DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
This Office Action is made FINAL. Claims 1-13 and 19-24 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 13, and 19 have been amended; claims 14-18 have been cancelled; and claims 21-24 have been added.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments, Examiner withdraws the previous claim objection; withdraws the previous § 112(b) rejection of claims 2, 4, and 8; withdraws the previous § 102 rejection of claims 1, 5, 10-14, 16, and 19; withdraws the previous § 103 rejections of claims 2-4, 15, and 20; maintains the previous § 102 rejection of claims 6-9; adds the below claim objection; and adds the below § 103 rejections of claims 1-5, 10-13, and 19-24, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/2/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 19 under Syvret have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0309563 to Salter et al.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “[t]here is no discussion [in Syvret] of moving the window from a fully closed position to H2, let alone based on signals indicative of a recognized user and/or a proximity of that user to the vehicle, as claimed.” Remarks at p. 2. Applicant further agrees that the H2 position corresponds to the claimed pre-drop position. Id. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the claim as presently written does not require the window to move from a closed position to a pre-drop position in response to signals indicative of a recognized user and/or a proximity of a user to the vehicle. The claim only requires that there is a controller that is configured to move the window from a closed position to a pre-drop. There is no claim language that links the sensor detection of a recognized user to the movement of the window. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive for that reason alone.
Second, assuming, arguendo, that the movement of the window from the closed position to the pre-drop position is based on the detection of a signal, Syrvet teaches moving the window to any of the four described position based on signal reception in at least ¶¶ [0010] – [0013]. Moreover, Syvret describes numerous scenarios in which the window drops to different positions from the closed position and then returns to the pre-drop position. There is no requirement in the claims that the window must drop directly from the closed position to the pre-drop position without first traveling to a short-drop position and then immediately raising to a pre-drop position. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Any remaining arguments are related to the above and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 7 of claim 1 should recite –configured to-- rather than “configured identify”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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)(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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0234621 to Syvret et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 6, Syvret et al. discloses:
A window system for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a window moveable between a fully closed position, a pre-drop position, and a short drop position (¶¶ [0011] – [0012] describing the first, second, and third position for the window drop);
a sensor system configured to generate signals indicative of a presence of a recognized user adjacent the motor vehicle, and indicative of a proximity of the recognized user to the motor vehicle (¶ [0076] describing receiving signals from a key fob proximate to the vehicle via sensor 86; see also ¶ [0050] describing that the windows can also be operated by a user sensor near the doors); and
a controller configured to instruct the window to move from the fully closed position to the pre-drop position (¶ [0012] describing the controller used to instruct the window to move to a pre-drop position based on a signal from the key fob).
a door (Figure 1, Ref. No. 20 front door), wherein the window is moveable such that a height of an upper edge of the window relative to an upper edge of the door is variable in response to instructions from the controller (See Figures 2A and 3A depicting the four variable drop distance that the controller instructs the window to move to); and
a seal mounted to a body section of the motor vehicle, wherein the body section is adjacent an upper edge of a window opening selectively covered and uncovered by movement of the window, wherein, when the window is in the fully closed position, an upper edge of the window is within the seal, wherein, when the window is in the pre-drop position, the upper edge of the window is within the seal but the upper edge of the window is arranged at a lesser height than in the fully closed position, and wherein, when the window is in the short drop position, the upper edge of the window is not within the seal (See Figure 4 depicting seal 104 having an inner seal member 106 and an outer seal member 108; see also Figures 4-7 depicting the four different drop position for the window, including a pre-drop where the window remains within the seal, a short-drop where the window is not within the seal, and a full drop).
Regarding claim 7, Syvret et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Syvret et al. further discloses:
wherein the upper edge of the window moves a lesser distance when moving between the pre-drop and the short drop positions than when moving between the fully closed and short drop positions (See Figures 2A and 3A depicting the drop distances, including the distance between the pre-drop and short drop being less than between the fully closed and the short drop positions).
Regarding claim 8, Syvret et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Syvret et al. further discloses:
wherein the upper edge of the window moves a distance within a range of 10-18 mm when moving between the pre-drop and the short drop positions (Figure 2A depicting the distance between the pre-drop and the short drop to be 18mm), and the upper edge of the window moves a distance of 2 mm between the fully closed and pre-drop positions (Figure 2A depicting the distance between the fully closed and the pre-drop to be 4mm, which is about 2mm; see also ¶ [0010] describing that the drop distances between the closed and the second, pre-drop, position can be tunable to be between 5mm and 0.5mm).
Regarding claim 9, Syvret et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Syvret et al. further discloses:
wherein, when the window is in the pre-drop and short drop positions, there is a vertical clearance between the upper edge of the window and the body section such that the door can be moved from the fully closed position without the upper edge of the window contacting the body section (¶¶ [0059], [0060] describing that the door can be opened and closed when the window is in both the pre-drop position H2 and the short drop position H3).
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, 5, 10-13, 19, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syvret et al. and U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0309563 to Salter et al. (hereafter, “Salter I”; previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Syvret et al. discloses:
A window system for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a window moveable between a fully closed position, a pre-drop position, and a short drop position (¶¶ [0011] – [0012] describing the first, second, and third position for the window drop);
a sensor system configured to generate signals indicative of a presence of a recognized user adjacent the motor vehicle, and indicative of a proximity of the recognized user to the motor vehicle (¶ [0076] describing receiving signals from a key fob proximate to the vehicle via sensor 86; see also ¶ [0050] describing that the windows can also be operated by a user sensor near the doors); and
a controller configured to instruct the window to move from the fully closed position to the pre-drop position before the recognized user reaches the motor vehicle (¶ [0012] describing the controller used to instruct the window to move to a pre-drop position based on a signal from the key fob).
Syvret et al. does not expressly disclose identifying the presence of the recognized user adjacent the motor vehicle without requiring the recognized user to press any buttons on a keyfob of the motor vehicle.
Salter I, in the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying the presence of a recognized user adjacent the motor vehicle without requiring the user to press any buttons on a keyfob (¶ [0038] describing activating vehicle features, such as puddle lamp and light sensor, when the user is detected three meters or more from the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Syvret et al.’s invention to incorporate activating the window movement features when the user is without requiring the user to press a button, as taught by Salter I, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing an enhanced opening of the window of the vehicle, particularly for the side the user is approaching (Salter I at ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Syvret et al. and Salter I renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Syvret et al. further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to instruct the window to move from the fully closed position to the pre-drop position when the signal from the sensor system indicates the recognized user is near the motor vehicle (¶ [0059] describing the pre-drop position H2).
Syvret et al. does not expressly disclose moving the window when the user is within a non-zero threshold distance of the vehicle.
Salter I, in the same field of endeavor, teaches activating vehicle functionality when a user is detected within 3 meters of the vehicle (¶ [0038] describing activating vehicle features, such as puddle lamp and light sensor, when the user is detected three meters or more from the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Syvret et al.’s invention to incorporate activating the window movement features when the user is detected three meters from the vehicle, as taught by Salter I, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing an enhanced opening of the window of the vehicle, particularly for the side the user is approaching (Salter I at ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Syvret et al. and Salter I renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Syvret et al. further discloses:
wherein:
the window is a first window (Figure 1, Ref. No. 28),
the window system further comprises a second window moveable between a fully closed position, a pre-drop position, and a short drop position (Figure 1, Ref. No. 49), and
when the signal from the sensor system indicates the recognized user is adjacent the motor vehicle, the controller is configured to instruct a closer one of the first window and the second window to the recognized user to move from the fully closed position to the pre-drop position (¶ [0012] describing a door handle sensor detecting a user and causing the controller to move the window into a pre-drop, short drop, or full drop based on the detection of the user proximate the vehicle, and specifically moving the window at the door that the sensor is activated).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Syvret et al. and Salter I renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Syvret et al. further discloses:
a door mounted relative to an opening in a body of the motor vehicle such that the door is moveable between a fully closed position and a fully open position (Figure 1, Ref. No. 20 front door);
a door release assembly configured to permit movement of the door from the fully closed position (Figure 1, Ref. No. 46 door lever/actuator sensor), and
wherein, when the door release assembly is activated, the controller is configured to instruct the window to move from the pre-drop position to the short drop position (¶¶ [0067], [0068] describing moving the window from a pre-drop or higher position to a short drop position based on various scenario, including when the door release assembly is activated).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Syvret et al. and Salter I renders obvious all the limitations of claim 10. Syvret et al. further discloses:
wherein the door release assembly includes one or both of a door handle and a door presenter (Figure 1, Ref. No. 46 door handle).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Syvret et al. and Salter I renders obvious all the limitations of claim 10. Syvret et al. further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to instruct the window to move from the pre-drop position to the fully closed position if the door release assembly is not activated within a predefined time period (¶ [0076] describing a function that raises all the windows to a fully closed position from any position, including a pre-drop position, if the key fob is pressed and held for longer than a certain period time, which means that the door release assembly is not activated during that time).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Syvret et al. and Salter I render obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Syvret et al. further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to instruct the window to move from the fully closed position to the pre-drop position when one or more of the following occurs:
when a transmission of the motor vehicle is shifted into park from a gear other than park (¶ [0075] describing moving the window to a pre-drop position when the vehicle is put into park; see also ¶ [0067] describing same);
when an ignition of the motor vehicle is in an off position (¶ [0075] describing moving the window from a fully closed position to a pre-drop position when the vehicle is parked and there is nobody inside to account for total power failures);
when an ambient temperature is below a threshold temperature, or
when the motor vehicle is not operating in a normal operating condition (¶ [0016] describing moving the window from a fully closed position to a pre-drop when detecting that the vehicle has been in a crash)
Regarding claim 19, Syvret et al. discloses:
A method, comprising:
moving a window of a motor vehicle from a fully closed position to a pre-drop position when a recognized user is identified in a location spaced-apart from the motor vehicle (¶ [0012] describing the controller used to instruct the window to move to a pre-drop position based on a signal from the key fob or a door handle sensor).
Syvret et al. does not expressly disclose identifying the presence of the recognized user adjacent the motor vehicle without requiring the recognized user to press any buttons on a keyfob of the motor vehicle.
Salter I, in the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying the presence of a recognized user adjacent the motor vehicle without requiring the user to press any buttons on a keyfob (¶ [0038] describing activating vehicle features, such as puddle lamp and light sensor, when the user is detected three meters or more from the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Syvret et al.’s invention to incorporate activating the window movement features when the user is near without requiring the user to press a button, as taught by Salter I, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing an enhanced opening of the window of the vehicle, particularly for the side the user is approaching (Salter I at ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Syvret et al. and Salter I render obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Salter I further discloses:
wherein the sensor system includes one or more sensors configured to generate images adjacent the motor vehicle or to detect a presence of a phone as a key (PaaK) corresponding to the motor vehicle, and wherein the controller is configured to identify the recognized user by analyzing the images using facial recognition techniques or in response to a signal indicating a PaaK corresponding to the motor vehicle is adjacent the motor vehicle (¶ [0038] describing use of a phone, watch, radios, or other devices to activate the vehicle functions in response to detecting their presence and determining the distance of the user from the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Syvret et al.’s invention to incorporate activating the window movement features when the user’s phone is detected, as taught by Salter I, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing an enhanced opening of the window of the vehicle, particularly for the side the user is approaching (Salter I at ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Syvret et al. and Salter I render obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Salter I further discloses:
activating vehicle functionality when a user is detected within non-zero distance of the vehicle (¶ [0038] describing activating vehicle features, such as puddle lamp and light sensor, when the user is detected three meters or more from the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Syvret et al.’s invention to incorporate activating the window movement features when the user is detected three meters from the vehicle, as taught by Salter I, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing an enhanced opening of the window of the vehicle, particularly for the side the user is approaching (Salter I at ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Syvret et al. and Salter I render obvious all the limitations of claim 19. Syvret et al. further discloses:
wherein the window is moved from the fully closed position to the pre-drop position before the recognized user reaches the motor vehicle (¶ [0012] describing the controller used to instruct the window to move to a pre-drop position based on a signal from the key fob prior to the user reaching the vehicle).
