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 .
Status of Application
This action is in reply to the amendment filed September 2, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and elected for examination.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
The examiner acknowledges and appreciates the amendments to the drawings to provide additional clarification and detail within the figures. The drawings as entered are accepted.
35 USC § 112
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to overcome the prior rejection by removing the term “greater less” in claims 1 and 18. Accordingly, the rejections over 112(b) regarding claims 1 and 18 are withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 6 and 15 of removing “use skip detection logic to…” and adding “via moto skip detection” do not rectify the prior rejection. The applicant argues (Pg 11) that a person of skill in the art would have understood the meaning of “motor skip detection based on the well-known meaning of the term in the art.” However, the term “motor skip detection” can refer to several different detection mechanisms in the art, including but not limited to skipping a command in the motor control process or skipping a tooth of a gear. From the context, it appears this monitoring is more closely aligned to the latter definition to monitor misalignment between two motors, but no detail is found in the specification to support gear-based calculations. “Motor slip detection” on the other hand, is generally recognized in the art to refer to differences between synchronous and actual speed of a motor, i.e. for identifying misalignment of two motors. The examiner has interpreted this phrase as any system or calculation used to detect misalignment in the vehicle system.
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant argues that the dependent claims 2 – 12, 14 – 17, and 19 – 20 are allowable by virtue of dependence on the independent claims. However, in view of the new ground of rejection, the dependent claims stand rejected.
Examination According to Amendments
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 7, 2025, has been considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims recite the vehicle control module is configured to determine… via motor skip detection. The characteristic of “motor skip detection” does not identify where or how such a feature is determined and for what purpose. The specification mentions the use of skip detection logic in paragraphs 8 and 17, but do not provide any additional definitional elements. The drawings do not show the feature. Therefore, it is not possible for a person having ordinary skill in the art to identify the scope of the feature. In the interest of continued prosecution, the examiner has interpreted this phrase as any system or calculation used to detect misalignment in the vehicle system.
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.
Kreiner + Borghi + Chang
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 11, 13 – 14, and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050023867 A1, hereinafter Kreiner, in view of US 6575522 B2, hereinafter Borghi, in further view of TW 200825264 A, hereinafter Chang.
Regarding claim 1, Kreiner teaches an anti-pinch system for a vehicle with one or more vehicle sensors configured to obtain at least one vehicle parameter (see at least Kreiner P0004: acceleration acting upon the vehicle body, which is detected by means of an acceleration sensor and P0009: using the auxiliary variable indicative of the wind load forces the examiner interprets wind load forces as an example of at least one vehicle parameter); and a vehicle control module configured to: determine a spoiler pinch risk condition according to the at least one vehicle parameter (see at least Kreiner P0009: the existence of a crush situation can be determined more reliably when using the auxiliary variable indicative of the wind load forces the examiner interprets wind load forces as an example of at least one vehicle parameter); control the spoiler actuator to operate with torque less than or equal to a first torque value in response to a determination that the spoiler pinch risk condition is greater than a threshold (see at least Kreiner P0029: A crush situation is concluded if the detected closing resistance variable is above the specified threshold value, or if the increase in the determined closing resistance variable exceeds a threshold value and P0030: If it is determined, in step 3, that a crush situation exists, the closing process is delayed, interrupted or reversed in step 4. An at least partial reversal of the closing operation has the particular advantage that, apart from improved protection from injuries, the crush situation is also eliminated and a crushed body part can be freed without difficulty. To reverse the closing operation, i.e. to open the locking device, the closing motor of the sliding cover is controlled in an opening mode the examiner interprets reversing the closing process as an example of setting the motor motion to a negative value); and control the spoiler actuator to operate with torque less than or equal to a second torque value in response to a determination that the spoiler pinch risk condition is greater less than the threshold, wherein the second torque value is greater than the first torque value (see at least Kreiner P0029: A crush situation is concluded if the detected closing resistance variable is above the specified threshold value, or if the increase in the determined closing resistance variable exceeds a threshold value and P0030: If it is determined, in step 3, that a crush situation exists, the closing process is delayed, interrupted or reversed in step 4 the examiner interprets delaying and aborting the closing process as an example of setting the motor motion to 0, which is greater than the negative motion of the first value).
Kreiner does not explicitly teach that this anti-pinch system is used for a vehicle spoiler, teaching more broadly that the anti-crush system can be used for a locking device in a motor vehicle driven by an electric motor… to protect a body part from being crushed during a closing motion and generally in power-controlled locking devices (see at least Kreiner Abstract and P0002). A motorized spoiler would be an obvious application of Kreiner’s anti-crush system. Borghi teaches such a motorized spoiler. Borghi teaches A vehicle spoiler control system comprising: a vehicle spoiler; at least one spoiler actuator configured to move the vehicle spoiler relative to a surface of a vehicle (see at least Borghi Abstract: A vehicle with movable spoilers, the vehicle having at least one spoiler movable between a minimum-angle position producing a minimum increase in vertical load, and a maximum-angle position producing a maximum increase in vertical load; and a spoiler actuating device for adjusting the position of the spoiler between the minimum-angle position and maximum-angle 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 implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Kreiner teaches a change of force to vehicle device to delay, interrupt, or reverse the closing process but does not explicitly teach different torque values to continue moving from a deployed to stowed position. However, Chang teaches control the spoiler actuator to operate with torque less than or equal to a first torque value to move the vehicle spoiler from a deployed position to a stowed position. in response to a determination that the spoiler pinch risk condition is greater than a threshold; and control the spoiler actuator to operate with torque less than or equal to a second torque value to move the vehicle spoiler from the deployed position to the stowed position, in response to a determination that the spoiler pinch risk condition is less than the threshold, wherein the second torque value is greater than the first torque value (see at least Chang Pg10: the present invention plans the movement of a motor-controlled moving part in three segments according to its movement stroke D4, which are divided into the first anti-pinch zone D1, which includes a first time stroke (t1), the second anti-pinch zone D2, which includes a second time stroke (t2), and the third anti-pinch zone D3, which includes a third time stroke (t3), wherein t3>t2>t1, and each anti-pinch zone has a different anti-pinch force according to the position of its moving part and Pg11: Because the space of each anti-pinch zone is different, the foreign objects or parts of the human body that may be pinched are also different. For example, the first anti-pinch zone D1 can detect pinching of a person's fingers; the second anti-pinch zone D2 can detect pinching of a person's arms; and the third anti-pinch zone D3 can detect pinching of a person's body the examiner interprets pinch threshold detection for different body parts as an example of different risk conditions in the different zones).
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 Kreiner to incorporate the method of Chang in the same field of invention to modify the closing force based on the pinch risk region for the advantage of modifying pinch risk to differently flexible parts of the human body to prevent injury (Chang Pg11).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 1 and Kreiner teaches the at least one vehicle parameter includes at least one of a vehicle speed, a vehicle transmission state, a vehicle liftgate status, a spoiler end stop position, or a spoiler angle (see at least Kreiner P0004: as part of the process of determining whether a crush situation exists, is the acceleration acting upon the vehicle body, which is detected by means of an acceleration sensor. If, for example, travel through a pothole leads to a greater acceleration of the vehicle, its effect on the closing resistance value should be taken into consideration and not should lead to the mistaken determination of a crush situation the examiner interprets acceleration on the vehicle body as an example of vehicle speed).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 1 and Kreiner teaches the one or more vehicle sensors are configured to obtain a current of the at least one spoiler actuator (see at least Kreiner P0021: a closing resistance value is detected. The closing resistance value can be, for example, the motor current of the electric driving motor); and the vehicle control module is configured to compare the current of the at least one spoiler actuator to an overcurrent threshold to determine whether a pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler has occurred (see at least Kreiner P0009: a limit value for the closing resistance variable or a limit value for the variable determined through the use of the closing resistance value can be very precisely adapted to the existing conditions affecting the closing resistance, allowing the determination of a crush situation when the relevant variable exceeds a limit value the examiner interprets a resistance value current limit as an example of an overcurrent threshold).
Kreiner teaches the pinch condition monitoring as it relates to motorized components of vehicles, which, as described in relation to claim 1, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 3 and Kreiner teaches in response to a determination that the pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler has occurred, the vehicle control module is configured to stop operation of the at least one spoiler actuator to inhibit further movement or rotation of the vehicle spoiler (see at least Kreiner P0003: If it is determined that a crush situation exists, the driving motor of the sunroof is stopped).
Kreiner teaches the pinch condition monitoring as it relates to motorized components of vehicles, which, as described in relation to claim 1, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 4 and Kreiner teaches in response to a determination that the pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler has occurred, the vehicle control module is configured to reverse operation of the spoiler actuator to move the vehicle spoiler to a target pinch relief position to relieve the pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler (see at least Kreiner P0030: If it is determined, in step 3, that a crush situation exists, the closing process is delayed, interrupted or reversed in step 4. An at least partial reversal of the closing operation has the particular advantage that, apart from improved protection from injuries, the crush situation is also eliminated and a crushed body part can be freed without difficulty. To reverse the closing operation, i.e. to open the locking device, the closing motor of the sliding cover is controlled in an opening mode).
Kreiner teaches the pinch condition monitoring as it relates to motorized components of vehicles, which, as described in relation to claim 1, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 1 and Kreiner teaches the one or more vehicle sensors are configured to obtain one or more spoiler actuator parameters (see at least Kreiner P0021: a closing resistance value is detected. The closing resistance value can be, for example, the motor current of the electric driving motor of the sunroof the examiner interprets motor current as an example of an actuator parameter); and the vehicle control module is configured to determine whether a pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler has occurred according to the one or more spoiler actuator parameters (see at least Kreiner P0009: a limit value for the closing resistance variable or a limit value for the variable determined through the use of the closing resistance value can be very precisely adapted to the existing conditions affecting the closing resistance, allowing the determination of a crush situation when the relevant variable exceeds a limit value).
Kreiner teaches the pinch condition monitoring as it relates to motorized components of vehicles, which, as described in relation to claim 1, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 7 and Kreiner teaches, in response to a determination that the pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler has occurred, the vehicle control module is configured to stop operation the spoiler actuator to inhibit further movement or rotation of the vehicle spoiler (see at least Kreiner P0003: If it is determined that a crush situation exists, the driving motor of the sunroof is stopped).
Kreiner teaches the pinch condition monitoring as it relates to motorized components of vehicles, which, as described in relation to claim 1, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 7 and Borghi teaches the at least one spoiler actuator includes: a first spoiler actuator coupled to lift a first portion of the vehicle spoiler; and a second spoiler actuator coupled to lift a second portion of the vehicle spoiler, the second portion located adjacent a different end of the vehicle spoiler than the first portion (see at least Borghi C3 Ln55: linear electromechanical actuator 8b has two axial ends the examiner interprets the two ends as examples of a first and second portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 9 and Borghi teaches the one or more spoiler actuator parameters include at least one of a motor speed of at least one of the first spoiler actuator or the second spoiler actuator, a stopped motor of at least one of the first spoiler actuator or the second spoiler actuator, or a misalignment of the first spoiler actuator and the second spoiler actuator (see at least Borghi C3 Ln57: Both types of electromechanical actuators have encoders and stop sensors for supplying an electric output signal indicating the configuration of the actuators, so as to enable electronic central control unit 6 to determine the instantaneous positions of front and rear spoilers 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 1 and Borghi teaches the vehicle spoiler is closer to the surface of the vehicle in the stowed position than in the deployed position (see at least Borghi C2 Ln32: movable between a rest or minimum-angle position producing a minimum increase in the vertical load generated by the spoilers, and so impairing as little as possible the overall aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicle, and a fully-extracted or maximum-angle position producing a maximum increase in the vertical load produced by the spoilers the examiner interprets the rest position as an example of a stowed position and fully-extracted position as an example of the deployed 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 implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Regarding claim 13, Kreiner teaches one or more vehicle sensors configured to control the spoiler actuator to operate with torque less than or equal to a first torque value to move the vehicle spoiler from a deployed position to a stowed position, in response to a determination that a spoiler pinch risk condition is greater than a threshold (see at least Kreiner P0029: A crush situation is concluded if the detected closing resistance variable is above the specified threshold value, or if the increase in the determined closing resistance variable exceeds a threshold value and P0030: If it is determined, in step 3, that a crush situation exists, the closing process is delayed, interrupted or reversed in step 4. An at least partial reversal of the closing operation has the particular advantage that, apart from improved protection from injuries, the crush situation is also eliminated and a crushed body part can be freed without difficulty. To reverse the closing operation, i.e. to open the locking device, the closing motor of the sliding cover is controlled in an opening mode the examiner interprets reversing the closing process as an example of setting the motor motion to a negative value); and control the spoiler actuator to operate with torque less than or equal to a second torque value to move the vehicle spoiler from the deployed position to the stowed position, in response to a determination that the spoiler pinch risk condition is less than the threshold, wherein the second torque value is greater than the first torque value (see at least Kreiner P0029: A crush situation is concluded if the detected closing resistance variable is above the specified threshold value, or if the increase in the determined closing resistance variable exceeds a threshold value and P0030: If it is determined, in step 3, that a crush situation exists, the closing process is delayed, interrupted or reversed in step 4 the examiner interprets delaying and aborting the closing process as an example of setting the motor motion to 0, which is greater than the negative motion of the first value); obtain at least one vehicle parameter (see at least Kreiner P0004: acceleration acting upon the vehicle body, which is detected by means of an acceleration sensor and P0009: using the auxiliary variable indicative of the wind load forces the examiner interprets wind load forces as an example of at least one vehicle parameter); and a vehicle control module configured to: obtain a current of the at least one spoiler actuator (see at least Kreiner P0021: a closing resistance value is detected. The closing resistance value can be, for example, the motor current of the electric driving motor); compare the current of the at least one spoiler actuator to an overcurrent threshold to determine whether a pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler has occurred (see at least Kreiner P0009: a limit value for the closing resistance variable or a limit value for the variable determined through the use of the closing resistance value can be very precisely adapted to the existing conditions affecting the closing resistance, allowing the determination of a crush situation when the relevant variable exceeds a limit value the examiner interprets a resistance value current limit as an example of an overcurrent threshold); and in response to a determination that the pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler has occurred, stop operation of the at least one spoiler actuator to inhibit further movement or rotation of the vehicle spoiler (see at least Kreiner P0003: If it is determined that a crush situation exists, the driving motor of the sunroof is stopped).
Kreiner does not explicitly teach that this anti-pinch system is used for a vehicle spoiler, teaching more broadly that the anti-crush system can be used for a locking device in a motor vehicle driven by an electric motor… to protect a body part from being crushed during a closing motion and generally in power-controlled locking devices (see at least Kreiner Abstract and P0002). A motorized spoiler would be an obvious application of Kreiner’s anti-crush system. Borghi teaches such a motorized spoiler. Borghi teaches A vehicle spoiler control system comprising: a vehicle spoiler; at least one spoiler actuator configured to move the vehicle spoiler relative to a surface of a vehicle (see at least Borghi Abstract: A vehicle with movable spoilers, the vehicle having at least one spoiler movable between a minimum-angle position producing a minimum increase in vertical load, and a maximum-angle position producing a maximum increase in vertical load; and a spoiler actuating device for adjusting the position of the spoiler between the minimum-angle position and maximum-angle 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 implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Kreiner teaches a change of force to vehicle device to delay, interrupt, or reverse the closing process but does not explicitly teach different torque values to continue moving from a deployed to stowed position. However, Chang teaches control the spoiler actuator to operate with torque less than or equal to a first torque value to move the vehicle spoiler from a deployed position to a stowed position, in response to a determination that a spoiler pinch risk condition is greater than a threshold; and control the spoiler actuator to operate with torque less than or equal to a second torque value to move the vehicle spoiler from the deployed position to the stowed position, in response to a determination that the spoiler pinch risk condition is less than the threshold, wherein the second torque value is greater than the first torque value (see at least Chang Pg10: the present invention plans the movement of a motor-controlled moving part in three segments according to its movement stroke D4, which are divided into the first anti-pinch zone D1, which includes a first time stroke (t1), the second anti-pinch zone D2, which includes a second time stroke (t2), and the third anti-pinch zone D3, which includes a third time stroke (t3), wherein t3>t2>t1, and each anti-pinch zone has a different anti-pinch force according to the position of its moving part and Pg11: Because the space of each anti-pinch zone is different, the foreign objects or parts of the human body that may be pinched are also different. For example, the first anti-pinch zone D1 can detect pinching of a person's fingers; the second anti-pinch zone D2 can detect pinching of a person's arms; and the third anti-pinch zone D3 can detect pinching of a person's body the examiner interprets pinch threshold detection for different body parts as an example of different risk conditions in the different zones).
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 Kreiner to incorporate the method of Chang in the same field of invention to modify the closing force based on the pinch risk region for the advantage of modifying pinch risk to differently flexible parts of the human body to prevent injury (Chang Pg11).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 13 and Kreiner teaches in response to a determination that the pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler has occurred, the vehicle control module is configured to reverse operation of the spoiler actuator to move the vehicle spoiler to a target pinch relief position to relieve the pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler (see at least Kreiner P0030: If it is determined, in step 3, that a crush situation exists, the closing process is delayed, interrupted or reversed in step 4. An at least partial reversal of the closing operation has the particular advantage that, apart from improved protection from injuries, the crush situation is also eliminated and a crushed body part can be freed without difficulty. To reverse the closing operation, i.e. to open the locking device, the closing motor of the sliding cover is controlled in an opening mode).
Kreiner teaches the pinch condition monitoring as it relates to motorized components of vehicles, which, as described in relation to claim 13, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 13 and Kreiner teaches the one or more vehicle sensors are configured to obtain one or more spoiler actuator parameters (see at least Kreiner P0021: a closing resistance value is detected. The closing resistance value can be, for example, the motor current of the electric driving motor of the sunroof the examiner interprets motor current as an example of an actuator parameter); and the vehicle control module is configured to determine whether a pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler has occurred according to the one or more spoiler actuator parameters (see at least Kreiner P0009: a limit value for the closing resistance variable or a limit value for the variable determined through the use of the closing resistance value can be very precisely adapted to the existing conditions affecting the closing resistance, allowing the determination of a crush situation when the relevant variable exceeds a limit value).
Kreiner teaches the pinch condition monitoring as it relates to motorized components of vehicles, which, as described in relation to claim 13, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 16 and Kreiner teaches in response to a determination that the pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler has occurred, the vehicle control module is configured to stop operation the spoiler actuator to inhibit further movement or rotation of the vehicle spoiler (see at least Kreiner P0003: If it is determined that a crush situation exists, the driving motor of the sunroof is stopped).
Kreiner teaches the pinch condition monitoring as it relates to motorized components of vehicles, which, as described in relation to claim 13, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Regarding claim 18, Kreiner teaches an anti-pinch system comprising obtaining, via one or more vehicle sensors, at least one vehicle parameter (see at least Kreiner P0004: acceleration acting upon the vehicle body, which is detected by means of an acceleration sensor and P0009: using the auxiliary variable indicative of the wind load forces the examiner interprets wind load forces as an example of at least one vehicle parameter); determining a spoiler pinch risk condition according to the at least one vehicle parameter (see at least Kreiner P0009: the existence of a crush situation can be determined more reliably when using the auxiliary variable indicative of the wind load forces the examiner interprets wind load forces as an example of at least one vehicle parameter); controlling the spoiler actuator to operate with torque less than or equal to a first torque value in response to a determination that the spoiler pinch risk condition is greater than a threshold (see at least Kreiner P0029: A crush situation is concluded if the detected closing resistance variable is above the specified threshold value, or if the increase in the determined closing resistance variable exceeds a threshold value and P0030: If it is determined, in step 3, that a crush situation exists, the closing process is delayed, interrupted or reversed in step 4. An at least partial reversal of the closing operation has the particular advantage that, apart from improved protection from injuries, the crush situation is also eliminated and a crushed body part can be freed without difficulty. To reverse the closing operation, i.e. to open the locking device, the closing motor of the sliding cover is controlled in an opening mode the examiner interprets reversing the closing process as an example of setting the motor motion to a negative value); and controlling the spoiler actuator to operate with torque less than or equal to a second torque value in response to a determination that the spoiler pinch risk condition is greater less than the threshold, wherein the second torque value is greater than the first torque value (see at least Kreiner P0029: A crush situation is concluded if the detected closing resistance variable is above the specified threshold value, or if the increase in the determined closing resistance variable exceeds a threshold value and P0030: If it is determined, in step 3, that a crush situation exists, the closing process is delayed, interrupted or reversed in step 4 the examiner interprets delaying and aborting the closing process as an example of setting the motor motion to 0, which is greater than the negative motion of the first value).
Kreiner does not explicitly teach that this anti-pinch system is used for a vehicle spoiler, teaching more broadly that the anti-crush system can be used for a locking device in a motor vehicle driven by an electric motor… to protect a body part from being crushed during a closing motion and generally in power-controlled locking devices (see at least Kreiner Abstract and P0002). A motorized spoiler would be an obvious application of Kreiner’s anti-crush system. Borghi teaches such a motorized spoiler. Borghi teaches A method of controlling movement of a vehicle spoiler, the method comprising: moving, by at least one spoiler actuator, a vehicle spoiler relative to a surface of a vehicle (see at least Borghi Abstract: A vehicle with movable spoilers, the vehicle having at least one spoiler movable between a minimum-angle position producing a minimum increase in vertical load, and a maximum-angle position producing a maximum increase in vertical load; and a spoiler actuating device for adjusting the position of the spoiler between the minimum-angle position and maximum-angle 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 implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Kreiner teaches a change of force to vehicle device to delay, interrupt, or reverse the closing process but does not explicitly teach different torque values to continue moving from a deployed to stowed position. However, Chang teaches controlling the spoiler actuator to operate with torque less than or equal to a first torque value to move the vehicle spoiler from a deployed position to a stowed position, in response to a determination that the spoiler pinch risk condition is greater than a threshold; and controlling the spoiler actuator to operate with torque less than or equal to a second torque value to move the vehicle spoiler from a deployed position to a stowed position, in response to a determination that the spoiler pinch risk condition is less than the threshold, wherein the second torque value is greater than the first torque value (see at least Chang Pg10: the present invention plans the movement of a motor-controlled moving part in three segments according to its movement stroke D4, which are divided into the first anti-pinch zone D1, which includes a first time stroke (t1), the second anti-pinch zone D2, which includes a second time stroke (t2), and the third anti-pinch zone D3, which includes a third time stroke (t3), wherein t3>t2>t1, and each anti-pinch zone has a different anti-pinch force according to the position of its moving part and Pg11: Because the space of each anti-pinch zone is different, the foreign objects or parts of the human body that may be pinched are also different. For example, the first anti-pinch zone D1 can detect pinching of a person's fingers; the second anti-pinch zone D2 can detect pinching of a person's arms; and the third anti-pinch zone D3 can detect pinching of a person's body the examiner interprets pinch threshold detection for different body parts as an example of different risk conditions in the different zones).
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 Kreiner to incorporate the method of Chang in the same field of invention to modify the closing force based on the pinch risk region for the advantage of modifying pinch risk to differently flexible parts of the human body to prevent injury (Chang Pg11).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 18 and Kreiner teaches obtaining, by the one or more vehicle sensors, a current of the at least one spoiler actuator (see at least Kreiner P0021: a closing resistance value is detected. The closing resistance value can be, for example, the motor current of the electric driving motor); comparing the current of the at least one spoiler actuator to an overcurrent threshold to determine whether a pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler has occurred (see at least Kreiner P0009: a limit value for the closing resistance variable or a limit value for the variable determined through the use of the closing resistance value can be very precisely adapted to the existing conditions affecting the closing resistance, allowing the determination of a crush situation when the relevant variable exceeds a limit value the examiner interprets a resistance value current limit as an example of an overcurrent threshold); and in response to a determination that the pinch condition of the vehicle spoiler has occurred, stop operation of the at least one spoiler actuator to inhibit further movement or rotation of the vehicle spoiler (see at least Kreiner P0003: If it is determined that a crush situation exists, the driving motor of the sunroof is stopped).
Kreiner teaches the pinch condition monitoring as it relates to motorized components of vehicles, which, as described in relation to claim 18, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 18 and Kreiner teaches the at least one vehicle parameter includes at least one of a vehicle speed, a vehicle transmission state, a vehicle liftgate status, a spoiler end stop position, or a spoiler angle (see at least Kreiner P0004: as part of the process of determining whether a crush situation exists, is the acceleration acting upon the vehicle body, which is detected by means of an acceleration sensor. If, for example, travel through a pothole leads to a greater acceleration of the vehicle, its effect on the closing resistance value should be taken into consideration and not should lead to the mistaken determination of a crush situation the examiner interprets acceleration on the vehicle body as an example of vehicle speed).
Kreiner teaches the pinch condition monitoring as it relates to motorized components of vehicles, which, as described in relation to claim 18, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
Kreiner + Borghi + Chang + Jang
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kreiner, Borghi, and Chang, in view of US 9631413 B2, hereinafter Jang.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach alignment checking. However, Jang teaches the vehicle control module is configured to determine whether an output shaft of the spoiler actuator and a motor angle of the spoiler actuator are misaligned (see at least Jang C2 Ln21: measuring a Hall effect count of a left spindle motor for driving a left spindle and a Hall effect count of a right spindle motor for driving a right spindle used to open or close the power trunk), to stop operation the spoiler actuator to inhibit further movement or rotation of the vehicle spoiler (see at least Jang C2 Ln26: stopping operations of the left and right spindle motors and outputting an alarm if an error count is equal to or greater than a predetermined error).
Kreiner teaches the pinch condition monitoring as it relates to motorized components of vehicles. Jang’s power trunk or tailgate is similarly a motorized component of vehicles and teaches a technique to reduce tailgate misalignment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner and Jang in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts and mitigate motor deviation.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 13 but does not explicitly teach alignment checking. However, Jang teaches the vehicle control module is configured to determine whether an output shaft of the spoiler actuator and a motor angle of the spoiler actuator are misaligned (see at least Jang C2 Ln21: measuring a Hall effect count of a left spindle motor for driving a left spindle and a Hall effect count of a right spindle motor for driving a right spindle used to open or close the power trunk), to stop operation the spoiler actuator to inhibit further movement or rotation of the vehicle spoiler (see at least Jang C2 Ln26: stopping operations of the left and right spindle motors and outputting an alarm if an error count is equal to or greater than a predetermined error).
Kreiner teaches the pinch condition monitoring as it relates to motorized components of vehicles. Jang’s power trunk or tailgate is similarly a motorized component of vehicles and teaches a technique to reduce tailgate misalignment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the techniques of Kreiner and Jang in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts and mitigate motor deviation.
Kreiner + Borghi + Chang + Daniels
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kreiner, Borghi, and Chang, in view of US 20030151382 A1, hereinafter Daniels.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of techniques and devices of Kreiner and Borghi in view of Chang teach the limitations of claim 11 and Borghi teaches the vehicle control module is configured to identify a first end stop of the vehicle spoiler in the stowed position and a second end stop of the vehicle spoiler in the deployed position (see at least Borghi C2 Ln32: movable between a rest or minimum-angle position producing a minimum increase in the vertical load generated by the spoilers, and so impairing as little as possible the overall aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicle, and a fully-extracted or maximum-angle position producing a maximum increase in the vertical load produced by the spoilers the examiner interprets the rest position as an example of a stowed position and fully-extracted position as an example of the deployed 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 implemented the techniques of Kreiner in the base motorized spoiler device disclosed by Borghi to improve the safety of this motorized device on vehicles, preventing the crushing of body parts.
The combination of Kreiner and Borghi does not explicitly teach determination of the pinch risk according to position of the spoiler, although Borghi teaches position adjustment between the first and second stops (see at least C2 Ln32 minimum-angle position and maximum-angle position). However, Daniels teaches the vehicle control module is configured to determine the spoiler pinch risk condition at least in part according to a position of the vehicle spoiler relative to at least one of the first end stop and the second end stop (see at least Daniels Abstract: a motor for moving the closure panel between an open position and a closed position… The controller receives the position and capacitive signals and transmits a signal to the motor to prevent the motor from moving the closure panel toward the closed position when the output signals deviates from a series of predetermined values for more than a predetermined period of time).
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 Kreiner and Borghi to incorporate the method of Daniels in the vehicle anti-pinch field of invention to consider position of the motorized member for the advantage of generating an additional signal for detecting an object at risk of being pinched (see at least Daniels P0005).
Conclusion
Related References
The related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0030137 A1 by Elie teaches an anti-pinch system for a vehicle door that uses multiple door checks to define regions of the closure and calculates s plurality of torques required to slow or slop the door during opening and closing to appropriately assist the process without bending the door.
Information
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 ROSE RIDDER whose telephone number is (703)756-1675. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 EST.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
ROSE . RIDDER
Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights