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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, Applicant recites, “when receiving the input signal based on the obstacle signal.” However, this language is not supported in the application as originally filed. Applicant discloses an input signal and an obstacle signal, but does not ever indicate that the two signals have a relationship to one another.
Claim 12 has a similar problem.
The input signal is solely disclosed as a signal provided by the user interface for closing the front trunk door (paragraph [0027] of Applicant’s specification).
For purposes of applying prior art, claims 1 and 12 will be interpreted as if the language “the input signal based on” was not included in the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 12-13, 17-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladha (US 2023/0212904) in view of Salter et al. (US2022/0324309).
With respect to claim 1, Ladha discloses the claimed front trunk system except that it is silent on the inclusion of a user interface generating an input signal for closing the front trunk door, and except for the controller preventing the actuator from closing the front trunk door. Ladha discloses a front trunk system for an automotive vehicle having a front trunk door having a front trunk closed pate comprising:
an actuator 108 coupled to the front trunk door for closing the front trunk door 206 (“electric motor,” Ladha, paragraph [0049]);
a sensor 110 generating an obstacle signal corresponding to an obstacle 300 across the front trunk closed path (as shown in Fig. 3 of Ladha; and
a controller 102 coupled to the sensor 110 and the actuator 108, the controller controlling an indicator (“warning lights 112,” Ladha, paragraph [0046]) when the obstacle 300 is in the front trunk closed path (Ladha, paragraphs [0045]-[0046]; Fig. 4) and resisting the actuator 108 for closing the front trunk door 206 when receiving the input signal based on the obstacle signal (“detection from the IR sensor array 110,” Ladha, paragraph [0059]) indicating the obstacle is across the front trunk closed path (:Ladha, paragraph [0049]).
Salter et al. teach a similar front trunk system (Salter et al., end of paragraph [0056]) including a front trunk door 14, a user interface 58 generating an input signal for closing the front trunk door 14 (“user input,” Salter et al., paragraphs [0065] and [0137]), and Salter et al. further teaches a controller 92 preventing an actuator 24 from closing the front trunk door 14 when receiving an obstacle signal (“The controller 92 may control operation of the second closure panel 14 by prompting the actuator 24 to halt movement of the second closure panel 14,” Salter et al., paragraph [0079]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Salter et al. with the front trunk system disclosed by Ladha for the advantage of preventing injury or damage to anyone or anything in the path of the closing closure panel.
With respect to claim 2, while Ladha discloses the sensor comprises an emitter 112 (IR sensor). While Ladha is silent on whether the sensor 110 includes a receiver, such a sensor would inherently require a receiver in order to perform the obstacle detecting function. A receiver would either have to be placed adjacent the emitters in order to detect light reflected off of an obstacle, or placed opposite the emitters in order to determine that a lack of light has been received by the receivers in a frunk obstructed state.
With respect to claim 3, Ladha disclose that the emitter 112 is an optical emitter (“IR sensor), and thus the receiver would inherently have to be an optical receiver in order to properly function with the optical emitter.
With respect to claim 7, Ladha disclose that the indicator comprises a visual indicator (“warning lights 112,” Ladha paragraph [0046]) or an audible indicator (“sound an alarm on one or more speakers,” Ladha paragraph [0046).
With respect to claim 8, Ladha disclose that the indicator comprises a visual indicator (“warning lights 112,” Ladha paragraph [0046]) and an audible indicator (“sound an alarm on one or more speakers,” Ladha paragraph [0046).
With respect to claim 9, Ladha discloses that the visual indicator 112 is disposed within the front trunk (“red lights disposed about the circumference of the front trunk space,” Ladha, paragraph [0046]).
With respect to claim 12, Ladha discloses the claimed method of controlling a front trunk system except for the steps of generating an input signal at a user interface for closing the front trunk door and preventing an actuator from closing the front trunk door when receiving the obstacle signal. Ladha disclose a method of controlling a front trunk system for an automotive vehicle having a front trunk door 206 having front trunk closed path, said method comprising:
generating an obstacle signal corresponding to an obstacle 300 across the front trunk closed path (Ladha, paragraph [0045]); and
controlling an indicator (“warning lights”) when the obstacle 300 is the front trunk closed path (Ladha, paragraph [0046], Fig. 4).