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syvret et al. and Salter I, as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0108574 to Buttolo et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Syvret et al. and Salter I render obvious all the limitations of claim 1.
Syvret et al. does not expressly disclose that the controller is configured to instruct the window system to wake up from a low power mode when a signal from the sensor system indicates a recognized user is within a first threshold distance of the motor vehicle, the controller is configured to instruct the window to move from the fully closed position to the pre-drop position when a signal from the sensor system indicates the recognized user is within a second threshold distance of the motor vehicle, and the second threshold distance is less than the first threshold distance.
Buttolo et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches waking the vehicle up from a low power mode when a user is within a first threshold (¶ [0054] describing detecting the user walking up within a predetermined distance and waking the vehicle from a low-power state to a high-power state; see also Figure 4, detection zone 446). Buttolo et al. further teaches, in an alternative embodiment, activating the vehicle entry system when the user is within a second threshold that is less than the first threshold (¶ [0023] describing the user activating functions of the vehicle via touch or taps on a control panel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Syvret et al.’s invention to incorporate the teachings from Buttolo et al.’s two embodiments to include waking the vehicle from a low-power state when the user is detected within a first distance and activating Syvret et al.’s window movement based on detection of the user at a second shorter distance with a reasonable expectation of success in lowering power consumption of the vehicle when in a sleep state (Buttolo et al. at ¶¶ [0017], [0023]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Syvret et al. and Salter I render obvious all the limitations of claim 19.
Syvret et al. does not expressly disclose waking up a window system of the motor vehicle when the recognized user is within a first threshold distance of the motor vehicle; and moving the window from the fully closed position to the pre-drop position when the recognized user is within a second threshold distance of the motor vehicle, wherein the second threshold distance is less than the first threshold distance.
Buttolo et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches waking the vehicle up from a low power mode when a user is within a first threshold (¶ [0054] describing detecting the user walking up within a predetermined distance and waking the vehicle from a low-power state to a high-power state; see also Figure 4, detection zone 446), and activating the vehicle entry system when the user is within a second threshold that is less than the first threshold (¶ [0023] describing the user activating functions of the vehicle via touch or taps on a control panel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Syvret et al.’s invention to incorporate waking the vehicle from a low-power state when the user is detected within a first distance and activating Syvret et al.’s window movement based on detection of the user at a second shorter distance, as taught by Buttolo et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in lowering power consumption of the vehicle when in a sleep state (Buttolo et al. at ¶¶ [0017], [0023]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syvret et al., Salter I, and Buttolo et al., as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0120811 to Salter et al. (hereafter, “Salter II”; previously of record).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Syvret et al., Salter I, and Buttolo et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 3. Salter I further discloses:
that a threshold distance is 3 meters (¶ ¶ [0038] describing the predetermined detection distance to be 3 meters).
Syvret et al. does not expressly disclose that one of the threshold distances is about 10 meters.
Salter II, in the same field of endeavor, teaches setting a user detection distance at 10 meters (¶ [0032] describing detecting the user carrying device 20-30 feet away).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Syvret et al.’s invention to incorporate a threshold detection distance being 3 meters, as taught by Salter I, and a detection threshold to be set at about 10 meters, as taught by Salter II, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing an enhanced opening of the window of the vehicle, particularly for the side the user is approaching, as well as activating system for the user upon approach to the vehicle (Salter I at ¶ [0002]; Salter II at ¶ [0004]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syvret et al. and Salter I, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0291126 to Nicholls et al. (newly of record).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Syvret et al. and Salter I render obvious all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Syvret et al. nor Salter I expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured to use the signals from the sensor system to follow a path of travel of the recognized user as the recognized user approaches the motor vehicle.
Nicholls et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of signals from a sensor system to follow a path of travel of the recognized user as the recognized user approaches the motor vehicle (¶ [0047] describing using a sensor system to follow a path of travel of a user as the user approaches the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Syvret et al.’s invention to incorporate using a sensor system to follow a path of the user as the user approaches, as taught by Nicholls et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in providing real-time position information of a user to automatically activate vehicle systems as the user approaches without the user having to press an activation button (Nicholls et at. at ¶¶ [0047], [0062]).
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 JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-4pm ET.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights