the presence of the object in the travel path,… [0021] – [0022] The detection device (50) which contains the irradiation unit (51) emits a light onto the object on the side of the door where the object is detected [0021] – [0022]. The door that is emitting the light onto the object is already an indicator of which door has detected the object. If the right-side door detected an object, then that will be known because that right-side door is the door emitting the light onto the object. Same goes for the left-side door when implementing this system for the other side of the vehicle which is inherently possible.
Ieda does not appear to explicitly teach the vehicle of claim 16, wherein the
control system is further configured to actuate the locking device when the door…reaches a threshold distance from the object to prevent further travel of the door,…the threshold distance being closer than the predetermined distance.
However, Shimizu teaches the vehicle of claim 16, wherein the control system is further configured to actuate the locking device when the door…reaches a threshold distance from the object to prevent further travel of the door,…the threshold distance being closer than the predetermined distance (see [0057]). The braking unit is activated to further prevent traveling of the door once the distance between the door and the object is shorter than the specified threshold, the predetermined distance, that was calculated.
Ieda and Shimizu are analogous art because Ieda teaches on detecting which door has the presence of an object in its travel path by emitting light from that respective door that has detected that object while Shimizu teaches on a braking unit that can be incorporated into a vehicle door that further prevents traveling of the vehicle door when a predetermined distance between the object and the vehicle door has been surpassed.
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 Ieda and Shimizu to modify the teachings of the combination of Ieda to include the teachings of Shimizu to have a braking unit that locks the vehicle door when a specific distance threshold is surpassed to more safely prevent further damage to the vehicle door.
41. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018203161A (hereinafter, “Ieda”), and further in view of US20140168415A1 (hereinafter, “Ihlenburg”), and further in view of US20050280284A1 (hereinafter, “Mclain”).
Regarding claim 18, Ieda does not explicitly teach the vehicle of claim 15, wherein the first notification is audible and includes a first volume and the second notification is audible and includes a second volume that is louder than the first volume.
McLain, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the vehicle of claim 15, wherein the first notification is audible and includes a first volume and the second notification is audible and includes a second volume that is louder than the first volume (see [0020]); This constitutes a second volume louder than the first volume because it gets louder as the obstruction becomes closer.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ieda with the teachings of McLain, because it would’ve been obvious to include McLain to increase the volume in order to increase the urgency to the occupant that a door bump is imminent.
43. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018203161A (hereinafter, “Ieda”), and further in view of US20140168415A1 (hereinafter, “Ihlenburg”), and further in view of US20180286188A1 (hereinafter, “Von Novak”).
Regarding claim 20, Ieda does not explicitly teach the vehicle of claim 19, wherein the optical pattern is within a non-visible wavelength to detect the object and the optical pattern is within a visible wavelength that is projected along the travel path once the object is detected.
Von Novak, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the monitoring system of claim 19, wherein the optical pattern is within a non-visible wavelength (see [0023]) to detect the object and the optical pattern is within a visible wavelength that is projected along the travel path once the object is detected; Uses a LIDAR transmitter to emit a ranging light. LIDAR operates at non-visible wavelengths.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ieda with the teachings of Von Novak, to have a more accurate object detecting optical projector that can emit both types of patterns onto the object when necessary.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights