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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1–10, 12–13, and 16–24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denk et al. (DE 102011077014 A1), hereinafter referred to as Denk.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13, Denk teaches, “A device (claims 12 and 13: system and method) for recognizing a movement of an object (Fig. 4 and 5, ref. # 54, 56) caught in a door (Fig. 1, ref. # 12, 14) of a vehicle (Fig. 1, ref. # 10), the device (see Fig. 1, 3, 4, 10; para. [0004, 0073]) comprising: a carrier element (42), to which a first electrical conductor (32) is fastened (Fig. 3; [0080]); and an elastic object contact element (44), to which a second electrical conductor (34) is fastened (Fig. 3; [0080]), wherein the elastic object-contact element (44) is connected to the carrier element (42) such that, when the caught object (54, 56) is pulled in a selected sensing direction (58), the first and second electrical conductors (32, 34) are contacted with each other (Fig. 10; [0035, 0090–0093, 0107, 0109]; see discussion of control of output switching signals), and when the caught object (54, 56) is pulled in an opposite direction (Fig. 5, ref. # 64) to the selected sensing direction, the first and the second electrical conductor (32, 34) are not contacted with one another so that a recognition signal is only generated when the caught object is being pulled from outside the vehicle (para. [0094–0095]).”
Regarding claims 2–5, 16–18, and 19, Denk teaches, “a carrier element, to which a first electrical conductor is fastened; and an elastic object-contact element, to which a second electrical conductor is fastened, wherein the carrier element and the elastic object-contact element are formed in one piece; wherein the first conductor and the second conductor are formed in a cavity, wherein the cavity is formed by the carrier element and the elastic object-contact element; wherein the first conductor and/or the second conductor are arranged in a cavity of the carrier element, and/or wherein the elastic object-contact element forms a balloon envelope on the carrier element; wherein the elastic object-contact element includes a switch tappet and/or protrusion, wherein the protrusion protrudes from the elastic object-contact element on a side thereof remote from the carrier element (see at least Fig. 3, ref. # 42, 44 with 32, 34; para. [0080]).”
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Denk teaches, “wherein the first conductor is upstream of the second conductor in the sensing direction, or wherein the second conductor is upstream of the first conductor in the sensing direction (Fig. 3, 4; para. [0090, 0092]; because there are two separate members 28 (one shown in 22, another shown in 24), each individually interpreted as the first/second electrical conductor combination 32/34, one upstream and one downstream in the sensing direction 58, Denk teaches this limitation, and notably, does not send recognition signal using either member 28 with 32/34, when 54 pulled inside door in 64 direction; see para [0094-0095]).”
Regarding claims 7, 8, 21, and 22, Denk teaches, “a carrier element, to which a first electrical conductor is fastened; and an elastic object-contact element, to which a second electrical conductor is fastened, an anti-vandalism element located upstream of the elastic object-contact element in the sensing direction; a sealing element downstream of the elastic object-contact element in the sensing direction (Fig. 2, ref. # 22, 24; para. [0079] and Fig. 3, ref. # 42, 44 with 32/34; para. [0080]).”
Regarding claims 9 and 23, Denk teaches, “a carrier element, to which a first electrical conductor is fastened; and an elastic object-contact element, to which a second electrical conductor is fastened, a further electrical conductor fastened to the carrier element, wherein the first conductor is arranged in a region of a first end of the elastic object-contact element on the carrier element and the third conductor is arranged in a region of the elastic object-contact element on the carrier element opposite the first end (Fig. 17, 18; para. [0035, 0118–0123]; Fig. 3, ref. # 42, 44 with 32/34; para. [0080]).”
Regarding claims 10 and 24, Denk teaches, “a carrier element, to which a first electrical conductor is fastened; and an elastic object-contact element, to which a second electrical conductor is fastened, a further carrier element having a recess so as to receive the elastic object-contact element in the recess (Fig. 9–11; para. [0035]; Fig. 3, ref. # 42, 44 with 32/34; para. [0080]).”
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denk (DE 102011077014 A1) in view of Schiffers et al. (DE 102007002745 A1), hereinafter referred to as Schiffers.
Regarding claims 11 and 25, Denk teaches, “a carrier element, to which a first electrical conductor is fastened; and an elastic object-contact element, to which a second electrical conductor is fastened (Fig. 3, ref. # 42, 44 with 32/34; para. [0080])”, but does not appear to teach, “a catch recognition element designed as a pressure sensor to recognize an object caught in the door of the vehicle, wherein the catch recognition element is embedded in the carrier element or in the further carrier element.” However, Schiffers teaches the deficiencies of Denk (see at least claim 1 and para. [0007]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Denk’s invention to include a catch recognition element designed as a pressure sensor to recognize an object caught in the door of the vehicle, wherein the catch recognition element is embedded in the carrier element or in the further carrier element.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Denk’s invention for at least the purpose of providing further control notification ability to the device to enhance the safety features between closing doors, ensuring prevention of personal injury when objects become stuck between doors.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denk (DE 102011077014 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Denk doesn’t necessarily teach, “A non-transitory computer program product comprising program code for performing and/or controlling the method of claim 13, when the computer program product is run on a device; A machine readable storage medium on which there is stored the computer program of claim 14.” However, controlling methods via program code stored on non-transitory computer program products and storing/running them on a device as claimed above, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Denk’s invention for at least the purpose of providing enhanced functionality and improved efficiency, by enabling real-time and automated control, a well-known advantage of software-based systems. Additionally, integrating software with mechanical systems is routine in the art, as evidenced by the widespread use of programmable logic controllers. Here, the examiner takes Official notice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states, “The rejection is respectfully traversed as the cited references, analyzed individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the claimed invention. For example, the cited references fail to teach or suggest the claimed device, system or method wherein the elastic object-contact element is connected to the carrier element such that, when the caught object is pulled in a selected sensing direction, the first and second electrical conductors are contacted with each other, and when the caught object is pulled in an opposite direction to the selected sensing direction, the first and the second electrical conductor are not contacted with one another so that a recognition signal is only generated when the caught object is being pulled from outside the vehicle as generally recited in the independent claims.
Denk teaches a pressure sensor system, generally, with a directional sensor. However, Denk Figures 4-6 disclose sensors in mirror image to each other so that each sensor pair detects in the opposite direction and therefore a recognition signal is indicated in both or either direction. Figure 7 further describes how the two sensors can be replaced with a sensor that provides multi-directional sensing. In other words, Denk is directed to recognizing caught objects in as many directions as possible. This is distinct from the claimed invention directed to identifying and recognizing only caught objects being pulled from outside the vehicle to detect and prevent objects or people from being dragged along outside the vehicle. See Applicant's publication para. [0053]. For at least these reasons, Denk fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention.” The Office disagrees with applicant’s conclusions.
Initially, it should be noted, that claim 1 is directed to a device, not a method or system, and therefore, the functional limitations directed to movement of the electrical conductors contacting each other, depending on which direction a caught object is pulled do not appear to further define the device. The device only requires a carrier element, first electrical conductor, elastic object contact element, and second electrical conductor, all of which are taught by Denk. Nonetheless, as shown above and further discussed below, Denk teaches the claimed details of each of these limitations in claims 1, 12, and 13.
In Figure 4 of Denk, a pulling direction 58 from inside to outside a door is shown on test piece 54/56 (see also Fig. 1; [0094-0095]). When 56 is pulled in the direction outside of the door, first and second electrical conductors 32/34 are contacted with each other, resulting in a generated recognition signal (see para. [0091-0092]), and alternatively, as shown in Fig. 5, when 56 is pulled in the direction inside of the door (claimed “opposite direction to the selected sensing direction”) first and second electrical conductors 32/34 are not contacted with each other, thus no recognition signal is generated (see para. [0094-0095]). Thus, Denk teaches the newly claimed limitation as outlined. Notably, applicant arguing Denk’s sensors “mirror image to each other”, “multi-directional sensing”, “recognizing caught objects in as many directions as possible” does not preclude the fact that Denk teaches the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 13 as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852