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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot. Amendment to independent claims 1 and 13 necessitates new grounds of rejection and does not rely on the Capalau et al. (US 20190017299 A1) reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: communicator in claims 1 and 4, state detection device in claims 4 and 13, input device in claim 13, tilt detector in claim 13, wind speed detector in claim 16, braking device in claim 20 and , locking device in claim 20. Specifically,
communicator refers to Applicant’s specification as filed, [0116] at least one constituent component enabling communication with external devices and the internal devices of the vehicle, for example, at least one of a short-range communication module, wireless communication module, or a wired communication module. Here, the external device may be a server and a mobile device.
state detection device refers to Applicant’s specification as filed, [0139] may be one of an acceleration sensor, an inductance sensor, a Hall sensor, an optical sensor, or a gyro sensor.
input device refers to Applicant’s specification as filed, [0076] gearshift input device includes an input device of shift range.
tilt detector refers to Applicant’s specification as filed, [0104] may be an acceleration sensor, or include at least one of a gyro sensor, an angular velocity sensor, or a gravity sensor.
wind speed detector refers to Applicant’s specification as filed, [0108] may be one of a windmill type, a wind rose type, or an ultrasonic type.
braking device refers to Applicant’s specification as filed, [0064] may be implemented as a gear type, an electrical type or a hydraulic type.
locking device refers to Applicant’s specification as filed, [0064] may be implemented as a gear type, an electrical type or a hydraulic type.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (US 5434487 A; hereinafter Long) in view of Kito et al. (US 20200224476 A1; hereinafter Kito).
Regarding claim 1, Long teaches a door control device (see at least, Col 1 lines 50-51, a power
operating system for a vehicle door), comprising: a communicator configured to receive gear position information (see at least, Col 5 lines 40-44, A transmission switch (TRANS SW) 215 provides a binary PARK input to processor 205 to indicate when the vehicle transmission is in a mode providing no vehicle movement, such as the park condition of a standard vehicle automatic transmission); and
a processor configured to: determine at least two of a gear position (see at least, Col 5 lines 40-44, A transmission switch (TRANS SW) 215 provides a binary PARK input to processor 205 to indicate when the vehicle transmission is in a mode providing no vehicle movement, such as the park condition of a standard vehicle automatic transmission), presence or absence of an obstacle (see at least, Col 12 lines 10-13, the sensor signal SENSOR1 that represents a stall condition of the motor 108 in response to the door encountering an obstruction load resistance), or a wind speed based on the gear position information, the obstacle information, and the wind speed information, based on the gear position being at parking (see at least, 52, the routine determines if the power operation of the door should be inhibited based upon the vehicle transmission gear. Power operation of the door is inhibited unless the vehicle transmission is in park), enter a safety mode, and in the safety mode (see at least, Fig 16, Col 12 lines 9-13, Update Stall Time routine 414 is executed to determine a value of the period PTIM of the sensor signal SENSOR1 that represents a stall condition of the motor 108 in response to the door encountering an obstruction load resistance), based on a determination that (i) the gear position is at parking (see at least, Fig 16, Col 12 lines 37-39, Power operation of the door is inhibited unless the vehicle transmission is in park) and the obstacle exists or (ii) the gear position is at parking and the wind speed is greater than or equal to a reference wind speed, control a safety device of a door to secure a position of the door regardless of an opening or closing state of the door (see at least, Fig 16, Col 12 lines 13-16, This stall time is utilized in the Control Power Move routine 408 to determine whether or not to reverse or stop power movement of the door in response to an obstruction).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
687
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Long does not explicitly teach a communicator configured to receive wind speed information. However, Kito teaches this limitation ([0067] the disturbance input may be detected by a plurality of state quantities…examples of the state quantities including…the wind speed Ws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Long to include a communicator configured to receive wind speed information as taught by Kito in order so that disturbance input by a wind speed Ws around the vehicle can be detected and braking control to suppress the disturbance may be subsequently executed (Kito, [0066]).
Regarding claim 13, Long teaches a vehicle, comprising: a door (see at least, Col 2 lines 1-2, FIG. 1 is a partial perspective view of a van type motor vehicle body 10 in which a door 12 is mounted for fore and aft sliding movement); a safety device provided at the door (see at least, Col 8 lines 1-4, Door 12 may also include a power lock apparatus with an unlock motor 303 and with a LOCK CONTROL apparatus); a state detection device configured to detect a state of the door (see at least, Col 10 lines 14-16, monitoring the door movement based upon the output of the position sensor 124); an input device of shift range (see at least, Col 5 lines 40-44, A transmission switch (TRANS SW) 215 provides a binary PARK input to processor 205 to indicate when the vehicle transmission is in a mode providing no vehicle movement, such as the park condition of a standard vehicle automatic transmission); and a door control device (see at least, Col 1 lines 50-51, a power operating system for a vehicle door)
configured to: turn on a safety mode (see at least, Fig 16, Col 12 lines 9-13, Update Stall Time routine 414 is executed to determine a value of the period PTIM of the sensor signal SENSOR1 that represents a stall condition of the motor 108 in response to the door encountering an obstruction load resistance) in response to a gear position of the input device of shift range being at parking (see at least, 52, the routine determines if the power operation of the door should be inhibited based upon the vehicle
transmission gear. Power operation of the door is inhibited unless the vehicle transmission is in park), and in the safety mode, based on a determination that (i) the gear position is at parking (see at least, Fig 16, Col 12 lines 37-39, Power operation of the door is inhibited unless the vehicle transmission is in park) and an obstacle exists or (ii) the gear position is at parking and a wind speed is greater than or equal to a reference wind speed, control the safety device of the door to secure a position of the door regardless of an opening or closing state of the door (see at least, Fig 16, Col 12 lines 13-16, This stall time is utilized in the Control Power Move routine 408 to determine whether or not to reverse or stop power movement of the door in response to an obstruction).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
687
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Long does not explicitly teach a tilt detector configured to detect a tilt of the vehicle; and a door control device configured to: in the safety mode, control, based on the detected tilt of the vehicle, the door to maintain a movement speed or limit movement. However, Kito teaches this limitation.
Kito teaches a tilt detector configured to detect a tilt of the vehicle ([0025] the door ECU…of the …detects inclination in the vehicle width direction, that is, a roll angle component as the inclination angle α of the vehicle); and a door control device configured to: in the safety mode, control, based on the detected tilt of the vehicle, the door to maintain a movement speed or limit movement ([0052] the door ECU…determines whether or not the inclination angle α results in an external force to change the action position P of the swing door…that is, whether or not the inclination angle α corresponds to disturbance input…the braking control for the swing door…is executed on condition that the disturbance input is detected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Long to include a tilt detector configured to detect a tilt of the vehicle; and a door control device configured to: in the safety mode, control, based on the detected tilt of the vehicle, the door to maintain a movement speed or limit movement as taught by Kito in order so that disturbance input around the vehicle can be detected and braking control to suppress the disturbance may be subsequently executed (Kito, [0066]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Long and Kito teaches the vehicle of claim 13. Kito further teaches comprising: a wind speed detector configured to detect a wind speed (see at least, [0067] state quantities including…the wind speed Ws), wherein the door control device is configured to: determine whether the detected wind speed is greater than or equal to a reference wind speed based on information regarding the detected wind speed, and based on a determination that the detected wind speed is greater than or equal to the reference wind speed, control the safety device to secure a position of the door (see at least, [0003] detecting input of disturbance to the swing door such as…a strong wind….the opening/closing load is increased, that is, the action is made heavy by a braking
force being applied to the swing door).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Long to include determine whether the detected wind speed is greater than or equal to a reference wind speed based on information regarding the detected wind speed, and based on a determination that the detected wind speed is greater than or equal to the reference wind speed, control the safety device to secure a position of the door as taught by Kito in order so that disturbance input by a wind speed Ws around the vehicle can be detected and braking control to suppress the disturbance may be subsequently executed (Kito, [0066]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Long and Kito teaches the vehicle of claim 13. Long further teaches wherein the safety device comprises (i) a braking device configured to control braking of the door (see at least, Col 24 lines 47-49, modulated control of the motor 108 is enabled only if the door speed was too fast) and (ii) a locking device configured to control locking of the door (see at least, Col 8 lines 1-4, Door 12 may also include a power lock apparatus with an unlock motor 303 and with a LOCK CONTROL apparatus).
