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 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-12 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herman et al [Herman] PGPUB 2022/0243521.
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 the door rotates to open toward the target 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 adjust the torque provided to the door 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].
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 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 16-18, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove with respect to claims 2-3 and 5. Herman teaches the apparatus and therefore teaches the method performed by the apparatus.
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman as applied to claims 1-3, 11-12 and 16-18 above, and further in view of Himmelstein US Pat No 6496107.
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 as applied to claims 1-3, 11-12 and 16-18 above, and further in view of Penilla US Pat No 11294551.
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 as applied to claims 1-3, 11-12 and 16-18 above, and further in view of Tabahi et al [Tabahi] PGPUB 2023/0340821.
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 with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 5-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination, controlling the velocity of the motor to maintain the first velocity so that the door stops at the target angle (claim 5&19); when a final open angle is smaller/larger than the target angle, increase/decrease the second angle respectively (claims 6-9&20); when a maximum value of the open angle is larger than the final open angle, decrease the second angle (claim 10); and receiving a user input to set the target angle using at least one of a first and second infrared sensor (claim 13).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 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 2/12/26