Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui (US 2013/0024076) in view of Henes (US 2022/0025692).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui in view of Henes in view of Kubota (US 2016/0285394).
Priority
The priority date for this application is 09/29/2022.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui in view of Henes.
As per Claim 1:
Fukui discloses all of the following limitations:
“A vehicle door control device that is applied to a vehicle including a door and a drive device, the door being configured to: open and close a door opening of a vehicle body by rotating about a rotation axis extending along an upper edge of the door opening, and the drive device including a motor configured to drive the door to open and close, the vehicle door control device controlling driving of the motor, wherein in a case where a door opening degree between a door opening degree of the door in a fully open state and a door opening degree of the door in a fully closed state is defined as a determination opening degree, the vehicle door control device executes door control processing when the door moves in a closing direction from a stopped state in a state where a closing operation command signal for commanding a closing operation of the door is not received, and in the door control processing, the vehicle door control device executes a braking mode, in which a braking force is applied to the door by regenerative braking action of the motor, when the door opening degree is less than the determination opening degree.... when the door opening degree is equal to or greater than the determination opening degree””
Fukui Paragraphs [0040]-[0043] disclose a rear door of a vehicle that receives an unexpected force during the automatic opening or closing of the door and applies a variable level of braking based on the door opening degree or a door speed.
Fukui does not disclose the following limitations that Henes teaches:
“and executes a closing operation mode carried out by a driving action of the motor, in which the door performs the closing operation such that a moving speed of the door is constant, …”
Henes Paragraph [0026] teaches activating an power assisted closing of a door based on the detected movement of said door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Fukui with the power closing of a door based on door movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by detecting a user intent to close a door.
With regards to Claim 6, Fukui in view of Henes teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the vehicle is provided with a notification unit configured to notify a person around the door that the door control processing is being executed, and the notification unit is operated when the door control processing is being executed.”
Fukui Paragraph [0069] discloses a flag being raised in response to emergency control of a door being exercised to be read at a dealer.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui in view Henes in view of Kubota (US 2016/0285394).
With regards to Claim 2, Fukui in view of Henes teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“..., and in the door control processing, the vehicle door control device executes the closing operation mode when the door opening degree is equal to or greater than the determination opening degree and the closing speed of the door is equal to or greater than the determination speed, and executes a stopping mode, in which the power supply to the motor is stopped, when the door opening degree is equal to or greater than the determination opening degree and the closing speed of the door is less than the determination speed.”
Fukui Paragraphs [0040]-[0043] disclose a rear door of a vehicle that receives an unexpected force during the automatic opening or closing of the door and applies a variable level of braking based on the door opening degree or a door speed.
Fukui in view of Henes does not disclose the following limitations that Kubota does disclose:
“wherein a determination speed is set as a determination value of a closing speed of the door during execution of the door control processing, the drive device is configured to bias the door in an opening direction in a state where power supply to the motor is stopped...”
Kubota Paragraph [0004] discloses a system the disables the motor, i.e. biases the motor against closing, during an instance in which the power to the motor is lost.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Fukui in view of Henes with the door biases disclosed by Kubota. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both references are directed towards vehicle door control mechanisms (see Paragraph [0002] of Fukui and Paragraph [0002] of Kubota) and to make the system more effective by avoiding unintended closures.
With regards to Claim 3, Fukui in view of Henes in view of Kubota discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein when the determination speed is defined as a first determination speed, a second determination speed greater than the first determination speed is set as the determination value, and in the door control processing, the vehicle door control device executes the braking mode when the door opening degree is less than the determination opening degree and the closing speed of the door is equal to or greater than the second determination speed, and executes the stopping mode when the door opening degree is less than the determination opening degree and the closing speed of the door is less than the second determination speed.”
Fukui Paragraphs [0040]-[0043] disclose a rear door of a vehicle that receives an unexpected force during the automatic opening or closing of the door and applies a variable level of braking based on the door opening degree or a door speed. As both of these variables are considered when making a determination it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that both could be simultaneously considered.
With regards to Claim 4, Fukui in view of Henes in view of Kubota discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein in the door control processing, the vehicle door control device executes the braking mode when the closing speed of the door is equal to or greater than the determination speed in a case where the door moves in the closing direction from a stopped state in a state where the closing operation command signal for commanding a closing operation of the door is not received after any one of the braking mode, the closing operation mode and the stopping mode is executed.”
Fukui Paragraphs [0040]-[0043] disclose a rear door of a vehicle that receives an unexpected force during the automatic opening or closing of the door and applies a variable level of braking based on the door opening degree or a door speed. As both of these variables are considered when making a determination it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that both could be simultaneously considered.
With regards to Claim 5, Fukui in view of Henes in view of Kubota discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein in the door control processing, the vehicle door control device executes the braking mode when the closing speed of the door is equal to or greater than the determination speed in a case where the door moves in the closing direction from a stopped state in a state where the closing operation command signal for commanding a closing operation of the door is not received after any one of the braking mode, the closing operation mode and the stopping mode is executed.”
Fukui Paragraphs [0040]-[0043] disclose a rear door of a vehicle that receives an unexpected force during the automatic opening or closing of the door and applies a variable level of braking based on the door opening degree or a door speed. As both of these variables are considered when making a determination it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that both could be simultaneously considered.
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 Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights