Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-23 are pending in the application. Applicant did not make any amendments to the claims in response to the non-final Office action. Applicant's arguments filed on September 5, 2025 requesting withdrawal of the rejections are unpersuasive. Examiner maintains the rejections as was previously stated in the non-final Office action.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the Applicant argues that “The Office Action acknowledges that:
"Romero does not expressly disclose ... controlling a closure actuator ... ," and Applicant agrees. For this reason, a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to develop technology for controlling doors or other actuators would not see a reason to consult a reference where the doors are not opened and closed automatically. That is, such ordinary artisan would not consider Romero or Katsuo individually or in combination as proposed by the Office Action.”
Examiner disagrees. Romero does not expressly disclose …controlling a closure actuator … ; however, Katsuo does teach …controlling a closure actuator … which is an analogous art. Just because Romero does not expressly disclose a feature does not mean the combination of Romero and Katsuo is infeasible. Examiner provided a valid motivation by stating that one would have been motivated to make such a modification so it is possible for a driver to get off a vehicle without worrying about opening and closing of the door, as suggested by Katsuo at the Background-Art (page 1). Furthermore, for example, one of ordinary skill in the art, such as when one is trying to load a child into the driver's second side of the vehicle, may desire to park closer to the side 43 of the parking slot 37 in order to open the driver side doors 31 of the vehicle 11 to their maximum operating position, as taught by Romero (see [0026-0027]), would look to Katsuo (see Abstract) to use a vehicular door opening/closing angle control device for setting a door opening/closing limit angle of his/her own vehicle to the maximum door opening/closing angle, based on a control command from the door opening/closing angle controller 3. Therefore, contrary to what the Applicant alleges, an ordinary artisan would consider Romero and Katsuo individually or in combination.
Applicant argues that Romero does not teach “defining a boundary condition regarding the vehicle based on the 3D map”. Applicant alleges that “Romero nevertheless does not teach or suggest that this is a ‘condition’ for the vehicle as recited in claim 1. Namely, Romero “assum[es] that the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 will always be at their maximum operating position,” and as such Romero’s ‘furthest point’ is not a ‘boundary condition’ for closure movement because the furthest point corresponds to the ‘maximum distance,’ not a condition for the motion. Examiner disagrees because the boundary condition, as taught by Romero, is the determination of the furthest point (i.e., distance) of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations, which is not the maximum distance. The trigonometric calculation is based on whether the vehicle is positioned in the center or closer to a side of the parking slot 37, as taught by Romero at [0026].
Furthermore, Examiner directs the Applicant to the specification at [0027] which discloses that:
“The boundary condition(s) can include one or more distance specifications that are relevant for automatically controlling the actuation of the closure(s) of the vehicle 100. The boundary conditions can specify or indicate how far the closure is allowed to be extended, or is not allowed to be extended, from the vehicle 100. In some implementations, the boundary conditions can be visualized as a boundary polygon 120 surrounding the vehicle 100.”
Thus, Romero teaches the determination of the furthest point (i.e., a distance) which corresponds to distance specifications or how far the closure is allowed to be extended from the vehicle. Based on the foregoing reasons, Romero teaches “defining a boundary condition regarding the vehicle based on the 3D map” as recited in the third clause of claim 1. Furthermore, the Examiner has clearly showed a teaching of this feature in light of what is written in the specification. Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant further argues that Katsuo does not teach “controlling a closure actuator of a closure of the vehicle based on the boundary condition, the closure actuator configured for opening or closing the closure”. Applicant argues that “Katsuo describes the door opening/closing angle setting actuator 5 as setting the "limit angle" for a door being manually opened, not for actually moving the door.” Examiner disagrees because Katsuo does disclose an “actuator configured for opening or closing the closure” as recited in the fourth clause of claim 1. See Katsuo at the Abstract which discloses a vehicular door opening/closing angle control device which can open a vehicular door as well as a door opening/closing angel setting actuator for setting a door opening/closing limit angle of his/her own vehicle to the maximum door opening/closing angle, based on a control command from the door opening/closing angle controller 3. The Examiner directs the Applicant to page 3 in connection with Fig. 1 which discloses that the vehicle door opening/closing angle control apparatus includes an automatic door actuator 4 that automatically opens and closes the door of the host vehicle. Based on the foregoing, Katsuo teaches “actuator configured for opening or closing the closure” as recited in the fourth clause of claim 1. Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 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, 5, 7-12, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Romero et al. (US 2024/0140476), hereinafter “Romero” in view of Katsuo (JP 2009114783) (English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Romero teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: collecting, in a vehicle having an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), sensor data using an ADAS sensor suite of the vehicle, the sensor data collected while the vehicle is moving and reflecting surroundings of the vehicle; (see Romero at [0019] which discloses that upon powering the vehicle 11, the first sensor 13 and the second sensor 15 capture the environmental data, and begin transmitting the data to the ECM 17; Examiner notes that capturing environmental data corresponds to collecting in a vehicle having an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS). Examiner references the specification at [0004] which discloses that the ADAS sensor suite includes at least a camera and ultrasonic sensors. Examiner notes that the presence of at least the first and second sensors in the teachings of Romero corresponds to having an advanced driver assistance system. Also, see Romero at [0021] which discloses that first sensor 13 and second sensor 15 receive data on the environment of the vehicle 11 in the form of images, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are cameras, or two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) positional information of a reflected wave, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are LiDAR, radar, or ultrasonic sensors, and that the vehicle 11 is capable of determining the position of objects in its environment using data captured by the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15. Examiner maps first and second sensors to ADAS sensor suite of the vehicle. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of what is written in the specification.)
generating a three-dimensional (3D) map of the surroundings using the sensor data; defining a boundary condition regarding the vehicle based on the 3D map; (see Romero at [0021] which discloses that first sensor 13 and second sensor 15 receive data on the environment of the vehicle 11 in the form of images, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are cameras, or two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) positional information of a reflected wave, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are LiDAR, radar, or ultrasonic sensors, and that the vehicle 11 is capable of determining the position of objects in its environment using data captured by the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15; see Romero at [0027] which discloses that the ECM 17 determines the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations, assuming that the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 will always be at their maximum operating position prior to abutting against a side of the parking slot 37; see Romero at [0028] which discloses that the ECM 17 determines the distance between the outermost point of the body of the vehicle 11 (other than the doors) and a side of the parking slot 37 by subtracting one half of the width of the vehicle 11 from the known distance between a vehicle center 25 and a first side 39 of the parking slot 37 and that this distance is determined to be the maximum distance that driver side doors 31 may be opened. Examiner maps the furthest point or maximum distance of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations to the recited boundary condition.)
Romero discloses a closure of a vehicle (see Romero at [0015] which discloses that the system displays an open position of the door in relation to a side or rear of the parking slot, such that the user is able to determine the maximum operating position of the door of the vehicle while the vehicle is in the parking slot. Examiner maps door to closure.). However, Romero does not expressly disclose and controlling a closure actuator of a closure of the vehicle based on the boundary condition, the closure actuator configured for opening or closing the closure, the closure actuator controlled without the closure having any obstacle detection sensor which in a related art Katsuo teaches (see Katsuo at the Abstract (page 1) which discloses the problem to be solved: To provide a vehicular door opening/closing angle control device which can open a vehicular door to a maximum angle that can avoid contact with an obstacle even if a force is applied in a door opening direction when the driver gets off an automobile in which the obstacle exists adjacent to the door, and the solution: The vehicular door opening/closing angle control device is formed of: a rear camera 1 which acquires circumferential image data of the driver's own vehicle; a door opening/closing angle controller 3 for obtaining the maximum door opening/closing angle of the driver's own vehicle, that is allowed for the vehicle when the driver rides off the vehicle, based on the circumferential image data acquired by the rear camera 1; and a door opening/closing angle setting actuator 5 for setting a door opening/closing limit angle of his/her own vehicle to the maximum door opening/closing angle, based on a control command from the door opening/closing angle controller. Examiner maps door opening/closing angle controller and/or door opening/closing angle setting actuator to the recited closure actuator. Examiner further notes that the use of the rear camera to acquire circumferential image data obviates the need for an obstacle detection sensor. Therefore, Katsuo teaches the closure actuator controlled without the closure having any obstacle detection sensor.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero to control a closure actuator of a closure of the vehicle based on the boundary condition, the closure actuator configured for opening or closing the closure, the closure actuator controlled without the closure having any obstacle detection sensor, as taught by Katsuo.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so it is possible for a driver to get off a vehicle without worrying about opening and closing of the door, as suggested by Katsuo at the Background-Art (page 1).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the ADAS sensor suite includes at least a camera and ultrasonic sensors, and wherein the camera and ultrasonic sensors are used in collecting the sensor data (see Romero at [0019] which discloses that to collect the environmental data, the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 may include one or more of a camera, LiDAR sensor, radar sensor, ultrasonic sensor, or other optical sensors, and the first sensor 13 may be the same sensor type or a different sensor type from the second sensor 15 and that the number of sensors is not limited to two, and may include any number of sensors without departing from the nature of the invention; see Romero at [0021] which discloses that first sensor 13 and second sensor 15 receive data on the environment of the vehicle 11 in the form of images, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are cameras, or two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) positional information of a reflected wave, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are LiDAR, radar, or ultrasonic sensors, and that the vehicle 11 is capable of determining the position of objects in its environment using data captured by the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15.)
Regarding claim 3, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the ADAS sensor suite further includes a radar, and wherein also the radar is used in collecting the sensor data (see Romero at [0019] which discloses that to collect the environmental data, the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 may include one or more of a camera, LiDAR sensor, radar sensor, ultrasonic sensor, or other optical sensors, and the first sensor 13 may be the same sensor type or a different sensor type from the second sensor 15 and that the number of sensors is not limited to two, and may include any number of sensors without departing from the nature of the invention; see Romero at [0021] which discloses that first sensor 13 and second sensor 15 receive data on the environment of the vehicle 11 in the form of images, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are cameras, or two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) positional information of a reflected wave, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are LiDAR, radar, or ultrasonic sensors, and that the vehicle 11 is capable of determining the position of objects in its environment using data captured by the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15.)
Regarding claim 5, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein collecting the sensor data comprises performing 3D tracking of the surroundings (see Romero at [0023] which discloses that to identify objects within the environment, the ECM 17 performs feature extraction on the environmental data using an object detection algorithm, that for example, the ECM 17 processes the sensor data through a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), such as LeNet, AlexNet, ResNet, or equivalent, where a section of the data is initially processed through a series of convolution operations, that the convolution operations determine the probability of a feature being located within the data, and that once the optical data is convoluted, the optical data is processed through pooling operations, which down sample the optical data into a useful feature map based on the neural network's training. Romero at [0023] further discloses that as the optical data also includes the three-dimensional locations of the scanned objects, once the feature extraction is complete the vehicle 11 knows the identity and location of an object within the environment. Examiner notes that identifying objects in the environment by way of an object detection algorithm using optical data that includes three-dimensional locations of the scanned objects corresponds to collecting the sensor data comprises performing 3D tracking of the surroundings. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of what is written in the specification.)
Regarding claim 7, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising performing a determination that the vehicle is in park mode, wherein the boundary condition is defined in response to the determination (see Romero at [0024] which discloses that the ECM 17 is further configured to determine a path for the vehicle 11 to maneuver to an end location within the parking slot 37; see Romero at [0027] which discloses determining a planned path 27 to the user selected location 47 of the vehicle 11 includes determining the operating position of the driver side doors 31 and the operating position of the passenger side doors 33 and that the ECM 17 determines the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations, assuming that the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 will always be at their maximum operating position prior to abutting against a side of the parking slot 37; see Romero at [0028] which discloses that the ECM 17 determines the distance between the outermost point of the body of the vehicle 11 (other than the doors) and a side of the parking slot 37 by subtracting one half of the width of the vehicle 11 from the known distance between a vehicle center 25 and a first side 39 of the parking slot 37 and that this distance is determined to be the maximum distance that driver side doors 31 may be opened. Examiner notes that the door is opened to up to its maximum distance when the vehicle is parked at its parking slot. Examiner notes that the ECM determining a planned path to the selected parking location corresponds to performing a determination of a park mode. Examiner notes that the ECM further determines the furthest point or the maximum distance that the side doors may be opened, which corresponds to the boundary condition.)
Regarding claim 8, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the closure includes a door of the vehicle (see Romero at [0015] which discloses a door of a vehicle; see Katsuo at Abstract which discloses a vehicular door.)
Regarding claim 9, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein controlling the closure actuator based on the boundary condition comprises opening the closure (see Romero at [0027] which discloses that the ECM 17 determines the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations; Examiner previously mapped the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations to the boundary condition; see Katsuo at page 3 which discloses that the automatic door actuator 4 automatically opens and closes the door of the host vehicle according to a control command from the door opening / closing angle controller 3.)
Regarding claim 10, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein controlling the closure actuator based on the boundary condition comprises closing the closure (see Romero at [0027] which discloses that the ECM 17 determines the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations; Examiner previously mapped the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations to the boundary condition; see Katsuo at page 3 which discloses that the automatic door actuator 4 automatically opens and closes the door of the host vehicle according to a control command from the door opening / closing angle controller 3.)
Regarding claim 11, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a user input to actuate the closure, wherein the closure actuator is controlled in response to receiving the user input (see Katsuo at pages 9-10, for example, which discloses that the door opening / closing operation may be performed in the manual mode as in a general vehicle and that the present invention can also be applied to a vehicle that manually opens a door.)
Regarding claim 12, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the user input is generated by an application that is executed by a vehicle system or that is executed by a mobile electronic device (see Romero at [0042] which discloses that as a whole, the vehicle 11 is able to receive user input via the touchscreen 63; see Romero at [0051] which discloses that smartphone 75 also includes a data bus 19, a display 77, a memory 79, a touchscreen 81, a processor 83, and a transceiver 85, the smartphone 75 is capable of capturing the user's touch input, which is relayed back to the ECM 17.)
Regarding claim 19, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: collecting new sensor data; (see Romero at [0016] which discloses that automated parking system of the vehicle 11 includes a first sensor 13 and a second sensor 15, which collect and transmit environmental data to an Electronic Control Module (ECM) 17 via a data bus 19; see Romero at [0019] which discloses that upon powering the vehicle 11, the first sensor 13 and the second sensor 15 capture the environmental data, and begin transmitting the data to the ECM 17; Examiner notes that capturing environmental data corresponds to collecting in a vehicle having an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS). Examiner references the specification at [0004] which discloses that the ADAS sensor suite includes at least a camera and ultrasonic sensors. Examiner notes that the presence of at least the first and second sensors in the teachings of Romero corresponds to having an advanced driver assistance system. Examiner further notes that the sensors operate as soon as the vehicle is powered and the data is collected or captured continuously while the vehicle is powered. Therefore, new sensor data is collected continuously when the vehicle is powered or operational. Also, see Romero at [0021] which discloses that first sensor 13 and second sensor 15 receive data on the environment of the vehicle 11 in the form of images, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are cameras, or two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) positional information of a reflected wave, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are LiDAR, radar, or ultrasonic sensors, and that the vehicle 11 is capable of determining the position of objects in its environment using data captured by the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15. Examiner maps first and second sensors to ADAS sensor suite of the vehicle. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of what is written in the specification.)
generating a new 3D map of the surroundings using the new sensor data; defining a new boundary condition regarding the vehicle based on the new 3D map; (see Romero at [0021] which discloses that first sensor 13 and second sensor 15 receive data on the environment of the vehicle 11 in the form of images, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are cameras, or two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) positional information of a reflected wave, if the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15 are LiDAR, radar, or ultrasonic sensors, and that the vehicle 11 is capable of determining the position of objects in its environment using data captured by the first sensor 13 and/or second sensor 15; see Romero at [0027] which discloses that the ECM 17 determines the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations, assuming that the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 will always be at their maximum operating position prior to abutting against a side of the parking slot 37; Examiner maps the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations to the boundary condition. Examiner notes that the ECM is operational while the vehicle is powered and that the trigonometric calculations are also performed while the vehicle is operational or powered. Therefore, new environmental data and/or sensor data is processed by the ECM to generate new 3D maps and new boundary conditions. Also, see Romero at [0026] which discloses that the sample path 23 of a vehicle 11 may position the vehicle at the center 25 of the parking slot 37 or closer to a second side 43 in order to open the driver side doors 31 of the vehicle to its maximum operating position. Examiner maps the sample path that positions the vehicle at the center of the parking slot to an initial iteration of the method and the sample path that positions to vehicle closer to a second side as the next or new iteration of the method.)
and controlling the closure actuator based on the new boundary condition, the closure actuator controlled without the closure having any obstacle detection sensor (see Katsuo at the Abstract (page 1) which discloses the problem to be solved: To provide a vehicular door opening/closing angle control device which can open a vehicular door to a maximum angle that can avoid contact with an obstacle even if a force is applied in a door opening direction when the driver gets off an automobile in which the obstacle exists adjacent to the door, and the solution: The vehicular door opening/closing angle control device is formed of: a rear camera 1 which acquires circumferential image data of the driver's own vehicle; a door opening/closing angle controller 3 for obtaining the maximum door opening/closing angle of the driver's own vehicle, that is allowed for the vehicle when the driver rides off the vehicle, based on the circumferential image data acquired by the rear camera 1; and a door opening/closing angle setting actuator 5 for setting a door opening/closing limit angle of his/her own vehicle to the maximum door opening/closing angle, based on a control command from the door opening/closing angle controller. Examiner maps door opening/closing angle controller and/or door opening/closing angle setting actuator to the recited closure actuator. Examiner further notes that the use of the rear camera to acquire circumferential image data obviates the need for an obstacle detection sensor. Therefore, Katsuo teaches the closure actuator controlled without the closure having any obstacle detection sensor.)
Claims 20-22 are directed toward a vehicle that performs the steps recited in the computer-implemented method of claims 1-3. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 1-3 teach the steps recited in the vehicle of claims 20-22. Therefore, claims 20-22 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 1-3.
Claims 4, 6, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Romero et al. (US 2024/0140476), hereinafter “Romero” in view of Katsuo (JP 2009114783) (English translation attached) and further in view of Chinthalapudi et al. (US 2024/0400041).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Romero does not expressly disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the radar is a short-range radar which in a related art Chinthalapudi teaches (see Chinthalapudi at [0025] which discloses that in one example, the sensing devices 40a-40n include at least one medium or short-range sensing device 28a, such as a medium or short-range radar system 40a.; also, see Chinthalapudi at [0037] which discloses a short-range radar system 40a.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero to include wherein the radar is a short-range radar, as taught by Chinthalapudi.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to include one or more sensing devices that sense observable conditions of the exterior environment of the vehicle, as suggested by Chinthalapudi at [0025].
Claim 23 is directed toward a vehicle that recites limitations that are substantially the same as the limitations recited in the computer-implemented method of claim 4. Therefore, the cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 4 teach the steps recited in the vehicle of claim 23. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, with respect to a boundary condition as was previously stated in claim 1 (see Romero at [0027] which discloses that the ECM 17 determines the furthest point of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations, assuming that the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 will always be at their maximum operating position prior to abutting against a side of the parking slot 37; see Romero at [0028] which discloses that the ECM 17 determines the distance between the outermost point of the body of the vehicle 11 (other than the doors) and a side of the parking slot 37 by subtracting one half of the width of the vehicle 11 from the known distance between a vehicle center 25 and a first side 39 of the parking slot 37 and that this distance is determined to be the maximum distance that driver side doors 31 may be opened. Examiner mapped the furthest point or maximum distance of the driver side doors 31 and passenger side doors 33 from the vehicle 11 based upon trigonometric calculations to the recited boundary condition.)
Romero does not expressly disclose generating a boundary polygon surrounding the vehicle which in a related art Chinthalapudi teaches (see Chinthalapudi at [0026] which discloses that it should be noted that the position of the medium or short-range radar system 40a in FIG. 1 is merely exemplary, as the medium or short-range radar system 40a may be positioned at any desired location about the vehicle 10, and moreover, the vehicle 10 may include more than one medium or short-range radar system 40a; see Chinthalapudi at [0037] which discloses that in one example, with reference back to FIG. 2, the medium or short-range sensor data 316 may include data observed by the medium or short-range radar system 40a within a medium or short-range field of view 220 at the front 50 of the vehicle 10, which is generally indicated by a dashed box, and that the long-range sensor data 318 may include data observed by the optical camera 40b and/or the long-range lidar 40c within a long-range field of view 222 at the front 50 of the vehicle 10, which is generally indicated by a dashed box. Examiner notes that the sensor data captured by the radar system corresponds to distance data. Examiner maps one or more dashed boxes generated by the medium and/or short range radar system to the recited boundary polygon.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero to generate a boundary polygon surrounding the vehicle, as taught by Chinthalapudi.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to indicate distance, such as a maximum distance from a vehicle, based on the received sensor data, as suggested by Chinthalapudi at [0037] and by Romero at [0027-0028].
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Romero et al. (US 2024/0140476), hereinafter “Romero” in view of Katsuo (JP 2009114783) (English translation attached) and further in view of Kothari et al. (US 2017/0138108).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Romero does not expressly disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising performing a first determination, in response to receiving the user input, whether an obstacle exists along a path of an extension of the closure which in a related art Kothari teaches (see Kothari at [0009], for example, which discloses that the present invention can use sensors to identify the external objects or oncoming traffic, and provide a self-stopping feature on the vehicle doors that can help to prevent accidents; see Kothari at [0051] which discloses that this solution will help to detect oncoming traffic and/or nearby external objects when the vehicle door is being opened, and it would automatically stop the vehicle door from opening further 102, 202, 302, 402 if there is a possibility of an accident involving the vehicle doors or its users. Kothari at [0051] notes that oncoming traffic can be anything that can cause damage to the vehicle door, such as, another vehicle, cyclist, people, motorbike, scooter, etc. that are either coming from front or from behind. Kothari at [0051] further notes that an external object can also be anything that can cause damage to the vehicle door, for example: another vehicle parked in parking lot, building wall if vehicle was parked next to building wall, road sign pillar/pole, water hydrant, etc. and that this solution will help to prevent accidents and also indirectly remove the fear from the vehicle users that they might hit another object while opening their vehicle doors and vice versa. Examiner notes that the identification of external objects or oncoming traffic as well as the detection of oncoming traffic and/or nearby external objects when the vehicle door is being opened corresponds to a determination of whether an obstacle exists along a path of an extension of the closure.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero to determine whether an obstacle exists along a path of an extension of the closure, as taught by Kothari.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to prevent door related accidents, as suggested by Kothari at the Background section, [0002-0005].
Regarding claim 14, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein in response to the first determination indicating that the obstacle exists along the path, the method further comprises performing a second determination of whether the boundary condition is within a distance threshold of the closure (see Romero at [0058] which discloses that an Electronic Control Module (ECM) of the vehicle calculates the degree that the various doors of the vehicle may be opened without crossing over a side of the parking slot, in the case that the side of the parking slot is formed by an object or obstacle that substantially inhibits the operation of the door(s). Romero at [0058] further states that alternatively, if the ECM determines that the side of the parking slot does not inhibit the operation of the door(s) (such as if the side of the parking slot is painted on the ground and the parking slot resides in a relatively empty parking lot), the ECM determines that the applicable door(s) may be fully opened. Examiner maps the degree that the various doors of the vehicle may be opened to whether the boundary condition is within a distance threshold of the closure. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of the specification.)
Regarding claim 15, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein in response to the second determination indicating that the boundary condition is within the distance threshold of the closure, controlling the closure actuator comprises causing the closure actuator not to extend the closure (see Romero at [0058] which discloses that an Electronic Control Module (ECM) of the vehicle calculates the degree that the various doors of the vehicle may be opened without crossing over a side of the parking slot, in the case that the side of the parking slot is formed by an object or obstacle that substantially inhibits the operation of the door(s). Romero at [0058] further states that alternatively, if the ECM determines that the side of the parking slot does not inhibit the operation of the door(s) (such as if the side of the parking slot is painted on the ground and the parking slot resides in a relatively empty parking lot), the ECM determines that the applicable door(s) may be fully opened. Examiner maps the degree that the various doors of the vehicle may be opened to whether the boundary condition is within a distance threshold of the closure. Conversely, the Examiner notes that when the parking slot inhibits the operation of the door(s), the ECM would determine that the applicable door(s) may not be fully opened. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of the specification.)
Regarding claim 16, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein in response to the first determination indicating that the obstacle does not exist along the path, the method further comprises performing a second determination of whether oncoming traffic exists along the path of the extension of the closure (see Kothari at [0009], for example, which discloses that the present invention can use sensors to identify when the vehicle user is about to open the vehicle door, or to identify the external objects or oncoming traffic, and provide a self-stopping feature on the vehicle doors that can help to prevent accidents.)
Regarding claim 17, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein in response to the second determination indicating that the oncoming traffic does not exist along the path, controlling the closure actuator comprises causing the closure actuator to extend the closure (see Romero at [0058] which discloses that an Electronic Control Module (ECM) of the vehicle calculates the degree that the various doors of the vehicle may be opened without crossing over a side of the parking slot, in the case that the side of the parking slot is formed by an object or obstacle that substantially inhibits the operation of the door(s). Romero at [0058] further states that alternatively, if the ECM determines that the side of the parking slot does not inhibit the operation of the door(s) (such as if the side of the parking slot is painted on the ground and the parking slot resides in a relatively empty parking lot), the ECM determines that the applicable door(s) may be fully opened. See Kothari at [0008] which discloses that this solution will help to detect oncoming traffic and/or nearby external objects when the vehicle door is being opened, and it would automatically stop the vehicle door from opening further if there is a possibility of an accident involving the vehicle doors or its users. Also, see Kothari at [0054] which discloses that this invention would be applicable to any type of vehicles that have doors or an opening to be able to come out of the vehicle and that in addition, whether it's the user of the vehicle who opens or closes the door or the software module that opens or closes the door automatically based on user input or the autonomous self-driving vehicle's instructions, all of those situations would be valid and considered within the spirit and scope of the present invention.)
Regarding claim 18, the modified Romero teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein in response to the second determination indicating that the oncoming traffic exists along the path, controlling the closure actuator comprises causing the closure actuator not to extend the closure (see Kothari at [0008] which discloses that this solution will help to detect oncoming traffic and/or nearby external objects when the vehicle door is being opened, and it would automatically stop the vehicle door from opening further if there is a possibility of an accident involving the vehicle doors or its users; see Kothari at [0009], for example, which discloses that the present invention can use sensors to identify the external objects or oncoming traffic, and provide a self-stopping feature on the vehicle doors that can help to prevent accidents; see Kothari at [0051] which discloses that this solution will help to detect oncoming traffic and/or nearby external objects when the vehicle door is being opened, and it would automatically stop the vehicle door from opening further 102, 202, 302, 402 if there is a possibility of an accident involving the vehicle doors or its users.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, 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.
/R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664