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 .
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 have been presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claims 1 and 16 set forth that the motor is controlled “to stop so that the door opens to the target angle.” Claims 6, 8, 10 and 20 then recite that the door does not open to the target angle. These situations contradict each other. If the door opens to a target angle, then claims 6-10 and 20 would not hold true. On the other hand, if the door opens to an angle less than or greater than the target angle, claim 1 would not hold true. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11-12 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman1 in view of Battlogg US Pat No 11603698.
Referring to claim 1, Herman teaches the apparatus comprising:
a door that is rotatable to open and close [Fig. 30, 0163].
a sensor configured to detect rotation of the door, and to produce a corresponding output signal [0131, 0163].
a motor configured to provide a torque to the door to rotate the door [36 Fig. 2, 0005, 0113].
a processor configured to:
obtain an open angle of the door based on the output signal produced by the sensor [0145].
based on the obtained open angle being within a first angle that is smaller than a target angle set by the user, control a velocity of the motor to provide a torque to the door so that a rotation velocity of the door reaches a first velocity by the first angle [Fig. 14, 0145].
based on the obtained open angle being larger than the first angle and smaller than the target angle, adjust the velocity of the motor to maintain the rotation velocity of the door as the first velocity [Fig. 14, 0145].
based on the obtained open angle being larger than the second angle, control reduce the door velocity so that the door opens to the target angle [Fig. 14, 0145].
In summary, Herman teaches a door that can be opened in automatic mode wherein the door can be opened and closed via electric motor. The opening and closing of the door is controlled via controller which adjusts the velocity of the motor based on the detected door angle. In Fig. 14 we see the curve related to opening the door wherein the velocity initially ramps up until a first angle is detected, then maintains velocity until a second angle is reached, then decelerates the velocity until a final door angle (i.e., target angle) is reached. It should be noted that the motor in Herman is adjusting torque with the velocity because we see acceleration and deceleration of the angular motion of the door [Fig. 14].
While Herman teaches decelerating the velocity, it is not taught how deceleration occurs. Battlogg teaches that braking forces (i.e., decelerating a velocity) can occur via a number of ways which include using the drive motor but also a braking device [col. 3 lines 27-31]. Battlogg teaches that a braking device is initiated at a precise point in time to allow for a “soft stop” and utilizing the doors inertia [col. 18 lines 34-42]. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Herman to include the braking device of Battlogg because Battlogg teaches an alternative to braking via motor and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. It is interpreted that the precise point in time described in Battlogg would correspond to an angle “being larger than the second angle” (i.e., related to the “plurality of closure member angles” and associated with the deceleration segment of the graph) [Fig. 14, 0145].
Referring to claims 2-3, Herman teaches both being able to close the door via close command (i.e., reduce a final open angle when the final open angle is larger than the target angle) [0226] and open the door via open command (i.e., increase a final open angle when the final open angle is less than the target angle) [0225]. The open angle is interpreted as the maximum value when closing the door from an open state to a closed state.
Referring to claim 5, Herman teaches when within a first angle, controlling the velocity to become a first velocity [Fig. 14, 0145]. This inherently involves applying a torque to accelerate the door to the first velocity since torque is a necessary force to apply to reach the first velocity.
Referring to claim 11, Herman teaches the door open stop position (i.e., target angle) is selectable by the user [Fig. 10].
Referring to claim 12, Herman teaches that the target angle is set via touchscreen [0050].
Referring to claims 16-19, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove with respect to claims 2-3 and 5. Herman and Battlogg teach the apparatus and therefore teach the method performed by the apparatus.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman and Battlogg as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 11-12 and 16-19 above, and further in view of Himmelstein2.
Referring to claim 14, while Herman teaches including a touch screen to receive user input to set the target angle of the car door, it is not explicitly taught that the target angle can alternatively be set by voice (i.e., via microphone input). Himmelstein teaches being able to use voice commands to control “all… basic functions of a vehicle” [col. 6 lines 36-45]. It would have been obvious to try incorporating the teachings of Himmelstein into Herman to allow the user to set the target door angle via voice because Himmelstein teaches an alternative to setting parameters of a vehicle and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. While the examiner acknowledges that Himmelstein does not explicitly teach setting door angle position, it is taught to control the opening and closing of power doors while also controlling mirrors (presumably mirror positions). Therefore, it is the examiners position that one of ordinary skill looking to set a power door position would be motivated to try setting the door angle via voice since doors and position can be controlled via voice as evidenced by Himmelstein.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman and Battlogg as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 11-12 and 16-19 above, and further in view of Penilla3.
Referring to claim 15, while Herman teaches including a touch screen to receive user input to set the target angle of the car door, it is not explicitly taught that the target angle can alternatively be set by voice (i.e., via microphone input). Penilla teaches being able to use a user device to control “settings or functions that pertain to an environment” [Abstract and Figs. 22-23]. It would have been obvious to try incorporating the teachings of Penilla into Herman to allow the user to set the target door angle via user device because Himmelstein teaches an alternative to setting parameters of a vehicle and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. While the examiner acknowledges that Penilla does not explicitly teach setting door angle position, it is taught to control seat position and window glare block position. Therefore, it is the examiners position that one of ordinary skill looking to set a door angle position would be motivated to try setting the door angle via user device since other position information can be controlled via user device as evidenced by Penilla.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman and Battlogg as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 11-12 and 16-19 above, and further in view of Tabahi4.
Referring to claim 21, while Herman teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught that the door control can be used with a door for a refrigerated storeroom. Rather, Herman is directed to a car door. Tabahi teaches the existence of walk-in coolers (i.e., refrigerator having a storeroom) which also have a need for automatic door control [Abstract, 0005]. While the door control for Herman and Tabahi are different, it is the examiners belief that automatic opening and closing of a door as taught in Herman is applicable to any type of door which could benefit from automatic opening and closing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try incorporating the automatic opening and closing of a door as taught in Herman into a walk-in cooler door because it would improve a similar device ready for improvement (i.e., the walk-in cooler door) in a predictable manner (i.e., to allow for automatic opening and closing).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the REMARKs, applicants argue in substance that Herman does not control the motor to stop and instead, uses the motor to ramp down Vswing until the door reaches the stop position.
In response to applicants’ argument, the examiner would like to point out that the rationale behind applicants’ argument is that when stopping the motor results in the door reaching its target angle by its own inertia. It is arguable that the motor in Herman is used as a braking device to decelerate the door swing velocity. Specifically, it acts as an engine brake by reversing the motor direction and controlling the force the motor is applying. In response, a braking force is applied. In this instance, the motor is not acting as a driver for opening the door and instead, inertia or momentum of the door is the cause for its continued swing. The motor is only used to decelerate the device. This appears to cover what applicants intend when controlling the motor to stop since opening is still occurring due to inertia.
For arguments sake, instead of relying on the above interpretation for rejecting claim 1, the examiner has updated the rejection to further include reference to Battlogg who teaches that a braking device can be used in place of a motor to decelerate the door. By including a separate braking device instead of using the motor to decelerate the door, the motor is no longer used and would thus be controlled to stop.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
PGPUB 2009/0265992 to Hass teaches identifying a speed profile for a door based on its weight to control automatic door opening and closing based on door angle which accounts for the door’s inertia. The control is then performed by a motor which provides a braking action to slow the door down and stop at its final position [Figs. 31A-B, 0164-0166].
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination, receiving a user input to set the target angle using at least one of a first and second infrared sensor (claim 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 5/5/26
1 Cited in the previous office action.
2 Cited in the previous office action.
3 Cited in the previous office action.
4 Cited in the previous office action.
Prosecution Insights