Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to amendments
This Office Action is in response to the amended file, filed on 07/23/2025. Claims 1, 10 are amended, claim 2 is cancelled and claims 11 are new. Claims 1, 3-11 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibata et al (U.S. Pub. NO. 20190085611).
With regard to claim 1, Shibata discloses A window driving device comprising: A driving device configured to drive a window mounted on a vehicle to open and close; (The reference discloses open-close body driving device includes a motor configured to open and close an open-close body included in a vehicle.) (Shibata, Abstract)
And a control device configured to control the opening and closing drive on the window by the driving device, (The reference discloses open-close body included in a vehicle and a controller controlling a movement speed of the open-close body driven by the motor.) (Shibata, [005])
Wherein the control device is configured to: When a first operation to close the window is performed with an operation device located inside the vehicle, perform first drive control including drive control to close the window at a constant first speed in a first section located on an opening side more than a closing section located near a fully closed position of the window , (The reference discloses the controller drives and controls the motor so that the window glass is closed or opened based on input of a driving instruction signal. the normal speed control pattern has a constant speed section A1 in which the window glass closes at a constant first speed V1. In the normal speed control pattern, when the window glass exceeds the constant speed section A1, slow stop control that reduces the movement speed of the window glass is performed. In the present embodiment, the normal speed control pattern has a constant low speed section A2 extending from a fully-closed position to a predetermined position G1 toward an open side and a deceleration section A3 that is set between the constant speed section A1 and the constant low speed section A2. In the constant low speed section A2 of the normal speed control pattern, the window glass closes at a constant second speed V2 that is lower than the first speed V1. When the ignition switch is on and a closing operation is performed on the own-seat operating switch, the window glass closes at speeds corresponding to the normal speed control pattern.) (Shibata, [015], [020], [039])
And drive control to close the window at a constant second speed lower than the first speed in the closing section; (The reference discloses the normal speed control pattern has a constant low speed section A2 extending from a fully-closed position to a predetermined position G1 toward an open side and a deceleration section A3 that is set between the constant speed section A1 and the constant low speed section A2. In the constant low speed section A2 of the normal speed control pattern, the window glass closes at a constant second speed V2 that is lower than the first speed V1. In the deceleration section A3 of the normal speed control pattern, the speed of closing movement of the window glass is reduced from the first speed V1 to the second speed V2.) (Shibata, [020])
And when a second operation to close the window is performed with an operation device that can be carried outside the vehicle, perform second drive control including drive control to close the window at a constant speed lower than the first speed in the first section. (The reference discloses a remote operating signal output in accordance with operation of a mobile device such as a wireless key. The second low speed control pattern is a pattern in which the starting positions of the deceleration section A3 and the constant low speed section A2 in the first low speed control pattern are shifted toward the open side and the movement speed in the constant low speed section A2 is set to a constant third speed V3 that is lower than the second speed V2. More specifically, in the constant speed section A1 of the second low speed control pattern, the window glass closes at the constant first speed V1 in the same manner as the normal speed control pattern. In the constant low speed section A2 of the second low speed control pattern, the window glass closes at the constant third speed V3, which is lower than the second speed V2) (Shibata, [015], [023], FIG. 2C)
With regard to claim 3, Shibata discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shibata discloses wherein the control device is configured to, when performing the second drive control, perform drive control to close the window at a constant speed lower than the first speed in the first section and the closing section. (The reference discloses a second low speed control pattern is a pattern in which the starting positions of the deceleration section A3 and the constant low speed section A2 in the first low speed control pattern are shifted toward the open side and the movement speed in the constant low speed section A2 is set to a constant third speed V3 that is lower than the second speed V2. More specifically, in the constant speed section A1 of the second low speed control pattern, the window glass closes at the constant first speed V1 in the same manner as the normal speed control pattern. In the constant low speed section A2 of the second low speed control pattern, the window glass closes at the constant third speed V3, which is lower than the second speed V2.) (Shibata, [023], FIG. 2C)
With regard to claim 5, Shibata discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Shibata discloses wherein the control device is configured to, when performing the first drive control, perform drive control to close in the closing section at a higher speed than the speed at time of performing the second drive control. (The reference discloses a in the constant low speed section A2 of the normal speed control pattern, the window glass closes at a constant second speed V2 that is lower than the first speed V1. In the deceleration section A3 of the normal speed control pattern, the speed of closing movement of the window glass is reduced from the first speed V1 to the second speed V2. When the ignition switch is on and a closing operation is performed on the own-seat operating switch 5, the window glass closes at speeds corresponding to the normal speed control pattern. When the ignition switch is off and a closing operation is performed by the mobile device, the window glass closes at speeds corresponding to the second low speed control pattern. In the constant low speed section A2 of the second low speed control pattern, the window glass closes at the constant third speed V3, which is lower than the second speed V2.) (Shibata, [020], [039], [041])
With regard to claim 6, Shibata discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Shibata discloses wherein the control device is configured to, when performing the second drive control, perform drive control to close the window at a constant speed lower than the first speed, in the first section and the closing section that are equivalent to a remaining section excluding an opening section located near a fully open position of the window. (The reference discloses in the constant speed section A1 of the second low speed control pattern, the window glass closes at the constant first speed V1 in the same manner as the normal speed control pattern. In the constant low speed section A2 of the second low speed control pattern Pc, the window glass closes at the constant third speed V3, which is lower than the second speed V2. In the three control patterns Pa, Pb, and Pc described above, the starting positions of the constant speed sections A1 are set to the same position, and the movement speed of the window glass is increased to the first speed V1 in a section from a fully-open position to the starting position of the constant speed section A1 (slow start control).) (Shibata, [023], [025])
With regard to claim 7, Shibata discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shibata discloses wherein the control device is configured to perform the second drive control when a vehicle state signal representing a state of the vehicle detected from the vehicle is a previously set value and the second operation is performed. (The reference discloses in step S2, the controller determines whether the ignition signal IG is activated or deactivated. If the ignition signal IG is activated, the controller proceeds to step S3. If the ignition signal is deactivated in step S2, the controller proceeds to step S6. The controller 4 obtains various kinds of necessary vehicle information from a body ECU (host ECU), which is not shown in the drawings. The vehicle information that the controller obtains from the body ECU is, for example, an on-off signal (ignition signal IG) of a known ignition switch installed in the vehicle.) (Shibata, [017], [028], [032])
With regard to claim 8, Shibata discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Shibata discloses wherein the control device is configured to perform the second drive control when the vehicle state signal is a value representing that the vehicle is stopped and the second operation is performed. (The reference discloses the controller closes the window glass at speeds lower than the normal speeds (speeds corresponding to the second low speed control pattern Pc) based on input of both the remote operating signal and a signal indicating that the vehicle ignition switch is off. When the ignition switch is off, that is, the vehicle is stopped, the remote operator may be away from the vehicle. When the ignition switch is off and a closing operation is performed by the mobile device, the window glass closes at speeds corresponding to the second low speed control pattern Pc.) (Shibata, [041], [045])
With regard to claim 10, Shibata discloses A window drive control method for controlling opening and closing drive on a window mounted on a vehicle, the window drive control method comprising: (The reference discloses open-close body driving method includes a motor configured to open and close an open-close body included in a vehicle.) (Shibata, [014])
When a first operation to close the window is performed with an operation device located inside the vehicle, performing first drive control including drive control to close the window at a constant first speed in a first section located on an opening side more than a closing section located near a fully closed position of the window, (The reference discloses the driving instruction signal includes, for example, an own-seat operating signal Sd1 (vehicle-side operating signal) output in accordance with operation of an own-seat operating switch that is installed on the vehicle door, an another-seat operating signal Sd2 (vehicle-side operating signal) output in accordance with operation of an another-seat operating switch that is installed on a vehicle door differing from the vehicle door. When the ignition switch is on and a closing operation is performed on the own-seat operating switch, the window glass closes at speeds corresponding to the normal speed control pattern. The normal speed control pattern Pa has a constant speed section A1 in which the window glass closes at a constant first speed.) (Shibata, [015], [020], [039], FIG. 2A)
And drive control to close the window at a constant second speed lower than the first speed in the closing section; (The reference discloses the normal speed control pattern has a constant low speed section A2 extending from a fully-closed position to a predetermined position G1 toward an open side and a deceleration section A3 that is set between the constant speed section A1 and the constant low speed section A2. In the constant low speed section A2 of the normal speed control pattern, the window glass closes at a constant second speed V2 that is lower than the first speed V1. In the deceleration section A3 of the normal speed control pattern, the speed of closing movement of the window glass is reduced from the first speed V1 to the second speed V2.) (Shibata, [020])
And when a second operation to close the window is performed with an operation device that can be carried outside the vehicle, performing second drive control including drive control to close the window at a constant second speed lower than the first speed in the first section. (The reference discloses a remote operating signal output in accordance with operation of a mobile device such as a wireless key. The second low speed control pattern is a pattern in which the starting positions of the deceleration section A3 and the constant low speed section A2 in the first low speed control pattern are shifted toward the open side and the movement speed in the constant low speed section A2 is set to a constant third speed V3 that is lower than the second speed V2. More specifically, in the constant speed section A1 of the second low speed control pattern, the window glass closes at the constant first speed V1 in the same manner as the normal speed control pattern. In the constant low speed section A2 of the second low speed control pattern, the window glass closes at the constant third speed V3, which is lower than the second speed V2) (Shibata, [015], [023], FIG. 2C)
With regard to claim 11, Shibata discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shibata discloses wherein the control device is configured to, when performing the second drive control, perform drive control to close the window at a constant speed lower than the first speed and the second speed in the first section and the closing section. (The reference discloses the second low speed control pattern Pc is a pattern in which the starting positions of the deceleration section A3 and the constant low speed section A2 in the first low speed control pattern Pb are shifted toward the open side and the movement speed in the constant low speed section A2 is set to a constant third speed V3 that is lower than the second speed V2. More specifically, in the constant speed section A1 of the second low speed control pattern Pc, the window glass closes at the constant first speed V1 in the same manner as the normal speed control pattern Pa. In the constant low speed section A2 of the second low speed control pattern Pc, the window glass closes at the constant third speed V3, which is lower than the second speed V2. In the deceleration section A3 of the second low speed control pattern Pc, the speed of closing movement of the window glass is reduced from the first speed V1 to the third speed V3. The closing movement of the window glass based on the own-seat operating signal Sd1 includes the constant speed section A1 in which the window glass closes at the constant first speed V1 and the constant low speed section A2 in which the window glass closes at the constant second speed V2, which is lower than the first speed V1. The closing movement of the window glass based on the remote operating signal Sr includes the constant speed section A1 in which the window glass closes at the constant first speed V1 and the constant low speed section A2 in which the window glass closes at the constant third speed V3, which is lower than the second speed V2.) (Shibata, FIG.2A, FIG. 2C, [023], [048])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 9 are rejected under35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, as applied to independent claim 1 above, in view Nakagawa et al. (U.S. Pub. NO. 7268506).
With regard to claim 4, Shibata discloses all of the limitation of claim 3, but does not disclose claim limitation. Shibata does not teach wherein the control device is configured to, when performing the second drive control, perform drive control to close the window in the first section and the closing section at a constant speed identical to the speed for the closing section at time of performing the first drive control.
However, Nakagawa teaches wherein the control device is configured to, when performing the second drive control, perform drive control to close the window in the first section and the closing section at a constant speed identical to the speed for the closing section at time of performing the first drive control; (The reference discloses a motor control via hall ICs to measure that generate signals to measure motor rotation speed and window position implying constant speed for opening and closing as well as a motor driving circuit that directly controls the dc motor that controls window movement that it controls the dc motor to rotate normally which implies constant speed modulation which is equivalent.) (Nakagawa, Col.3 Line 46-55 FIG.1, Col.4 Line 4-7)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified wherein the control device is configured to, when performing the second drive control, perform drive control to close the window at a constant speed lower than the first speed in the first section and the closing section disclosed by Shibata to include the wherein the control device is configured to, when performing the second drive control, perform drive control to close the window in the first section and the closing section at a constant speed identical to the speed for the closing section at time of performing the first drive control of Nakagawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to simplify the control scheme and reduce complexity in the system. By adopting a uniform, constant speed for both the first drive control and the second drive control as suggested by Nakagawa at [Col. 3 Line 46-55 FIG.1, Col.4 Line 4-7]
With regard to claim 9, Shibata discloses all of the limitation of claim 8, but does not disclose claim limitation. Shibata does not teach wherein the control device is configured to perform the second drive control when at least one of values of a transmission shift lever position, a side brake status, and a vehicle speed is the value representing that the vehicle is stopped and the second operation is performed.
However, Nakagawa teaches wherein the control device is configured to perform the second drive control when at least one of values of a transmission shift lever position, a side brake status, and a vehicle speed is the value representing that the vehicle is stopped and the second operation is performed; (The reference discloses lists vehicle having 3 state parameters as inputs for enabling remote control which is equivalent to drive control when at least one of values of a transmission shift lever position, a side brake status, and a vehicle speed is the value representing that the vehicle is stopped and the second operation is performed.) (Nakagawa, Col.4 Line 35-45, FIG.3/4)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified wherein the control device is configured to perform the second drive control when the vehicle state signal is a value representing that the vehicle is stopped and the second operation is performed disclosed by Shibata to include the wherein the control device is configured to perform the second drive control when at least one of values of a transmission shift lever position, a side brake status, and a vehicle speed is the value representing that the vehicle is stopped and the second operation is performed of Nakagawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable a more precise and fail-safe vehicle stopping condition for the second drive control. Instead of relying on a single "vehicle state signal," the person of ordinary skill would recognize the value in incorporating multiple signals from the transmission, side brake, and vehicle speed to create a more robust system as suggested by Nakagawa at [Col.4 Line 35-45, FIG.3/4]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/14/2025 have been fully considered but 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.
(A) Applicant argues… Claim 1 will be discussed first. By this Amendment, claims 1 and 10 recite, among others (emphases added): when a first operation to close the window is performed with an operation device located inside the vehicle, perform first drive control including drive control to close the window at a constant first speed in a first section located on an opening side more than a closing section located near a fully closed position of the window, and drive control to close the window at a constant second speed lower speed than the first speed in the closing section; and when a second operation to close the window is performed with an operation device that can be carried outside the vehicle, perform second drive control including drive control to close the window at a constant speed lower speed than the first speed in the first section.
Nakagawa fails to disclose the above features. As recited above, in the present invention, the speed control of the window is different (1) between the first operation and the second operation, and (2) for different sections (e.g., between a first section and a closing section). Specifically, in the first operation, the window is controlled at a constant first speed in the first section and at a constant second speed lower than the first speed in the closed section, and in the second operation, the window is controlled at a constant speed lower than the first speed in the first section. In addition, as recited in dependent claims (e.g., claim 3), the second operation is controlled at a constant speed lower than the first speed and a constant speed lower than the second speed in the first and closed sections. More details of speed control are illustrated in FIGs. 3-5. The present invention effectively prevents entrapment by controlling the speed for each section as described above. As states in the specification, "[w]ith the configurations as described above, the present invention can further increase safety during remote operation of the window of a vehicle." See last paragraph of SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
By contrast, Nakagawa does not disclose speed control at all. In fact, Nakagawa is completely silent about "speed" or "moving speed," let alone differential speed control or any speed control for each section. Consequently, Nakagawa cannot achieve the effects of the present invention described above.
For at least these reasons, amended claims 1 and 10 and its dependent claims would not have been anticipated by Nakagawa. Thus, the Applicants respectfully request that the claim rejection be withdrawn.
New Claim New dependent claim 11 has been added in this application. Specifically, claim 11, which directly depends from independent claim 1, recites the similar features claimed in claim 3. Specifically, new claim 11 recites "the control device is configured to, when Page performing the second drive control, perform drive control to close the window at a constant speed lower than the first speed and the second speed in the first section and the closing section." Nakagawa et al., and other prior art of record do not show the features claimed in new claim 11. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that this claim is also allowable over the prior art of record.
As to (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees, the examiner appreciates the applicant’s position that “Nakagawa fails to disclose the above features. As recited above, in the present invention, the speed control of the window is different (1) between the first operation and the second operation, and (2) for different sections (e.g., between a first section and a closing section). Specifically, in the first operation, the window is controlled at a constant first speed in the first section and at a constant second speed lower than the first speed in the closed section, and in the second operation, the window is controlled at a constant speed lower than the first speed in the first section. In addition, as recited in dependent claims (e.g., claim 3), the second operation is controlled at a constant speed lower than the first speed and a constant speed lower than the second speed in the first and closed sections. More details of speed control are illustrated in FIGs. 3-5. The present invention effectively prevents entrapment by controlling the speed for each section as described above. As states in the specification, "[w]ith the configurations as described above, the present invention can further increase safety during remote operation of the window of a vehicle." See last paragraph of SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.” 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI BAKKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4321. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am to 3:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALI J BAKKAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
9/5/25