Claims 2, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (US 5434487 A; hereinafter Long) in view of Kito et al. (US 20200224476 A1; hereinafter Kito) and in further view of Capalau et al. (US 20190017299 A1; hereinafter Capalau).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Long and Kito teaches the door control device of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach a display device provided on the door, wherein the processor is configured to, based on the determination that (i) the gear position is at parking and the obstacle exists or (ii) the gear position is at parking and the wind speed is greater than or equal to the reference wind speed, control the display device to display warning information. However, Capalau teaches this limitation.
Capalau teaches further comprising: a display device provided on the door, wherein the processor is configured to, based on the determination that (i) the gear position is at parking and the obstacle exists or (ii) the gear position is at parking and the wind speed is greater than or equal to the reference wind speed, control the display device (see at least, [0024] a display device) to display warning information (see at least, [0005] the vehicle door lock control algorithm overrides an automatic door unlock feature that normally unlocks the vehicle side doors when the vehicle is shifted into park
position…visual warning may be generated to warn the user of an impending impact between the vehicle door and the object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include a display device provided on the door, wherein the processor is configured to, based on the determination that the gear position is at parking and the obstacle exists, control the display device to display warning information as taught by Capalau in order to generate a visual warning that a vulnerable object is approaching the vehicle or is already obstructing the opening path of one or more vehicle door assemblies (Capalau, [0024]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Long and Kito teaches the vehicle of claim 13. The combination does not explicitly teach further comprising: at least one of a camera or an obstacle detector, wherein the door control device is configured to: determine whether an obstacle exists based on image information received from the camera and obstacle detection information received from the obstacle detector, and based on a determination that the obstacle exists, control the safety device to secure a position of the door. However, Capalau teaches this limitation.
Capalau teaches comprising: at least one of a camera or an obstacle detector, wherein the door control device is configured to: determine whether an obstacle exists based on image information received from the camera and obstacle detection information received from the obstacle detector (see at least, [0019] the vehicle…is equipped with a foreign object detection (FOD) system…employs assorted sensing devices to monitor select regions within the vehicle's surrounding vicinity…two side cameras…
generate… laterally-projecting detection areas…on port and starboard sides of the vehicle), and based on a determination that the obstacle exists, control the safety device to secure a position of the door (see at least, [0005] sensing the vulnerable object's presence within the door's swing radius…the control algorithm will automatically lock or retain locked the vehicle door's locking mechanism).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include at least one of a camera or an obstacle detector, wherein the door control device is configured to: determine whether an obstacle exists based on image information received from the camera and obstacle detection information received from the obstacle detector, and based on a determination that the obstacle exists, control the safety device to secure a position of the door as taught by Capalau in order to generate a visual warning that a vulnerable object is approaching the vehicle (Capalau, [0024]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Long, Kito and Capalau teaches the vehicle of claim 14.
Capalau further teaches comprising: at least one of a display device or a speaker, wherein the door control device is configured to: based on a determination that the obstacle exists, control at least one of the display device (see at least, [0024] a display device) or the speaker (see at least, [0024] a sound generating device.. audio speaker) to output warning information (see at least, [0005] the vehicle door lock control algorithm overrides an automatic door unlock feature that normally unlocks the vehicle side doors when the vehicle is shifted into park position…An audible and/or visual warning may be generated to warn the user of an impending impact between the vehicle door and the object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include at least one of a camera or an obstacle detector, wherein the door control device is configured to: determine whether an obstacle exists based on image information received from the camera and obstacle detection information received from the obstacle detector, and based on a determination that the obstacle exists, control the safety device to secure a position of the door as taught by Capalau in order to generate an audible warning that a vulnerable object is approaching the vehicle or is already obstructing the opening path of one or more vehicle door assemblies (Capalau, [0024]).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (US 5434487 A; hereinafter Long) in view of Kito et al. (US 20200224476 A1; hereinafter Kito) and in further view of Furui et al. (US 20050222726 A1; hereinafter Furui).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Long and Kito teaches the door control device of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to, based on the gear position being at drive, reverse, or neutral, control the door to be locked. However, Furui teaches this limitation.
Furui teaches wherein the processor is configured to, based on the gear position being at drive, reverse, or neutral, control the door to be locked (see at least, [0170] automatically lock the vehicle doors when the shift position switch…is shifted from a parking position to a drive position that corresponds to a running position…automatically lock the vehicle doors when the vehicle speed reaches 15 km after the motor vehicle has started running).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include based on the gear position being at drive, reverse, or neutral, control the door to be locked as taught by Furui in order increase safety by securing the doors while the vehicle is in drive mode (Furui, [0028]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Long and Kito teaches the vehicle of claim 13. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the door control device is configured to, based on the gear position being set to drive, reverse, or neutral, control the door to be locked. However, Furui teaches this limitation.
Furui teaches wherein the door control device is configured to, based on the gear position being set to drive, reverse, or neutral, control the door to be locked (see at least, [0170] automatically lock the vehicle doors when the shift position switch…is shifted from a parking position to a drive position that corresponds to a running position…automatically lock the vehicle doors when the vehicle speed reaches 15 km after the motor vehicle has started running).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include based on the gear position being at drive, reverse, or neutral, control the door to be locked as taught by Furui in order increase safety by securing the doors while the vehicle is in drive mode (Furui, [0028]).
Claims 4-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (US 5434487 A; hereinafter Long) in view of Kito et al. (US 20200224476 A1; hereinafter Kito) in further view of Kaneda et al. (US 20230304351 A1; hereinafter Kaneda).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Long and Kito teaches the door control device of claim 1. Long further teaches comprising: a state detection device configured to detect state information of the door (see at least, Col 10 lines 14-16, monitoring the door movement based upon the output of the position sensor 124).
Kito further teaches wherein the communicator is configured to receive tilt information of a vehicle, and wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether the vehicle is tilted to a first side, or a second side based on the tilt information of the vehicle (see at least, [0025] the door ECU…of the …detects inclination in the vehicle width direction, that is, a roll angle component as the inclination angle α of the vehicle), determine, based on the state information of the door, whether a state of the door is changed from (i) a closed state to an open state or (ii) from the open state to the closed state (see at least, [0038] the door ECU…detects the vertical displacement Y of the swing door…in a case where the swing door…is in the open state…determines whether or not the swing door…is in action), determine a degree of opening of the door based on the state information of the door (see at least, [0024] The action position P of the swing door…can be expressed as…an opening action angle θ of the swing door), and control, based on the received tilt information of the vehicle, the state information of the door, and the degree of opening of the door, the door to maintain a movement speed or to limit movement in a direction opposite to a moving direction of the door (see at least [0052] the door ECU
…determines whether or not the inclination angle α results in an external force to change the action position P of the swing door…that is, whether or not the inclination angle α corresponds to disturbance input…the braking control for the swing door…is executed on condition that the disturbance input is detected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Long to include control, based on the received tilt information of the vehicle, the state information of the door, and the degree of opening of the door, the door to maintain a movement speed or to limit movement in a direction opposite to a moving direction of the door as taught by Kito in order so that disturbance input around the vehicle can be detected and braking control to suppress the disturbance may be subsequently executed (Kito, [0066]).
The combination does not explicitly teach the processor is configured to: determine whether the vehicle is tilted forward, backward. However, Kaneda teaches this limitation.
Kaneda teaches the processor is configured to: determine whether the vehicle is tilted forward, backward (see at least, [0051] The output signals of the accelerometer…are used to acquire information about the tilt attitude (tilt angle) of the host vehicle…in the front-rear…direction…of the host vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include determine whether the vehicle is tilted forward, backward as taught by Kaneda order to suppress the influence of external disturbance, change in the attitude of the host vehicle due to tilting in the front-rear and left-right directions and change in the degree of door opening (Kaneda, [0078]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Long, Kito and Kaneda teaches the door control device of claim 4. Kaneda further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: based on a determination that the vehicle is tilted forward and the state of the door is changed from the closed state to the open state (see at least, Fig 3G, [0090] “tilted forward and downward by 17 degrees” means that a target is each door of the host vehicle…located and tilted forward and downward on a slope in the vehicle longitudinal direction…at a tilt angle of 17 degrees), determine whether the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to a first reference opening degree (see at least, [0087] door positioned upward by 17 degrees” means that a target is each door positioned on the upper side of the host vehicle…
located on a slope in the vehicle width direction…at a tilt angle of 17 degrees), based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the first reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction of the door for the state of the door to enter the open state (see at least, [0144] the force that promotes the door…to be opened due to a change in the attitude of the host vehicle…tilted forward and downward by 17
degrees), the motor load current value…should be decreased when compared to the value while the host vehicle…is in the horizontal position in order to accurately execute the speed tracking control), and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the first reference opening degree, control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door (see at least, [0088] during auto-opening of the door…a force may act on the door…to promote it to be opened due to a change in the attitude of the host vehicle…tilted forward and downward by 17 degrees/door positioned downward by 17 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include based on a determination that the vehicle is tilted forward and the state of the door is changed from the closed state to the open state, determine whether the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to a first reference opening degree, based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the first reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction of the door for the state of the door to enter the open state, and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the first reference opening degree, control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door as taught by Kaneda order to suppress the influence of external disturbance, change in the attitude of the host vehicle due to tilting in the front-rear and left-right directions and change in the degree of door opening (Kaneda, [0078]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Long , Kito and Kaneda teaches the door control device of claim 4. Kaneda further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: based on a determination that the vehicle is tilted forward and the state of the door is changed to the closed state from the open state (see at least, Fig 3G, [0090] “tilted forward and downward by 17 degrees” means that a target is each door of the host vehicle…located and tilted forward and downward on a slope in the vehicle longitudinal direction…at a tilt angle of 17 degrees), determine whether the degree of opening of the door is less than a first reference opening degree, based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the first reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction of the door for the state of the door to enter the closed state (see at least, [0088] during auto-opening of the door…a force may act on the door…to promote it to be opened due to a change in the attitude of the host vehicle…tilted forward and downward by 17 degrees/door positioned downward by 17 degrees), and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the first reference opening degree, control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door (see at least, [0144] the force that promotes the door…to be opened due to a change in the attitude of the host vehicle…tilted forward and
downward by 17 degrees), the motor load current value…should be decreased when compared to the value while the host vehicle…is in the horizontal position in order to accurately execute the speed
tracking control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include based on a determination that the vehicle is tilted forward and the state of the door is changed to the closed state from the open state, determine whether the degree of opening of the door is less than a first reference opening degree, based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the first reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction of the door for the state of the door to enter the closed state, and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the first reference opening degree, control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door as taught by Kaneda order to suppress the influence of external disturbance, change in the attitude of the host vehicle due to tilting in the front-rear and left-right directions and change in the degree of door opening (Kaneda, [0078]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Long, Kito and Kaneda teaches the door control device of claim 4. Kaneda further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: based on a determination that the vehicle is tilted backward (see at least, Fig 3G, [0052] The front-rear tilt angle…can express the attitude (tilt angle) of the host vehicle…in the front-rear direction in a relative coordinate system by assigning a numerical value of 0 to the horizontal state…and a negative value to the rearward tilt state, respectively) and the state of the door is changed from the closed state to the open state (see at least, [0082] During auto-opening of the door…the vehicle…may be located on a slope in the front-rear…direction), determine whether the degree of opening of the door is less than a first reference opening degree, based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the first reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction of the door for the state of the door to enter the open state (see at least, Fig 3G, [0065] during auto-opening or auto-closing of the door…the setting unit…belonging to the door ECU…uses the information…about how the degree of door opening…corresponds to the door opening…speed…to extract the door opening…speed…set as a target door opening/closing speed), and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the first reference opening degree, control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door (see at least, [0104] during auto-opening of the door…a force may act on the door…to prevent it from being opened due to a change in the attitude of the host vehicle…tilted forward and upward by 17 degrees/door positioned upward by 17 degrees…the motor load current threshold…is increased and corrected when compared to the case where the host vehicle…is in the horizontal position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include based on a determination that the vehicle is tilted backward and the state of the door is changed from the closed state to the open state, determine whether the degree of opening of the door is less than a first reference opening degree, based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the first reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction of the door for the state of the door to enter the open state, and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the first reference opening degree, control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door as taught by Kaneda order to suppress the influence of external disturbance, change in the attitude of the host vehicle due to tilting in the front-rear and left-right directions and change in the degree of door opening (Kaneda, [0078]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Long, Kito and Kaneda teaches the door control device of claim 4.
Kaneda further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: based on a determination that the vehicle is tilted backward (see at least, Fig 3G, [0052] The front-rear tilt angle…can express the attitude (tilt angle) of the host vehicle…in the front-rear direction in a relative coordinate system by assigning a numerical value of 0 to the horizontal state…and a negative value to the rearward tilt state, respectively) and the state of the door is changed from the closed state to the open state (see at least, [0082] During auto-opening of the door…the vehicle…may be located on a slope in the front-rear…
direction), determine whether the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to a first reference opening degree, based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the first reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction of the door for the state of the door to enter the closed state (see at least, Fig 3G, [0104] during auto-opening of the door…a force may act on the door…to prevent it from being opened due to a change in the attitude of the host vehicle…tilted forward and upward by 17 degrees/door positioned upward by 17 degrees…the motor load current threshold…is increased and corrected when compared to the case where the host vehicle…is in the horizontal position), and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the first reference opening degree, control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door (see at least, [0065] during auto-opening or auto-closing of the door…the setting unit…belonging to the door ECU…uses the information…about how the degree of door opening…corresponds to the door opening…speed…to extract the door opening…speed…set as a target door opening/closing speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include based on a determination that the vehicle is tilted backward and the state of the door is changed to the closed state from the open state, determine whether the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to a first reference opening degree, based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the first reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction of the door for the state of the door to enter the closed state, and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the first reference opening degree, control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door as taught by Kaneda order to suppress the influence of external disturbance, change in the attitude of the host vehicle due to tilting in the front-rear and left-right directions and change in the degree of door opening (Kaneda, [0078]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Long and Kito teaches the door control device of claim 4.
Kaneda further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: based on the vehicle being tilted to the first side, determine whether the door opens or closes on an axis of the first side (Fig 3G), based on a determination that the door opens or closes on the axis of the first side and the state of the door is changed from the closed state to the open state (see at least, [0053] the left-right tilt angle…can express the attitude (tilt angle) of the host vehicle…in the left-right direction in a relative coordinate system by assigning a numerical value of 0 to the horizontal state, a positive value to the leftward tilt state), determine whether the degree of opening of the door is less than a second reference opening degree, based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the second reference opening degree (see at least, [0064] the degree of door opening…corresponds to the door opening…speed…characteristic of gradually descending to the left), control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction of the door for the state of the door to enter the open state ([0029] the motor load current threshold…is…increased for correction in order to obtain the appropriate motor load current threshold…for each attitude…auto-opening… of the door), and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the second reference opening degree (see at least, [0064] the degree of door opening…corresponds to the door opening…speed…is characteristic of steeply ascending to the left), control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door (see at least, [0029] the motor load current threshold…is…decreased for correction in order to obtain the appropriate motor load current threshold…for each attitude…auto-opening… of the door).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include based on the vehicle being tilted to the first side, determine whether the door opens or closes on an axis of the first side, based on a determination that the door opens or closes on the axis of the first side and the state of the door is changed from the closed state to the open state, determine whether the degree of opening of the door is less than a second reference opening degree, based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the second reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction of the door for the state of the door to enter the open state, and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the second reference opening degree, control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door as taught by Kaneda order to suppress the influence of external disturbance, change in the attitude of the host vehicle due to tilting in the front-rear and left-right directions and change in the degree of door opening (Kaneda, [0078]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Long and Kito teaches the door control device of claim 4.
Kaneda further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: based on a determination that the vehicle is tilted to the first side, the door opens or closes on an axis of the first side (see at least, Fig 3G), and the state of the door is changed to the closed state from the open state (see at least, [0053] the left-right tilt angle…can express the attitude (tilt angle) of the host vehicle…in the left-right
direction in a relative coordinate system by assigning a numerical value of 0 to the horizontal state, a positive value to the leftward tilt state), determine whether the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to a second reference opening degree (see at least, [0064] the degree of door opening…corresponds to the door opening…speed…is characteristic of steeply ascending to the left), based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the second reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction of the door for the state of the door to enter the closed state (see at least, [0029] the motor load current threshold…is…increased for correction in order to obtain the appropriate motor load current threshold…for each attitude…auto-opening… of the door), and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the second reference opening degree (see at least, [0064] the degree of door opening…corresponds to the door opening…speed…characteristic of gradually descending to the left), control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door (see at least, [0029] the motor load current threshold…is…decreased for correction in order to obtain the appropriate motor load current threshold…for each attitude…auto-opening… of the door).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include based on a determination that the vehicle is tilted to the first side, the door opens or closes on an axis of the first side, and the state of the door is changed to the closed state from the open state, determine whether the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to a second reference opening degree, based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the second reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction of the door for the state of the door to enter the closed state, and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the second reference opening degree, control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door as taught by Kaneda order to suppress the influence of external disturbance, change in the attitude of the host vehicle due to tilting in the front-rear and left-right directions and change in the degree of door opening (Kaneda, [0078]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Long, Kito and Kaneda teaches the door control device of claim 4. Kaneda further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: based on the vehicle being tilted to the first side (see at least, Fig 3G), determine whether the door opens or closes on an axis of the second side, based on a determination that the door opens or closes on the axis of the second side and the state of the door is changed from the closed state to the open state (see at least, [0053] the left-right tilt angle…can express the attitude (tilt angle) of the host vehicle…in the left-right direction in a relative coordinate system by assigning a numerical value of 0 to the horizontal state…and a negative value to the rightward tilt state), determine whether the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to a second reference opening degree (see at least, [0064] the degree of door opening…
corresponds to the door opening…speed…characteristic of gradually descending to the left), based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the second reference opening degree (see at least, [0064] the degree of door opening…corresponds to the door opening…
speed…is characteristic of steeply ascending to the left), control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction for the state of the door to enter the open state (see at least, [0029] the motor load current threshold…is…increased for correction in order to obtain the appropriate motor load current threshold…for each attitude…auto-opening… of the door), and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the second reference opening degree (see at least, [0064] the degree of door opening…corresponds to the door opening…speed…characteristic of gradually descending to the left), control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door (see at least, [0029] the motor load current threshold…is…decreased
for correction in order to obtain the appropriate motor load current threshold…for each attitude…
auto-opening… of the door).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include based on the vehicle being tilted to the first side, determine whether the door opens or closes on an axis of the second side, based on a determination that the door opens or closes on the axis of the second side and the state of the door is changed from the closed state to the open state, determine whether the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to a second reference opening degree, based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the second reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction for the state of the door to enter the open state, and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the second reference opening degree, control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door as taught by Kaneda order to suppress the influence of external disturbance, change in the attitude of the host vehicle due to tilting in the front-rear and left-right directions and change in the degree of door opening (Kaneda, [0078]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Long, Kito and Kaneda teaches the door control device of claim 4. Kaneda further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: based on a determination that the vehicle is tilted to the first side (see at least, Fig 3G), the door opens or closes on an axis of the second side, and the state of the door is changed to the closed state from the open state (see at least, [0053] the left-right tilt angle…can express the attitude (tilt angle) of the host vehicle…in the left-right direction in a relative coordinate system by assigning a numerical value of 0 to the horizontal state…and a negative value to the rightward tilt state), determine whether the degree of opening of the door is less than a second reference opening degree (see at least, [0064] the degree of door opening…corresponds to the door opening…speed…characteristic of gradually descending to the left), based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the second reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction for the state of the door to enter the closed state (see at least, [0029] the motor load current threshold…is…increased for correction in order to obtain the appropriate motor load current threshold…for each attitude…
auto-opening… of the door), and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the second reference opening degree (see at least, [0064] the degree of door opening…corresponds to the door opening…speed…is characteristic of steeply ascending to the left), control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door (see at least, [0029] the motor load current threshold…is…decreased for correction in order to obtain the appropriate motor load current threshold…for each attitude…auto-opening… of the door).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Long and Kito to include based on a determination that the vehicle is tilted to the first side, the door opens or closes on an axis of the second side, and the state of the door is changed to the closed state from the open state, determine whether the degree of opening of the door is less than a second reference opening degree, based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is less than the second reference opening degree, control the door to maintain a movement speed in a moving direction for the state of the door to enter the closed state, and based on a determination that the degree of opening of the door is greater than or equal to the second reference opening degree, control the door to limit movement in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the door as taught by Kaneda order to suppress the influence of external disturbance, change in the attitude of the host vehicle due to tilting in the front-rear and left-right directions and change in the degree of door opening (Kaneda, [0078]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Long and Kito teaches the vehicle of claim 13. Kito further teaches wherein the door control device is configured to: determine, based on tilt information of the vehicle, whether the vehicle is tilted to a first side or a second side (see at least, [0025] the door ECU…of the …detects inclination in the vehicle width direction, that is, a roll angle component as the inclination angle α of the vehicle), determine whether the state of the door is changed from (i) a closed state to an open state or (ii) the open state to the closed state (see at least, [0038] the door ECU…detects the vertical displacement Y of the swing door…in a case where the swing door…is in the open state…determines whether or not the swing door…is in action), based on state information of the door, identify a degree of opening of the door based on the state information of the door (see at least, [0024] The action position P of the swing door…can be expressed as…an opening action angle θ of the swing door), and control, based on the tilt information of the vehicle, the state information of the door, and the degree of opening of the door, the door to maintain a movement speed or to limit movement in a direction opposite to a moving direction of the door (see at least, [0024] The action position P of the swing door…can be expressed as…an opening action angle θ of the swing door).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Long to include control, based on the tilt information of the vehicle, the state information of the door, and the degree of opening of the door, the door to maintain a movement speed or to limit movement in a direction opposite to a moving direction of the door as taught by Kito in order so that disturbance input around the vehicle can be detected and braking control to suppress the disturbance may be subsequently executed (Kito, [0066]).
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the door control device is configured to: determine, based on tilt information of the vehicle, whether the vehicle is tilted forward, backward. However, Kaneda teaches this limitation.
Kaneda teaches wherein the door control device is configured to: determine, based on tilt information of the vehicle, whether the vehicle is tilted forward, backward (see at least, [0051] The output signals of the accelerometer…are used to acquire information about the tilt attitude (tilt angle) of the host vehicle…in the front-rear…direction…of the host vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Long and Kito to include determine, based on tilt information of the vehicle, whether the vehicle is tilted forward, backward as taught by Kaneda order to suppress the influence of external disturbance, change in the attitude of the host vehicle due to tilting in the front-rear and left-right directions and change in the degree of door opening (Kaneda, [0078]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Long, Kito and Kaneda teaches the vehicle of claim 18. Kito further teaches wherein the door control device is configured to, based on the movement speed of the door being controlled to be maintained, control the door to not move above a preset movement speed (see at least, [0026] the door ECU…first detects the action speed Ds of the swing door…and compares the action Speed…with a predetermined threshold value…determines that the action speed Ds exceeds the threshold value…executes the braking control for the swing door).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Long to include the door control device is configured to, based on the movement speed of the door being controlled to be maintained, control the door to not move above a preset movement speed as taught by Kito in order so that disturbance input around the vehicle can be detected and braking control to suppress the disturbance may be subsequently executed (Kito, [0066]).
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 TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm M-F.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/TOYA PETTIEGREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662