DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2023 was filed and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings that were filed on 08/24/2022 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Claim 6 has been newly added.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 20240247530 A1), herein after will be referred to as Gao, in view of Plunkett et al. (US 4075538 A), and herein after will be referred to as Plunkett.
Regarding Claim 1, Gao teaches an operation assistance system for assisting a user in operating an opening and closing portion, the operation assistance system comprising (A vehicle door system with an actuating mechanism and controller with a manual assistance mode for assisting door operations; [0032] [0056]):
a sensor configured to detect an acceleration applied to the opening and closing portion (Acceleration sensor detects acceleration of the vehicle door; [0035]);
a drive unit configured to generate a driving force for displacing the opening and closing portion (The actuating mechanism/door motor generates a driving force that displaces the door; [0035]);
a manual operation detection unit configured to detect, based on the acceleration detected by the sensor, a manual operation of opening or closing the opening and closing portion when the user applies a force to the opening and closing portion (The controller detects the user’s manual door operation from the sensed door acceleration; [0060]); and
a drive control unit configured to control the drive unit to reduce an operation force of the user required for the manual operation when the manual operation is detected (The controller drives the actuation mechanism to reduce the user’s required operating force; [0061] [0056])
Gao does not explicitly teach the manual operation detection unit determines that the manual operation is performed when a difference value between an instantaneous acceleration applied to the opening and closing portion and an average acceleration that is an average value of a plurality of the instantaneous accelerations within a predetermined period is equal to or larger than a first threshold. Gao determines the user’s intention by comparing the door’s “initial acceleration” directly against a fixed “first acceleration threshold” ([0060]) and does not compute an average acceleration or threshold difference between an instantaneous acceleration.
However, Plunkett discloses an adaptive acceleration responsive system that detects a change in acceleration of a moving object by comparing an instantaneous acceleration against an average acceleration. A computation circuit derives an average-acceleration signal and a differentiator derives an instantaneous acceleration signal, a comparison circuit then compares the two and outputs a signal when their difference reaches a predetermine margin. Plunkett teaches the average acceleration is produced by an average value of the acceleration over a period with a feedback loop deliberately made slow so that the signal tracks only slow baseline acceleration and averages out faster fluctuations (Col 8 lines 1-9; Col 5 lines 5-12). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the comparison circuit computes the difference between the object’s current acceleration and its average acceleration, then triggers an output when the difference reaches a predetermined magnitude or margin. The actual acceleration is an instantaneous acceleration because it reflects the object’s acceleration at each moment in time, before any smoothing or averaging is applied, and is described as a separate signal from and compared against the averaged signal. The average acceleration signal satisfies “an average value of a plurality of the instantaneous accelerations within a predetermined period” because the feedback loop that produces it is deliberately made slow so that sudden changes do not affect it, meaning it continuously combines acceleration readings into one smoothed value over a fixed duration set by the loop’s time constant, a value set by design. The “predetermined magnitude of margin” is a first threshold because the circuit withholds its output until the difference between the two signals reaches that set amount. The circuit performs the exact comparison of computing the difference between an instantaneous acceleration and an average acceleration and producing a detection output only when that difference equals or exceeds a first threshold.
Gao and Plunkett are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they address the same problem of distinguishing an intended acceleration of a monitored body from false detections. Gao detects a user’s intended door operation from door acceleration and Plunkett detects meaningful acceleration change of a moving body while rejecting slow baseline variations. The present application identifies that same problem in the specification stating “when the detected acceleration includes noise due to a disturbance other than the manual operation, the manual operation may be erroneously detected” ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gao’s manual operation detection unit to incorporate the teachings of the comparison circuit computing the difference between an actual acceleration and average acceleration as taught by Plunkett based on the motivation to detect only rapid acceleration changes that correspond to a user’s physical input, while filtering out slow drifts in acceleration that does not represent a user’s action. Plunkett explicitly teaches “The loop is made to be relatively slow so that sudden changes in velocity will not affect the average acceleration signal. The loop will track slow rates of velocity change but will not significantly respond to faster changes.” (Col 8 lines 1-9). This modification would predictably result in more reliable manual operation detection with fewer false detections. Comparing the instantaneous acceleration against the running average acceleration filters out steady objects so only a rapid change will trigger detection. The result is predictable because both references process acceleration of a body and the comparison does not require any structural change to Gao’s sensor or controller.
Regarding Claim 4, Gao teaches a control device that executes processing for controlling a drive unit that generates a driving force for displacing an opening and closing portion, the control device comprising (A controller executes processing to control the actuating mechanism drive unit that displaces the door; [0036]):
a manual operation detection unit configured to detect, based on an acceleration applied to the opening and closing portion, a manual operation of opening or closing the opening and closing portion when a user applies a force to the opening and closing portion (The controller detects the manual operation from the sensed door acceleration; [0060]); and
a drive control unit configured to control the drive unit to reduce an operation force of the user required for the manual operation when the manual operation is detected (The controller drives the actuation mechanism to reduce the user’s required operating force; [0061] [0056]).
Gao does not explicitly teach the manual operation detection unit determines that the manual operation is performed when a difference value between an instantaneous acceleration applied to the opening and closing portion and an average acceleration that is an average value of a plurality of the instantaneous accelerations within a predetermined period is equal to or larger than a first threshold.
However, Plunkett discloses an adaptive acceleration responsive system that detects a change in acceleration of a moving object by comparing an instantaneous acceleration against an average acceleration. A computation circuit derives an average-acceleration signal and a differentiator derives an instantaneous acceleration signal, a comparison circuit then compares the two and outputs a signal when their difference reaches a predetermine margin. Plunkett teaches the average acceleration is produced by an average value of the acceleration over a period with a feedback loop deliberately made slow so that the signal tracks only slow baseline acceleration and averages out faster fluctuations (Col 8 lines 1-9; Col 5 lines 5-12). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the comparison circuit computes the difference between the object’s current acceleration and its average acceleration, then triggers an output when the difference reaches a predetermined magnitude or margin. The actual acceleration is an instantaneous acceleration because it reflects the object’s acceleration at each moment in time, before any smoothing or averaging is applied, and is described as a separate signal from and compared against the averaged signal. The average acceleration signal satisfies “an average value of a plurality of the instantaneous accelerations within a predetermined period” because the feedback loop that produces it is deliberately made slow so that sudden changes do not affect it, meaning it continuously combines acceleration readings into one smoothed value over a fixed duration set by the loop’s time constant, a value set by design. The “predetermined magnitude of margin” is a first threshold because the circuit withholds its output until the difference between the two signals reaches that set amount. The circuit performs the exact comparison of computing the difference between an instantaneous acceleration and an average acceleration and producing a detection output only when that difference equals or exceeds a first threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gao’s manual operation detection unit to incorporate the teachings of the comparison circuit computing the difference between an actual acceleration and average acceleration as taught by Plunkett based on the motivation to detect only rapid acceleration changes that correspond to a user’s physical input, while filtering out slow drifts in acceleration that does not represent a user’s action. Plunkett explicitly teaches “The loop is made to be relatively slow so that sudden changes in velocity will not affect the average acceleration signal. The loop will track slow rates of velocity change but will not significantly respond to faster changes.” (Col 8 lines 1-9). This modification would predictably result in more reliable manual operation detection with fewer false detections. Comparing the instantaneous acceleration against the running average acceleration filters out steady objects so only a rapid change will trigger detection. The result is predictable because both references process acceleration of a body and the comparison does not require any structural change to Gao’s sensor or controller.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Plunkett, as applied above in claims 1 and 4, and in further view of Shaikh et al. (WO 2021228333 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Shaikh.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Goa and Plunkett remain as applied above in Claim 1. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the manual operation detection unit prohibits detection of the manual operation until a predetermined prohibition period elapses from when an acceleration, after application of a high-pass filter that extracts a component at a frequency higher than a predetermined cutoff frequency from the acceleration detected by the sensor, becomes equal to or larger than a second threshold.
However, Shaikh, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the manual operation detection unit prohibits detection of the manual operation until a predetermined prohibition period elapses (see at least Shaikh, Page 8: “…the control device which z. B. can be designed as a microcontroller, further designed to carry out an analysis of the sensor signal and / or at least one further supplied signal in order to detect any disturbances in the sensor signal and to adapt the processing of the sensor signal as a function of a result of this analysis to reduce the influence of the disturbances on the generation of the control signal.”; The adaptation signal processing is used to reduce the influence of disturbances that is detected by the sensor signal which is equivalent to the claim prohibit detection. The predetermined prohibition period is a fundamental, obvious, and necessary parameter design choice to implement the feature in signal processing) from when an acceleration, after application of a high-pass filter that extracts a component at a frequency higher than a predetermined cutoff frequency from the acceleration detected by the sensor (see at least Shaikh, Page 5: “…the processing of the sensor signal includes filtering (e.g. high-pass filtering or band-pass filtering).”; The signal processing can include a high-pass filter to identify and handle disturbances from the sensor signal. The extraction of the higher frequency than the predetermined cutoff frequency is inherent of the high-pass filter and is the fundamental function of the high-pass filter), becomes equal to or larger than a second threshold (see at least Shaikh, Page 12: “The analysis of the sensor signal provided in the invention can in particular, for. B. include an analysis of the frequency spectrum of the sensor signal (z. B. Fourier analysis) in order to identify one or more sources of interference based on a detection of peaks in the frequency spectrum (cf. z. B. the above four examples), then z. B. determine a suitable "fault scenario", be it z. B. by selecting a certain failure scenario from a plurality of fixed failure scenarios, or z. B. by establishing a disturbance scenario defined by disturbance parameter values.”; The analysis of the sensor signal to identify one or more sources of interference based on the detection of peaks is the equivalent to determining a second threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination as applied to claim 1 to incorporate the teachings of Shaikh to provide the detection of disturbances through the signal processing of the sensor signals based on the motivation to improve the detection of noise and filtering of the signals. This provides the benefit of improving the systems reliability from false manual operation detections and prevent erroneous activations.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Goa and Plunkett remain as applied above in Claim 1. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the manual operation detection unit corrects the first threshold to a value larger than a value corresponding to a period other than a predetermined prohibition period until the prohibition period elapses from when an acceleration, after application of a high-pass filter that extracts a component at a frequency higher than a predetermined cutoff frequency from the acceleration detected by the sensor, becomes equal to or larger than a second threshold.
However, Shaikh, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the manual operation detection unit corrects the first threshold to a value larger than a value corresponding to a period other than a predetermined prohibition period until the prohibition period elapses (see at least Shaikh, Page 10: “If the processing of the sensor signal includes filtering, the adaptation of the processing of the sensor signal that takes place according to the invention as a function of a result of the analysis of the sensor signal, in particular z. B. include an adjustment (setting or changing) of "filter parameters" as required. As a filter parameter of a high-pass filtering z. B. the relevant cutoff frequency (and / or edge steepness) can be adjusted.”; The signal processing is adapted by adjusting the parameters of the filter, this is an obvious alternative to correcting a first threshold to another value (larger or smaller). The predetermined prohibition period is a fundamental, obvious, and necessary parameter design choice to implement the feature in signal processing and changing the period is merely an obvious design choice) from when an acceleration, after application of a high-pass filter that extracts a component at a frequency higher than a predetermined cutoff frequency from the acceleration detected by the sensor (see at least Shaikh, Page 5: “…the processing of the sensor signal includes filtering (e.g. high-pass filtering or band-pass filtering).”; The signal processing can include a high-pass filter to identify and handle disturbances from the sensor signal. The extraction of the higher frequency than the predetermined cutoff frequency is inherent of the high-pass filter and is the fundamental function of the high-pass filter), becomes equal to or larger than a second threshold (see at least Shaikh, Page 12: “The analysis of the sensor signal provided in the invention can in particular, for. B. include an analysis of the frequency spectrum of the sensor signal (z. B. Fourier analysis) in order to identify one or more sources of interference based on a detection of peaks in the frequency spectrum (cf. z. B. the above four examples), then z. B. determine a suitable "fault scenario", be it z. B. by selecting a certain failure scenario from a plurality of fixed failure scenarios, or z. B. by establishing a disturbance scenario defined by disturbance parameter values.”; The analysis of the sensor signal to identify one or more sources of interference based on the detection of peaks is the equivalent to determining a second threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination as applied to claim 1 to incorporate the teachings of Shaikh to provide the adaptation in the signal processing of the sensor signals based on the motivation to improve the process of detections and filtering of the signals. This provides the benefit of improving the systems reliability by adjusting the detection of disturbances through fine-tuning of the parameters in the high-pass filter and preventing any false manual operation detections and prevent erroneous activations.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Plunkett, as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Vernacchia et al. (US 20150338856 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Vernacchia.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Goa and Plunkett remain as applied above in Claim 1. Gao and Plunkett does not explicitly teach the average acceleration is calculated by moving averaging.
However, Vernacchia discloses a system for controlling vehicle acceleration that processes acceleration data to determine average values. Vernacchia teaches an acceleration delta module that determines the average value of the acceleration delta over a predetermined period or an average value of the first predetermined number and refers the average value to a moving average ([0043]). This teaching is functionally equivalent to the claimed limitation because the average value of acceleration is applied to a predetermined period number of samples of acceleration data and is explicitly referred to as a moving average.
Gao, Plunkett, and Vernacchia are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle motion control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gao and Plunkett to incorporate the teachings of calculating the average acceleration using a moving average as taught by Vernacchia based on the motivation to maintain a stable average signal and filter out noise or fluctuations. This provides the benefit of improving the system’s reliability and preventing false triggers from sensor spikes or vibrations.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Plunkett, and in view of Shaikh, as applied in claim 2, and in further view of Sugiura et al. (US 4528955 A), and herein after will be referred to as Sugiura.
Regarding Claim 6, Goa, Plunkett, and Shaikh remain as applied above in Claim 2. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the acceleration before the application of the high-pass filter during the prohibition period is zero.
However, Sugiura disclses a known control system in which a signal from a piezoelectric knock sensor is processed through an amplifier and a filter. Sugiura teaches that during a defined masking period of 0.8 msec, the output of the piezoelectric knock sensor is shorted to ground (Col 10 lines 29-60). Shorting the sensor output to ground eliminates the signal delivered to the downstream amplifier and filter so the signal is zero for the duration of the masking period. This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the knock sensor is a piezoelectric sensor that produces a signal representing the vibration and acceleration of an object and shorting that sensor output to ground forces the signal to zero.
Gao, Plunkett, Shaikh, and Sugiura are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they address the issue of preventing disturbance from triggering a detection of a signal. Sirgoira is directed to engine knock control and its solution of masking the piezoelectric sensor to zero during a disturbance is reasonably pertinent to the present problem of preventing a disturbance from being detected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of shorting the sensor output to ground during the prohibition period as taught by Sugiura based on the motivation to completely exclude the disturbance from the detection so that no signal from the disturbance can trigger a false detection. Sugiura provides explicit support for this motivation stating “the output of the knock sensor is shorted to the ground, so that the input to the operational amplifier OP1 is eliminated thereby to mask the ignition noises.” This modification would predictably result in the disturbance being excluded from the detection during the prohibition period.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
STMicroelectronics, “AN3308 Application Note- LIS3DH: MEMS digital output motion sensor, ultra low-power high performance 3-axis ‘nano’ accelerometer,” Doc ID 18198 Rev 1, January 2011 [retrieved on 2026-05-15]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://cdn.sparkfun.com/assets/learn_tutorials/5/9/6/LIS3DH_AppNote_DocID_18198rev1.pdf >
Hohlfeld (WO 2020193264 A1)
Kim (US 20100256947 A1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5-7, filed 03/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 4 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Gao addresses door opening and closing while Plunkett addresses wheel slippage where the problems and effects differ, so there is no motivation to combine. The Applicant’s characterization of Plunkett as limited to “prevention of wheel slippage” relies on one embodiment of Plunkett and does not define the scope of Plunkett as prior art. The wheel-slip arrangement is one disclosed application of Plunkett’s adaptive acceleration comparison system, not the limit of what Plunkett teaches. The rejection relies on Plunkett only for the instantaneous and average acceleration comparison. A reference is analogous art if it is either in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem. The Applicant’s invention pertains to detected acceleration due to disturbances other than the manual operation and may be erroneously detected ([0005]). Plunkett’s average acceleration and the comparison between the actual and average acceleration addresses that same problem. Plunkett is therefore reasonably pertinent to the problem.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention adds driving force when a threshold is exceeded while Plunkett reduces driving force. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Plunkett is relied upon solely for the determination that a manual operation is performed when a difference value between an instantaneous acceleration and an average acceleration is equal to or larger than a first threshold. Plunkett is not relied upon for any driving force or assistance teachings. The drive unit, the drive control unit and the reduction of the user’s operation force are all taught by Gao. The combined system of Gao and Plunkett does not import Plunkett’s wheel-slip torque reduction. Non-obviousness is not demonstrated by attacking the reference individually where the rejection is based on their combination.
Applicant argues that Plunkett has prediction and return determination based on rotation speed and is specialized for wheel systems and there is no technical compatibility. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Plunkett’s prediction function recovery or return determination, and its rotational speed are feature of Plunkett’s wheel slip embodiment. They are not incorporated by the rejection, where the rejection relies on Plunkett’s teaching for the actual and average acceleration comparison. Obviousness does not require that the secondary reference be bodily incorporated into the primary reference. The test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Gao already provides an acceleration sensor and a controller and incorporating Plunkett’s actual and average acceleration is an algorithmic modification of the detection logic that Gao already performs and requires no change to Gao’s hardware.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights