DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is in response to Request for Continued Examination, and Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/11/2025.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are pending for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0034568, filed on 03/16/2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Amendment
With regards to the objection to the specification. The amended specification removes the blank paragraph in the specification. Therefore the objection made to the claim is withdrawn.
With regards to the 112(b) rejection made to claims 7, 8, 13, and 14. The amendments made to these claims clarify the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Therefore, the rejection made to these claims have been withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-19 under U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims and the arguments made overcome the 102/103 rejections made in the non-final rejection.
The Applicant argues that the amended claims 1 and 10 overcome the 102/103 rejections made to these claims as Rrumbullaku, Xiao, Umezawa, The Physics Classroom and Wikipedia, taken individually or combined fail to teach or suggest the inventive feature “the operating force compensation operation is performed in response that the absolute values of the compensating torques are greater than the predetermined reference torque, and wherein the operating force compensation operation of compensating is not performed, when the absolute values of the compensating torques are less than the predetermined reference torque”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees and believes that these limitations are suggested by Rrumbullaku. The “predetermined reference torque” is inherently taught by the use of lookup tables disclosed by Rrumbullaku. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when the forces acting on a vehicle door are minimal (such as situations where the car is not parked on an inclined road) a compensating torque is not required. This would be reflected onto the lookup tables to prevent unnecessary use of compensating torque to activate.
The Applicant also argues that “Rrumbullaku discloses comparing the actuator current 55 and the obstacle- based current threshold 60. See Rrumbullaku, paragraph 0027, as recited below. However, since the obstacle-based current threshold 60 is close to the upper limit, it is unrelated to the area where the actuator current 55 associated with the compensation torque is small.”. However the obstacle-based current can be dynamically adjusted in situations where the controller determines that the forces acting on the door is due to gravitational forces acting on the door. ([0017]; “The controller 50 is also programmed to selectively adjust the obstacle-based current threshold 60 of FIG. 3 according to the method 100 when the controller 50 dynamically determines that forces acting on the door 14F are not indicative of a static obstacle, but rather are due to external forces from gusts of wind 15 or the vehicle 10 being parked on a grade.”)
The Applicant argues that “Rrumbullaku merely discloses measuring the raw angular position of the front door 14F and approximating the amount of additional output torque or braking torque, and determining an amount of actuator current needed to achieve such torque. See Rrumbullaku, paragraph 0026, as recited below.”. However Rrumbullaku does disclose calculating the gravitational effects on the door rather than merely measuring raw angular position and approximating the amount of additional output torque ([0017]; “Gravitational effects of grade on the door 14F are indicated in FIG. 1 by arrow mg sin θ, where m is the predetermined mass of the door 14F, g is the gravitational constant, and θ is the angular position of the door 14F, as noted above.”).
The Applicant argues that “Such disclose does not correspond to the inventive features of the presently claimed invention, wherein the operating force compensation operation of compensating is not performed, when the absolute values of the compensating torques are less than the predetermined reference torque so that there is no difference opening and closing forces of the door from opening and closing forces of a flat road, as is presently claimed.”. However, as stated above one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when the forces acting on a vehicle door are minimal a compensating torque is not required. When parked on a flat road, the gravitational forces acting on the door do not impact the users ability to open and/or close the door. Therefore, it would be obvious that the forces acting on the door are minimal that it would not impact the users ability to open/close the door, compensating torque would not be generated.
The Applicant also argues that since “the process of calculating the compensation torque is complex and the lookup table must be created for each door specification.”. However, the examiner argues that the lookup tables taught by Rrumbullaku are sufficient to generate compensating torque as the main complexity comes from determining the forces acting on the vehicle door, which similar to the claimed invention Rrumbullaku does teach. In addition, regardless of whether a lookup table is need for each door or not the use of lookup tables does not hinder the overall systems ability to generate compensating torque for each door.
For additional information regarding the 102/103 rejections made to these claims see the 102/103 rejection sections below in pages 5-32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rrumbullaku et al. (US 20180371822 A1; hereafter Rrumbullaku).
Rrumbullaku was cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 10, Rrumbullaku discloses:
A method of compensating for an operating force of a door on an inclined road surface, the method comprising:
a signal input operation of inputting sensor signals, which are required for determining the compensating of the operating force of the door, to a controller ([0020]; “The controller 50 also determines an oscillation frequency of the door 14F using the position sensor SP, determines or estimates the forces causing such oscillation, and ultimately adjusts the output torque of the rotary actuator 30 so as to compensate for the external forces.”)
a stop determination operation of determining, by the controller, whether a vehicle is stopping ([0025] “At step S102, the controller 50 may ensure that a ground speed of the vehicle 10 is zero, i.e., the vehicle 10 is parked and not moving.”);
a gravitational acceleration determination operation of determining, by the controller, gravitational accelerations applied to the door in a transverse direction of the vehicle with the input sensor signals ([0023]; “The controller 50 is configured to determine additional gravitational component of the environmental contribution noted above, e.g., as a function of mass (m), angular position (0), and gravitational constant (g) as noted above, and in turn to calculate torque adjustments sufficient to compensate for the calculated gravitational component.”);
a compensating torque determination operation of determining, by the controller electrically connected to an actuator, compensating torques to be output from the actuator to offset the gravitational accelerations ([0023]; “The controller 50 is configured to determine additional gravitational component of the environmental contribution noted above, e.g., as a function of mass (m), angular position (0), and gravitational constant (g) as noted above, and in turn to calculate torque adjustments sufficient to compensate for the calculated gravitational component.”); and
an operating force compensation operation of compensating, by the controller, for the operating force in response that the door is opened or closed with the compensating torques. ([0033]; “Step S113 includes applying the calculated torque value from step S111. The controller 50 may transmit the actuator control signals (arrow CC.sub.30) of FIG. 1 to the rotary actuator 30 to increase or decrease actuator current and thereby command the required additional torque or reduction in torque, and to thereby compensate for the gravitational contribution. The method 100 thereafter proceeds to step S114”)
wherein the methods further includes:
a compensating torque comparison operation of comparing absolute values of the compensating torques with a predetermined reference torque at which the compensating of the operating force is required between the compensating torque determination operation and the operating force compensation operation ([0024]; “In response to determining grade, the controller 50 may access the lookup tables 25 of FIG. 1 and select a corresponding supplemental torque needed from the rotary actuator 30 to compensate for grade-based gravitational effects.”),
wherein in the compensating torque comparison operation, the operating force compensation operation is performed in response that the absolute values of the compensating torques are greater than the predetermined reference torque. ([0024]; “In response to determining grade, the controller 50 may access the lookup tables 25 of FIG. 1 and select a corresponding supplemental torque needed from the rotary actuator 30 to compensate for grade-based gravitational effects.”) and
wherein the operating force compensation operation of compensating is not performed, when the absolute values of the compensating torques are less than the predetermined reference torque, so that there is no difference opening and closing forces of the door from opening and closing forces of a flat road. ([0026]; “Part of step S104 may entail determining an amount of actuator current needed to achieve such torque, e.g., by accessing one of the lookup tables 25, and then proceeding to step S105.”
Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the lookup table would inherently not provide torque compensation at levels where the force acting on the door is low enough to not hinder the users ability to open/close the door.)
Regarding claim 11, Rrumbullaku discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Rrumbullaku discloses the stop determination operation includes determining that the vehicle is stopping in response that a state in which each wheel speed of the vehicle is 0 kph and a position of a gear is in a P stage is maintained for a preset time or longer than the preset time. ([0025]; “At step S102, the controller 50 may ensure that a ground speed of the vehicle 10 is zero, i.e., the vehicle 10 is parked and not moving. Step S102, which may include processing output speed signals (not shown) from a transmission output speed sensor or a park, reverse, neutral, drive, low (PRNDL) lever setting in some embodiments, is repeated until the controller 50 determines that the vehicle 10 is not moving, and thereafter proceeds to step S104.”
Note: The prior art does a repeated check on the speed and lever setting to determine if the vehicle is parked. The examiner is interpreting this to equate to checking that the gear is in the P stage for a preset time.)
Regarding claim 19, Rrumbullaku discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Rrumbullaku discloses the controller is configured to repeatedly perform the signal input operation to the operating force compensation operation every predetermined period. ([0020]; “Using the proposed solution of the method 100, the controller 50 is able to closely monitor position changes of the front door 14F as a function of time. The controller 50 also determines an oscillation frequency of the door 14F using the position sensor SP, determines or estimates the forces causing such oscillation, and ultimately adjusts the output torque of the rotary actuator 30 so as to compensate for the external forces.”
Note: The prior art teaches that as the vehicle door changes position the external forces are constantly being checked. Once checked adjustments to the compensation torques are made in accordance to maintain an effortless opening and closing of the door.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Rrumbullaku as evidenced by Xiao et al. (US 20180202212 A1; hereafter Xiao).
Xiao was cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Rrumbullaku in the same field of endeavor teaches:
A system of compensating for an operating force of a door on an inclined road surface, the system comprising: ([0020]; “The present method 100, as will now be explained with further reference to FIGS. 2-4, provides a programmed approach that uses position sensing to automatically distinguish between dynamic effects on the front door 14F due to encountering a static obstacle in the path of the door 14F, in which case the controller 50 enforces the existing obstacle-based current threshold 60 of FIG. 3, and oscillating effects due instead to external forces, in particular those of high wind loads or grade. Using the proposed solution of the method 100, the controller 50 is able to closely monitor position changes of the front door 14F as a function of time. The controller 50 also determines an oscillation frequency of the door 14F using the position sensor SP, determines or estimates the forces causing such oscillation, and ultimately adjusts the output torque of the rotary actuator 30 so as to compensate for the external forces.”)
an actuator coupled to the door and configured to operate the door with compensating torques for offsetting gravitational accelerations applied to the door by a weight of the door and gravity
([0015]; “Opening/closing motion of the side doors 14F and 14R occurs in response to an applied door force. As configured herein, such an applied door force is applied to the door 14F or 14R in whole or in part by a rotary actuator 30”
[0016]; “The present disclosure is therefore directed toward identifying and quantifying the force effects of wind 15 and grade on the front door 14F when an obstacle is not otherwise detected, and automatically compensating for such force effects in the overall torque control of the rotary actuator 30.”)
a controller electrically connected to the actuator and configured to determine the gravitational accelerations applied to the door, determine the compensating torques to offset the gravitational accelerations, and compensate for the operating force of the door in response that the door is opened in a state in which the vehicle has stopped on the inclined road surface. ([0023]; “The controller 50 is configured to determine additional gravitational component of the environmental contribution noted above, e.g., as a function of mass (m), angular position (0), and gravitational constant (g) as noted above, and in turn to calculate torque adjustments sufficient to compensate for the calculated gravitational component.”
[0016]; “Likewise, the vehicle 10 may be parked on a grade, in which case gravitational forces will tend to urge the door 14F open or closed depending on the direction of the grade.”)
wherein the controller includes:
a control amount calculator configured to determine the gravitational accelerations applied to the door and to determine the compensating torques ([0023]; “The controller 50 is configured to determine additional gravitational component of the environmental contribution noted above, e.g., as a function of mass (m), angular position (0), and gravitational constant (g) as noted above, and in turn to calculate torque adjustments sufficient to compensate for the calculated gravitational component.”); and
a driving controller configured to drive the actuator to operate the door with the compensating torques determined by the control amount calculator. ([0033] Step S113 includes applying the calculated torque value from step S111. The controller 50 may transmit the actuator control signals (arrow CC.sub.30) of FIG. 1 to the rotary actuator 30 to increase or decrease actuator current and thereby command the required additional torque or reduction in torque, and to thereby compensate for the gravitational contribution. The method 100 thereafter proceeds to step S114”)
wherein the driving controller is configured to compensate for opening and closing forces of the door with the compensating torques in response that absolute values of the compensating torques are greater than a predetermined reference torque at which the compensating of the operating force for opening or closing the door is required. ([0021]; “Referring to FIGS. 2 and 3, the raw angular position signals 20 that are shown schematically in FIG. 1 are illustrated with respect to time (t) in FIG. 2 for baseline forward (F) and reverse (R) directions of travel of the door 14F, with the terms “forward” and “reverse” corresponding to arrows F and R in FIG. 1. FIG. 2 also depicts the response of the position sensor S.sub.P to oscillating motion (OSC) of the front door 14F due to wind or grade. As shown in FIG. 3, with actuator current (I.sub.30) plotted on the vertical axis and angular position (θ) depicted on the horizontal axis, the controller 50 of FIG. 1 reads the oscillating response from the position sensor S.sub.P during a door closing or opening event, and responds by temporarily adjusting the obstacle-based current threshold 60 for the rotary actuator 30, in this instance upward to a level of an external force threshold 62.”
[0024]; “In response to determining grade, the controller 50 may access the lookup tables 25 of FIG. 1 and select a corresponding supplemental torque needed from the rotary actuator 30 to compensate for grade-based gravitational effects.”
Note: Positive/negative values of torque only indicate the direction of torque which is relevant in determining whether the controller needs to supply assistance or resistance torque to aid the user in opening/closing the vehicle door easily. Therefore, it is irrelevant for the torque to be a positive value when it comes to determining the magnitude of the compensated torque.)
wherein the driving controller does not compensate for opening and closing forces of the door, when the absolute values of the compensating torques are less than the predetermined reference torque so that there is no difference opening and closing forces of the door from opening and closing forces of a flat road. ([0026]; “Part of step S104 may entail determining an amount of actuator current needed to achieve such torque, e.g., by accessing one of the lookup tables 25, and then proceeding to step S105.”
Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the lookup table would inherently not provide torque compensation at levels where the force acting on the door is low enough to not hinder the users ability to open/close the door.)
Although Rrumbullaku discloses an open and closing operation of the door ([0015]; Opening/closing motion of the side doors 14F and 14R occurs in response to an applied door force. As configured herein, such an applied door force is applied to the door 14F or 14R in whole or in part by a rotary actuator 30”), it does not explicitly disclose by rotating about a rotation shaft of a body of a vehicle.
However, Xiao in the same field of endeavor teaches the door opened or closed by rotating about a rotation shaft of a body of a vehicle ([0039]; “With further reference to FIGS. 5B and 7, the power assist device 10 is shown having a motor 92 coupled to an output shaft 80 having a distal portion or drive shaft 80A received within a check strap housing 202 and a proximate portion or motor shaft 80B disposed within the power assist device 10.”
[0041]; “As the output shaft 80 is driven by the motor 92 and drives the driven gear 204, the rotation of the driven gear teeth 212 engaged with the rack gear 208 on the retractable check strap arm 206 moves the retractable check strap arm 206 inwardly and outwardly relative the check strap housing 202. With the power assist device 10 coupled between the inner panel 19 via chassis mounting bracket 72 and the door mounting bracket 56, the retractable check strap arm 206 of the power assist device 10 creates a pivoting motion of the door 16 between opened and closed positions”);
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 Rrumbullaku with Xiao. This modification would have been obvious as both Rrumbullaku and Xiao cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle door opening/closing assistance system). Additionally, the operation of opening and closing the door of a vehicle requires the rotation of the shaft component found in vehicles.
Regarding claim 3, Rrumbullaku in view of Xiao discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Rrumbullaku discloses the control amount calculator includes:
a stop determiner configured to determine whether the vehicle has stopped ([0025] “At step S102, the controller 50 may ensure that a ground speed of the vehicle 10 is zero, i.e., the vehicle 10 is parked and not moving.”);
a gravitational acceleration calculator configured to determine a gravitational acceleration applied to the door in a transverse direction of the vehicle ([0023] “The controller 50 is configured to determine additional gravitational component of the environmental contribution noted above, e.g., as a function of mass (m), angular position (0), and gravitational constant (g) as noted above, and in turn to calculate torque adjustments sufficient to compensate for the calculated gravitational component.”); and
a compensating torque calculator configured to determine the compensating torques to be output from the actuator to offset the gravitational accelerations. ([0023]; “The controller 50 is configured to determine additional gravitational component of the environmental contribution noted above, e.g., as a function of mass (m), angular position (0), and gravitational constant (g) as noted above, and in turn to calculate torque adjustments sufficient to compensate for the calculated gravitational component.”)
Regarding claim 4, Rrumbullaku in view of Xiao discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Rrumbullaku discloses the stop determiner is configured to determine that the vehicle is stopping in response that a state in which each wheel speed of the vehicle is 0 kph and a position of a gear is in a P stage is maintained for a preset time or longer than the preset time. ([0025]; “At step S102, the controller 50 may ensure that a ground speed of the vehicle 10 is zero, i.e., the vehicle 10 is parked and not moving. Step S102, which may include processing output speed signals (not shown) from a transmission output speed sensor or a park, reverse, neutral, drive, low (PRNDL) lever setting in some embodiments, is repeated until the controller 50 determines that the vehicle 10 is not moving, and thereafter proceeds to step S104.”
Note: The prior art does a repeated check on the speed and lever setting to determine if the vehicle is parked. The examiner is interpreting this to equate to checking that the gear is in the P stage for a preset time.)
Regarding claim 6, Rrumbullaku in view of Xiao discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Rrumbullaku discloses the door includes a left door and a right door ([0014]; “The vehicle 10 includes a vehicle body 13, power swinging front side doors 14F that open and close with respect to the body 13, and, optionally, a substantially similar pair of power swinging rear side doors 14R. The front and rear side doors 14F and 14R are configured to swing or pivot about a door hinge 19 as indicated by arrow 18 to a desired angular position (θ), such as between about 0 and 90 degrees of a longitudinal axis of the vehicle 10.”), and
wherein the gravitational acceleration calculator is configured to determine the gravitational accelerations acting on the left door and the right door of the vehicle, respectively after receiving a longitudinal acceleration and a transverse acceleration applied to the vehicle, and an opening angle of the left door and the right door. ([0023]; “The controller 50 is configured to determine additional gravitational component of the environmental contribution noted above, e.g., as a function of mass (m), angular position (0), and gravitational constant (g) as noted above, and in turn to calculate torque adjustments sufficient to compensate for the calculated gravitational component.”)
Claims 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Rrumbullaku as evidenced by Umezawa et al. (US 20130088578 A1; hereafter Umezawa) as applied to claim 10 above.
Umezawa was cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 12, Rrumbullaku discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Rrumbullaku discloses the stop determination operation includes determining that the vehicle is stopping in response that a state in which each wheel speed of the vehicle is 0 kph ([0025]; “At step S102, the controller 50 may ensure that a ground speed of the vehicle 10 is zero, i.e., the vehicle 10 is parked and not moving. Step S102, which may include processing output speed signals (not shown) from a transmission output speed sensor or a park, reverse, neutral, drive, low (PRNDL) lever setting in some embodiments, is repeated until the controller 50 determines that the vehicle 10 is not moving, and thereafter proceeds to step S104.”)
Rrumbullaku does not teach a braking pedal of the vehicle is in operation, and a pressure of a master cylinder in the vehicle is a preset value or higher than the preset value is maintained for a preset time or longer than the preset time.
However, Umezawa in the same field of endeavor teaches a braking pedal of the vehicle is in operation, and a pressure of a master cylinder in the vehicle is a preset value or higher than the preset value is maintained for a preset time or longer than the preset time. ([0056]; “The brake switch 25 is a sensor that outputs an "on" signal when a brake pedal is pressed (stop lamp switch) or a sensor that detects the brake pedal being pressed using the master cylinder pressure.”
[0097]; “In a case where the shift position is in "park" (step S3-2 yes), it is possible to determined that parking has been completed. In a case where the shift position is at a position other than "park" (step S3-2 no), the information from the brake sensor 25 is obtained (step S4). At this time, instead of determining whether the brake pedal has been pressed at a certain time point, information is obtained as to how frequently a state of the brake pedal being pressed has occurred during a certain 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 combined disclosure of Rrumbullaku in view of Xiao with the teachings of Umezawa. This modification would have been obvious as Rrumbullaku, Xiao, and Umezawa cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle door opening/closing assistance system). Additionally, it would have been beneficial to incorporate the braking sensors taught in Umezawa in addition to the other methods of determining that the vehicle is perfectly still. This way the following step of calculating the gravitational forces acting on the vehicle door as well as generating compensating torque is only applied after it is determined that the vehicle is parked.
Regarding claim 17, Rrumbullaku discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Umezawa teaches in stop determination operation, whether the door lock of the door is in an unlocked state is determined, and in response that the door lock is unlocked, the gravitational acceleration determination operation is performed. ([0095]; “First, information as to whether the door lock has been unlocked is obtained. The door lock is inevitably unlocked in a case where a door is to be opened and closed.”)
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 combined disclosure of Rrumbullaku in view of Xiao with the teachings of Umezawa. This modification would have been obvious as Rrumbullaku, Xiao, and Umezawa cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle door opening/closing assistance system). Additionally, since the vehicle doors would need to be unlocked in order for the users to open and close them, checking the locked state of the doors would help prevent the system activating in instances where users do not intend to open and close the doors.
Regarding claim 18, Rrumbullaku in view of Umezawa discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Additionally, Umezawa teaches a locking determination operation of determining whether the door lock is in the unlocked state after the operating force compensation operation, in response that the door lock is not in the unlocked state, the method returns to the signal input operation. ([0095]; “First, information as to whether the door lock has been unlocked is obtained. The door lock is inevitably unlocked in a case where a door is to be opened and closed. Thus, when the door lock has not been unlocked (step S1 no), the situation judgment and image selection part 11 will carry out distance measurement using the stereo camera 40-1 for driving and parking assistance (in FIG. 6, "a").”
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 combined disclosure of Rrumbullaku in view of Xiao with the teachings of Umezawa. This modification would have been obvious as Rrumbullaku, Xiao, and Umezawa cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle door opening/closing assistance system). Additionally, it would be benedictional to incorporate the teachings of Umezawa to the combined teachings of Xiao and Rrumbullaku to unsure that the door is unlocked before checking the gravitation forces acting on the door to save on computer power when not necessary.)
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Rrumbullaku as evidenced by Xiao as applied to claims 1, 3, and 10 above, and further in view of Umezawa.
Regarding claim 5, Rrumbullaku in view of Xiao discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Rrumbullaku discloses the stop determiner is configured to determine that the vehicle is stopping in response that a state in which each wheel speed of the vehicle is 0 kph ([0025]; “At step S102, the controller 50 may ensure that a ground speed of the vehicle 10 is zero, i.e., the vehicle 10 is parked and not moving. Step S102, which may include processing output speed signals (not shown) from a transmission output speed sensor or a park, reverse, neutral, drive, low (PRNDL) lever setting in some embodiments, is repeated until the controller 50 determines that the vehicle 10 is not moving, and thereafter proceeds to step S104.”)
Rrumbullaku does not teach a braking pedal of the vehicle is in operation, and a pressure of a master cylinder in the vehicle is a preset value or higher than the preset value is maintained for a preset time or longer than the preset time.
However, Umezawa in the same field of endeavor teaches a braking pedal of the vehicle is in operation, and a pressure of a master cylinder in the vehicle is a preset value or higher than the preset value is maintained for a preset time or longer than the preset time. ([0056]; “The brake switch 25 is a sensor that outputs an "on" signal when a brake pedal is pressed (stop lamp switch) or a sensor that detects the brake pedal being pressed using the master cylinder pressure.”
[0097]; “In a case where the shift position is in "park" (step S3-2 yes), it is possible to determined that parking has been completed. In a case where the shift position is at a position other than "park" (step S3-2 no), the information from the brake sensor 25 is obtained (step S4). At this time, instead of determining whether the brake pedal has been pressed at a certain time point, information is obtained as to how frequently a state of the brake pedal being pressed has occurred during a certain 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 combined disclosure of Rrumbullaku in view of Xiao with the teachings of Umezawa. This modification would have been obvious as Rrumbullaku, Xiao, and Umezawa cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle door opening/closing assistance system). Additionally, it would have been beneficial to incorporate the braking sensors taught in Umezawa in addition to the other methods of determining that the vehicle is perfectly still. This way the following step of calculating the gravitational forces acting on the vehicle door as well as generating compensating torque is only applied after it is determined that the vehicle is parked.
Regarding claim 16, Rrumbullaku discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Rrumbullaku discloses the signal input operation includes inputting a signal including and an opening angle of the door to the controller. ([0018]; “The controller 50 of FIG. 1 is in communication with the rotary actuator 30 and a corresponding position sensor S.sub.P. The position sensor S.sub.P may be optionally embodied as a motor encoder or resolver, and thus is capable of measuring the dynamically changing raw angular position of the front door 14F with respect to the hinge 19”)
Rrumbullaku does not teach the signal input operation includes inputting a signal including each wheel speed, a position of a gear, whether a braking pedal of the vehicle is operated, a pressure of a master cylinder in the vehicle, whether a door lock of the vehicle is opened or closed, a longitudinal acceleration, a transverse acceleration, to the controller.
However, Xiao in the same field of endeavor teaches signal including a longitudinal acceleration, a transverse acceleration, and an opening angle of the door to the controller. ([0052]; “In determining which torque profile to select, the controller 110 may rely on information provided from a variety of vehicle equipment 126, which may include sensors (e.g., accelerometer) or sensor systems, global positioning systems, and any other equipment for assessing information related to vehicle positioning, door positioning, and/or an operational environment of the motor vehicle 12.”)
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 Rrumbullaku with Xiao. This modification would have been obvious as Rrumbullaku and Xiao cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle door opening/closing assistance system). Additionally, it would have been beneficial to include accelerometers to the system as an additional means of calculating the gravitational acceleration acting on the doors.
Additionally, Umezawa in the same field of endeavor teaches a signal including each wheel speed, a position of a gear, whether a braking pedal of the vehicle is operated, a pressure of a master cylinder in the vehicle, whether a door lock of the vehicle is opened or closed
([0091] When the situation judgment is to be carried out, it is preferable to determine by combining the signals obtained from the vehicle speed sensor 21, the steering rudder angle sensor 22, the shift position sensor 23, the direction indicator sensor 24, the brake sensor 25, the parking brake sensor 26 and the door lock sensor 28”
[0056]; “The brake switch 25 is a sensor that outputs an "on" signal when a brake pedal is pressed (stop lamp switch) or a sensor that detects the brake pedal being pressed using the master cylinder pressure.”)
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 Rrumbullaku with Umezawa. This modification would have been obvious as Rrumbullaku and Umezawa cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle door opening/closing assistance system). Additionally, since the only time users would want to open and close the door would be in instances where the car in fully parked and when the doors are unlocked, checking the state of these components of the vehicle would allow the system to only active torque compensation when necessary.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Rrumbullaku as evidenced by Xiao as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of “Michael can Biezen” (Physics Ch 67.1 Advanced E&M: Review Vectors (14 of 55) Coordinate Transformation in 3-D: Ex. 1 - YouTube; hereafter Biezen) and “The Physics Classroom” (https://web.archive.org/web/20230227220102/https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-3/Inclined-Planes; hereafter “The Physics Classroom”).
Biezen and The Physics Classroom were both cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 7, Rrumbullaku in view of Xiao discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Although Rrumbullaku discloses a controller capable of calculating the gravitations acceleration acting on a vehicle door ([0023]; “The controller 50 is configured to determine additional gravitational component of the environmental contribution noted above, e.g., as a function of mass (m), angular position (0), and gravitational constant (g) as noted above, and in turn to calculate torque adjustments sufficient to compensate for the calculated gravitational component.”), it does not explicitly disclose the equations necessary to do so.
However, Biezen and The Physics Classroom teach the gravitational acceleration calculator is configured to determine the gravitational accelerations applied to the left door and the right door of the vehicle, respectively, by the following equation:
Gravitational acceleration applied to the left door: Ly(θ, φ, α) = -g*sin θ-sin α+g*sin φ*cos θ*cos α, and
Gravitational acceleration applied to the right door: Ry(θ , φ, α) = -g*sin θ*sin α-g*sin φ *cox θ*cos α,
PNG
media_image1.png
362
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein α is the opening angle of the left door and the right door, θ is the longitudinal inclination, and φ is the transverse inclination.
(Snippet containing the equation for calculating the gravitational acceleration on an inclined plane disclosed in The Physics Classroom)
PNG
media_image2.png
925
1429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Snippet containing the rotational matrix transformation disclosed in Biezen)
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 Rrumbullaku with Biezen and The Physics Classroom. This modification would have been obvious since calculating the gravitational acceleration acting upon the door of a vehicle on an inclined plane requires one to consider the various angles that influence the acceleration acting on the door. Such angles include the angle of the inclined plane as well as the current angular position of the door. This requires the combination of the well-known gravitational acceleration formula taught in The Physics Classroom with the rotational matrices’ transformation taught by Biezen to achieve said calculation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Rrumbullaku as evidenced by Biezen and “The Physics Classroom” as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 13, Rrumbullaku in view of Xiao discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Rrumbullaku discloses the door includes a left door and a right door ([0014]; “The vehicle 10 includes a vehicle body 13, power swinging front side doors 14F that open and close with respect to the body 13, and, optionally, a substantially similar pair of power swinging rear side doors 14R. The front and rear side doors 14F and 14R are configured to swing or pivot about a door hinge 19 as indicated by arrow 18 to a desired angular position (θ), such as between about 0 and 90 degrees of a longitudinal axis of the vehicle 10.”),
Although Rrumbullaku discloses a controller capable of calculating the gravitations acceleration acting on a vehicle door ([0023]; “The controller 50 is configured to determine additional gravitational component of the environmental contribution noted above, e.g., as a function of mass (m), angular position (0), and gravitational constant (g) as noted above, and in turn to calculate torque adjustments sufficient to compensate for the calculated gravitational component.”), it does not explicitly disclose the equations necessary to do so.
However, Biezen and The Physics Classroom does teach the gravitational acceleration determination operation, the gravitational accelerations applied to the left door and the right door of the vehicle, respectively are determined by the following equation:
Gravitational acceleration applied to the left door: Ly(θ, φ, α) = -g*sin θ-sin α+g*sin φ*cos θ*cos α, and
Gravitational acceleration applied to the right door: Ry(θ , φ, α) = -g*sin θ*sin α-g*sin φ *cox θ*cos α,
PNG
media_image1.png
362
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein α is the opening angle of the left door and the right door, θ is the longitudinal inclination, and φ is the transverse inclination.
(Snippet containing the equation for calculating the gravitational acceleration on an inclined plane disclosed in The Physics Classroom)
PNG
media_image2.png
925
1429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Snippet containing the rotational matrix transformation disclosed in Biezen)
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 Rrumbullaku with Biezen and The Physics Classroom. This modification would have been obvious since calculating the gravitational acceleration acting upon the door of a vehicle on an inclined plane requires one to consider the various angles that influence the acceleration acting on the door. Such angles include the angle of the inclined plane as well as the current angular position of the door. This requires the combination of the well-known gravitational acceleration formula taught in The Physics Classroom with the rotational matrices’ transformation taught by Biezen to achieve said calculation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Rrumbullaku as evidenced by Xiao as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wikipedia (https://web.archive.org/web/20230315024427/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque; hereafter Wikipedia).
Wikipedia was cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 8, Rrumbullaku in view of Xiao discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Rrumbullaku discloses the door includes a left door and a right door ([0014]; “The vehicle 10 includes a vehicle body 13, power swinging front side doors 14F that open and close with respect to the body 13, and, optionally, a substantially similar pair of power swinging rear side doors 14R. The front and rear side doors 14F and 14R are configured to swing or pivot about a door hinge 19 as indicated by arrow 18 to a desired angular position (θ), such as between about 0 and 90 degrees of a longitudinal axis of the vehicle 10.”).
Although Rrumbullaku discloses calculating the required torque required to compensate for the gravitational acceleration acting on the door of a vehicle while parked on an inclined plane ([0023]; “The controller 50 is configured to determine additional gravitational component of the environmental contribution noted above, e.g., as a function of mass (m), angular position (0), and gravitational constant (g) as noted above, and in turn to calculate torque adjustments sufficient to compensate for the calculated gravitational component.”), it does not explicitly disclose the equations used to do so.
However, Wikipedia teaches:
wherein the compensating torque calculator is configured to determine the compensating torques of the left door and the right door of the vehicle by the following equation:
Compensating torque of the left door: TL = M*Lcg*Ly, and
Compensating torque of the right door: TR = M*Lcg*Ry,
wherein M is a mass of the door, Lcg is a corresponding distance between the rotation shaft of the left door and the center of gravity and between the rotation shaft of the right door and the center of gravity, and Ly and Ry are gravitational accelerations respectively applied to the left door and the right door.
PNG
media_image3.png
283
691
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Snippet containing the well-known torque formula disclosed in Wikipedia)
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 Rrumbullaku with Wikipedia. This modification would have been obvious since the formula disclosed by Wikipedia is necessary in calculating the required torque needed to compensate for the gravitational acceleration acting on the door of a vehicle while parked on an inclined plane.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Rrumbullaku as evidenced by Umezawa as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wikipedia.
Regarding claim 14, Rrumbullaku in view of Xiao discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Additionally, Rrumbullaku discloses the door includes a left door and a right door ([0014]; “The vehicle 10 includes a vehicle body 13, power swinging front side doors 14F that open and close with respect to the body 13, and, optionally, a substantially similar pair of power swinging rear side doors 14R. The front and rear side doors 14F and 14R are configured to swing or pivot about a door hinge 19 as indicated by arrow 18 to a desired angular position (θ), such as between about 0 and 90 degrees of a longitudinal axis of the vehicle 10.”).
Although Rrumbullaku discloses calculating the required torque required to compensate for the gravitational acceleration acting on the door of a vehicle while parked on an inclined plane ([0023]; “The controller 50 is configured to determine additional gravitational component of the environmental contribution noted above, e.g., as a function of mass (m), angular position (0), and gravitational constant (g) as noted above, and in turn to calculate torque adjustments sufficient to compensate for the calculated gravitational component.”), it does not explicitly disclose the equations used to do so.
However, Wikipedia teaches:
wherein in the compensating torque determination operation, the compensating torques of the left door and the right door of the vehicle are determined by the following equation:
Compensating torque of the left door: TL = M*Lcg*Ly, and
Compensating torque of the right door: TR = M*Lcg*Ry,
PNG
media_image3.png
283
691
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein M is a mass of the door, Lcg is a corresponding distance between the rotation shaft of the left door and the center of gravity and between the rotation shaft of the right door and the center of gravity, and Ly and Ry are gravitational accelerations respectively applied to the left door and the right door.
(Snippet containing the well-known torque formula disclosed in Wikipedia)
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 Rrumbullaku with Wikipedia. This modification would have been obvious since the formula disclosed by Wikipedia is necessary in calculating the required torque needed to compensate for the gravitational acceleration acting on the door of a vehicle while parked on an inclined plane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668