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 § 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, 5-7, 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]. In the Herman-Battlogg combination, once the door angle exceeds the second angle and thus needs to be slowed down and stopped, the apparatus would utilize the braking device instead of the motor and slow the inertia down in a manner that would allow the door to continue to open to and stop at the target angle. A similar analogy to this would be a car where the driver takes their foot off the gas and briefly coasts before applying the brakes rather than keeping the gas pedal in a position where velocity is constant and then gradually letting up on gas pedal which uses the engine (i.e., motor) to slow down or simply engine breaking to decelerate.
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 6, this is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. Furthermore, the Herman-Battlogg combination stops the motor after maintaining the velocity and reaching the second angle as argued above and continues to allow the door to open while simultaneously applying a braking force to allow the final angle to reach the target angle.
Referring to claim 7, Herman teaches the door continuing to open until it reaches the target angle [Fig. 14, 0145].
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, 5-7, 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, 5-7, 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, 5-7, 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 1) Battlogg initiates the drive together with the brake; 2) the door of Battlogg would come to a rest at the position where the control is applied; 3) Battlogg does not teach that inertia is utilized to carry the door beyond the position where control is terminated; 4) Herman drives the motor to the planned stop position; 5) Herman teaches away from incorporating a mechanical device; and 6) Herman is structurally incapable of allowing the door to coast.
Referring to applicants first argument, this is incorrect. Battlogg explicitly states that a braking device or braking by means of a drive motor are possible [col. 3 lines 27-31]. The use of the term OR does not demand that both the braking device and motor must be used together in order to brake. While the examiner agrees that both would be obvious to be used, only using the braking device is fully supported by Battlogg.
Referring to applicants’ second argument, this is also incorrect. Battlogg teaches that a “soft stop” is realized. If the rest position is the spot where braking control is applied, then a soft stop would not be possible and instead, the stop would be instant and abrupt which teaches away from the Battlogg teaching.
Referring to applicants third argument, presuming that applicant’s argument is directed specifically to allowing the doorstop opening solely on inertia, such features are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is the examiners position that in the Herman-Battlogg combination, once the motor is stopped, inertia allows the door to continue to open decelerates with the help of the braking device to cause the door opening to stop at the target angle. This reads on the claim as presented as the claims do not prohibit the use of a braking device that is different than the motor.
Referring to applicants’ fourth argument, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Battlogg teaches that a braking device can be used to slow and stop the door opening instead of a motor.
Referring to applicants fifth argument, the examiner is unable to locate the passage that applicant is relying on that explicitly prohibits the use of a braking device. Instead, all the examiner can find is that Herman is using a motor instead of a braking device which is not a teaching away from. According to MPEP 2123(II), Herman would not constitute a teaching away from since the alternative (i.e., using a braking device) is not criticized, discredited or otherwise discouraged in Herman.
Referring to applicants sixth argument, Herman explicitly teaches including a clutch to allow the door to be disengaged from the gearbox [0115]. This would allows the door to freely swing and it taught to allow for users to open and close the door manually. A door that can freely swing and be manually operated allows the door to move on its own inertia and coast during an opening operation and subsequently disengaging the clutch.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination, decreasing the second angle if a) the final open angle is larger then the target angle (claims 8), or b) the maximum open angle is larger than the final open 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).
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 10/5/26
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