Salter et al. teach a similar method including generating an input signal (“user input,” Salter et al., paragraphs [0065] and [0137]) at a user interface 58 for closing the front trunk door 14 (Salter et al., end of paragraph [0056]); and preventing an actuator 24 from closing the front trunk door 14 when receiving the obstacle signal. (“The controller 92 may control operation of the second closure panel 14 by prompting the actuator 24 to halt movement of the second closure panel 14,” Salter et al., paragraph [0079]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Salter et al. with the method disclosed by Ladha for the advantage of preventing injury or damage to anyone or anything in the path of the closing closure panel.
With respect to claim 13, while Ladha discloses the sensor comprises an emitter 112 (IR sensor). While Ladha is silent on whether the obstacle signal is generated from an optical receiver, the method disclosed by Ladha would inherently require a receiver in order to perform the obstacle detecting function. Depending on the arrangement of optical emitter and receiver, such a receiver would either have to be placed adjacent the emitters in order for the optical receiver to generate a signal based on light reflected off of an obstacle, or placed opposite the emitter in order to generate a signal based on a lack of light that has been received by the receiver in a frunk obstructed state.
With respect to claim 17, Ladha discloses controlling the indicator comprises controlling a visual indicator (“controller is configured to activate one or more warning lights 112,” Ladha paragraph [0046]).
With respect to claim 18, Ladha discloses controlling the indicator comprises controlling a visual indicator disposed within the front trunk (Ladha paragraph [0046]).
With respect to claim 19, Ladha disclose that the indicator comprises an audible indicator, a visual indicator or both (Ladha paragraph [0046]).
With respect to claim 21, Salter et al. teach that the user interface 58 comprises an electronic button (touchscreen 64, Salter et al., paragraph [0134]).
With respect to claim 22 Ladha discloses that the actuator 108 comprises a motor (Ladha, paragraphs [0048]-[0049].
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (US 10-2022-0079228) in view of Salter et al. (US2022/0324309).
With respect to claim 1, Cha et al. disclose the claimed front trunk system except that it is silent on the inclusion of an actuator coupled to the front trunk door for closing the front trunk door, except for a user interface generating an input signal for closing the front trunk door, and except for the controller preventing the actuator from closing the front trunk door.
Cha et al. discloses a front trunk system 10 for an automotive vehicle having a front trunk door 300 having front trunk closed path comprising:
a sensor 21 generating an obstacle signal corresponding to an obstacle A across the front trunk closed path (see top of pg. 8 of the machine translation of Cha et al.; Fig. 10); and
a controller 30 coupled to the sensor 21 controlling an indicator (“warning through at least one of a visual, auditory, and tactile notification means,” Cha et al., machine translation, bottom of pg. 7 and top of pg. 8) when the obstacle A is [in] the front trunk closed path (Cha et al.; Fig. 10).
Salter et al. teach a similar front trunk system including an actuator 24 coupled to a front trunk door 14 (Salter et al., end of paragraph [0056]) for closing the front trunk door 14 (Slater et al, paragraph [0099]); a user interface 58 generating an input signal for closing the front trunk door (“user input,” Salter et al., paragraphs [0065] and [0137]), and Salter et al. further teaches a controller 92 preventing an actuator 24 from closing the front trunk door 14 when receiving an obstacle signal indicating an obstacle is across the front trunk door path (“The controller 92 may control operation of the second closure panel 14 by prompting the actuator 24 to halt movement of the second closure panel 14,” Salter et al., paragraph [0079]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Salter et al. with the front trunk system disclosed by Cha et al. for the advantage of reducing the manual burden of the user by automating the closure of the front trunk door.
With respect to claim 2, Cha et al. disclose that the sensor comprises an emitter 210 and a receiver 21 (Cha et al., Fig. 17).
With respect to claim 4, Cha et al. disclose that the emitter 210 is disposed on a first side of the front trunk and the receiver 21 is located on an opposite side of the front trunk (see top of pg. 8 of the machine translation of Cha et al. and Fig. 10–the receiver must inherently be located on an opposite side if the detecting unit 20 determines that there is an obstacle when the light is not received by at least one of the plurality of light-receiving sensors).
With respect to claim 5, Cha et al. disclose that the emitter 210 and the receiver 21 are disposed in a lateral projection zone outside of a closed path (see top of pg. 8 of the machine translation of Cha et al. and Fig. 10–the receiver must inherently be located in a lateral projection zone outside of the closed path if the detecting unit 20 determines that there is an obstacle when the light is not received by at least one of the plurality of light-receiving sensors).
With respect to claim 6, Cha et al. disclose that the emitter comprises a plurality of emitters 210,220 and the receiver comprises a plurality of receivers (“It may include a plurality of light-receiving sensors,” see top of pg. 8 of the machine translation of Cha et al.), said plurality of emitters and the plurality of receivers are disposed in the lateral projection zone (the receiver must inherently be located in a lateral projection zone if the detecting unit 20 determines that there is an obstacle when the light is not received by at least one of the plurality of light-receiving sensors as shown in Fig. 10 of Cha et al.).
With respect to claim 10, Cha et al. disclose that the sensor 21 comprises an ultrasonic sensor (see bottom of pg. 8 of the machine translation of Cha et al.).
With respect to claim 12, Cha et al. disclose the claimed method of controlling a front trunk system except for the steps of generating an input signal at a user interface for closing the front trunk door, and except for preventing an actuator from closing the front trunk door when receiving the obstacle signal. Cha et al. disclose a method of controlling a front trunk system for an automotive vehicle having a front trunk door 300 having front trunk closed path, said method comprising:
generating an obstacle signal corresponding to an obstacle across the front trunk closed path (signal sent by notification unit 30) controlling an indicator (“The notification unit 30 notifies a warning,” see bottom of pg. 7 of the machine translation of Cha et al.) when the obstacle 300 is the front trunk closed path (see bottom of pg. 7 and top of pg. 8 of the machine translation of Cha et al.).
Salter et al. teach a similar method including generating an input signal (“user input,” Salter et al., paragraphs [0065] and [0137]) at a user interface 58 for closing the front trunk door 14 (Salter et al., end of paragraph [0056]); and preventing an actuator 24 from closing the front trunk door 14 when receiving the obstacle signal. (“The controller 92 may control operation of the second closure panel 14 by prompting the actuator 24 to halt movement of the second closure panel 14,” Salter et al., paragraph [0079]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Salter et al. with the method disclosed by Cha et al. for the advantage of reducing the manual burden of the user by automating the closure of the front trunk door.
With respect to claim 14, Cha et al. disclose generating the obstacle signal comprises generating the obstacle signal from an optical receiver 21 on a first side of the front trunk and not receiving an optical signal from an optical emitter 210 on a second side of the front trunk (see top of pg. 8 of machine translation of Cha et al. and Fig. 10–the receiver must inherently be located on a first side if the detecting unit 20 determines that there is an obstacle when the light is not received by at least one of the plurality of light-receiving sensors).
With respect to claim 15, Cha et al. disclose generating the obstacle signal comprises generating the obstacle signal from an optical receiver 21 and not receiving an optical signal from an optical emitter 210 in a lateral projection zone of the closed path (see top of pg. 8 of the machine translation of Cha et al. and Fig. 10–the receiver must inherently be located in a lateral projection zone of the closed path if the detecting unit 20 determines that there is an obstacle when the light is not received by at least one of the plurality of light-receiving sensors).
With respect to claim 16, Cha et al. disclose that generating the obstacle signal comprises generating the optical signal from a plurality of optical receivers 21 (“It may include a plurality of light-receiving sensors,” see top of pg. 8 of the machine translation of Cha et al.) based on not receiving the optical signal from at least one of a plurality of optical emitters 210,220, said plurality of optical emitters 210,220 and the plurality of optical receivers 21 are disposed in the lateral projection zone (the receiver must inherently be located in a lateral projection zone if the detecting unit 20 determines that there is an obstacle when the light is not received by at least one of the plurality of light-receiving sensors as shown in Fig. 10 of Cha et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1 of the arguments, filed 2/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 7-9, 12-13, and 17-20 under Landha and claims and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, and 14-16 under Cha et al. have been fully considered are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Salter et al.
As outlined above, Salter et al. teaches an interface allowing a user to actuate an electronic touchscreen for opening and closing the front trunk door. Slater et al. also teaches preventing closure of the door when an obstacle is encountered.
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 DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights