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 25 are amended.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 22-24 and 26 are canceled.
Claims 28-31 are new.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16-21, 25, 27- 31 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16-21, 25, 27- 31 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by applicant's amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II).
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 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14,18-21, 25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menard [US20050242618, now Menard], with Mehler, et al. [US20240191552, now Mehler].
Claim 1
Menard discloses a method for adjusting a vehicle door, at least comprising the following steps: [see at least MENARD, ¶ 0016 ("A blocking mechanism 22 is coupled with the signal output from the proximity detector 12. The signal is used to block the door from opening beyond a distance where the external object 14 might be struck by the vehicle door 16.”); Showing a method for adjusting a vehicle door];
using at least one presence sensor to test whether at least one body part of a vehicle door user is in a test area, and [see at least MENARD, ¶ 0013 ("Preferably, the present invention is only active when the door is being opened from the inside of the vehicle, which is when the majority of accidental damage is done to a vehicle door.”) Then summarizes the notification through sensors of a users hand and where it is located and if the user must move the hand to avoid damage. ); ¶ 0022 ("Another operational limitation for the present invention is to provide an interior door handle sensor 38.”)];
controlling a collision protection device of the vehicle door on the basis of whether a body part of the vehicle door user is in the test area, [see at least MENARD, ¶ 0018 ("One operational limitation for the present invention is to limit operation to only those occasions where a vehicle is occupied by a driver and/or passengers.”) Therefore, the present invention can include a vehicle occupant detector 26, wherein the occupant detector 26 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is detected in the vehicle. In the example shown, the occupant detector 26 is a sensor that "views" whether a driver is present. Although only one detector is shown to detect a driver, it should be recognized that occupant detection can apply to not only the driver, but also any and all passengers (e.g. a four door vehicle could have up to four occupant detectors). Preferably, occupant detection is input to the processor 24 and gates operation of the sensor system. As should be recognized, there are many different types of occupant detection (e.g. seat weight detection, etc.) that are known and possible, and each of these various occupant detection techniques can be used equally well in the present invention.")
wherein the collision protection device is configured to monitor a monitoring area that differs from the test area and is in the area surrounding the vehicle door for possible obstacles using at least one monitoring sensor in order to avoid a collision between the vehicle door to be adjusted and an obstacle.1. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0014 (sensor information); "Referring to FIG. 1, the present invention is incorporated in a vehicle 10. proximity detector 12, including at least one external sensor is disposed on the vehicle to detect external objects 14. Preferably, the sensor is disposed on the vehicle door 16 itself. More preferably, the proximity detector 12 is configured to only detect objects within a predetermined range from the vehicle door 16. The sensor can be configured to only sense that an object is present in proximity to the door, or the sensor can be configured to provide a signal indicative of a distance to the object. For example, the proximity detector can have the capability to not only
detect an external object but also to estimate a position of the external object within the respect to the vehicle door. Optionally, a sensor with a larger range or multiple sensors, and under the control of a device such as a microcontroller, can use triangulation, as is known in the art, to determine the distance between the vehicle door and the external object, and to decide when the vehicle door has come too close to the external object. The sensor itself can use any of the different sensing technologies known in the art (e.g. mechanical, camera with object detection software, optical, thermal, laser, sonar, radar, infrared, capacitive, electric field, magnetic field, etc.) equally well in the present invention.")]
Menard does not specifically disclose but Mehler does teach wherein the test area is determined on the basis of an expected or actual adjustment movement of the vehicle door [see at least Mehler, Abstract (“using at least one presence sensor to test whether at least one body part of a vehicle door user is in a test area, and controlling a collision protection device of the vehicle door on the basis of whether a body part of the vehicle door user is in the test area, wherein the collision protection device is configured to monitor a monitoring area that differs from the test area and is in the area surrounding the vehicle door for possible obstacles using at least one monitoring sensor in order to avoid a collision between the vehicle door to be adjusted and an obstacle.]; ¶ 0008 (“the proposed method comprises at least the following steps: [0009] using at least one presence sensor to test whether at least one body part of a vehicle door user is in a test area, and [0010] controlling a collision protection device of the vehicle door on the basis of whether a body part of the vehicle door user is in the test area, wherein the collision protection device is configured to monitor a monitoring area that differs from the test area and is in the area surrounding the vehicle door for possible obstacles using at least one monitoring sensor in order to avoid a collision between the vehicle door to be adjusted and an obstacle.”); 0007 (“a method for adjustment of a vehicle door in a manner actuated by muscle power,”)] and
wherein the collision protection device is activated if the testing reveals that the vehicle door user is touching the inside door handle and [see at least Mehler, ¶ 0024 (“, it is also possible to test whether the vehicle door user is touching the outside door handle or the inside door handle of the vehicle door. In principle, it can thus be possible to distinguish whether the adjustment movement is brought about via the outside door handle or the inside door handle. It can thus also be possible to distinguish whether the vehicle door user is inside or outside the vehicle.”)];
the collision protection device is coupled to an adjustment mechanism of the vehicle door that comprises at least one motorized drive, which is provided for assisting an adjustment of the vehicle door that is actuated by muscle power. [see at least Mehler, abstract; ¶ 0004 (muscle power is introduced); 0011 (“The test area that differs from the monitoring area makes it possible for the vehicle door user who is using the vehicle door to be distinguishable from a possible obstacle. In particular, the design of the test area makes it possible for the vehicle door user to be distinguishable from a person who is not using the vehicle door and consequently constitutes an obstacle for an adjustment movement of the vehicle door. It can thus be possible to prevent, by means of the proposed method, the vehicle door user being incorrectly identified as an obstacle, and the collision protection device incorrectly stopping the adjustment movement.”); 0012 (“adjustment movement can take place in a manner actuated by muscle power and/or in a manner actuated by external force.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Claim 2
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Menard does not specifically disclose by Mehler teaches the testing comprises a detection of whether the vehicle door user is touching at least one operating element on the vehicle door [see at least Menard, Abstract; ¶ 0013 (“operating element”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Claim 3
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 2.
Menard further discloses a user is touching an outside door handle or an inside door handle of the vehicle door [see at least Menard, ¶ 0022 (“someone touches the handle”)].
Mehler also teaches user is touching an outside door handle or an inside door handle of the vehicle door in relationship to the testing [see at least Mehler, ¶ 0022 (“touch sensor”); 0024 (“ touching the outside door handle or the inside door handle of the vehicle door.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Claims 4-5. (Cancelled)
Claim 6
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Menard does not specifically disclose but Mehler teaches the testing is triggered by an operating event brought about by the vehicle door user [see at least Mehler, ¶ 0032 (“For triggering the proposed method, the testing can be able to be triggered by an operating event of the vehicle door user brought about by the vehicle door user.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Claim 7
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 2.
Menard does not specifically disclose but Mehler teaches the testing is triggered by an operating event brought about by the vehicle door user, wherein the operating event is brought about by touching the at least one operating element [see at least Mehler, ¶ 0032 (“For triggering the proposed method, the testing can be able to be triggered by an operating event of the vehicle door user brought about by the vehicle door user. Thus, the collision protection device can monitor the monitoring area using the at least one monitoring sensor, on the basis of the testing, in each adjustment movement of the vehicle door. It can thus be possible to reduce a likelihood of collision of the vehicle door during the adjustment movement, in the case of opening and/or closing.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Claims 8-9. (Cancelled)
Claim 10
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Menard further discloses the collision protection device is transitioned from being activated to being deactivated if it is identified, by means of the at least one presence sensor, that a body part of the vehicle door user is in the test area, or wherein the collision protection device is transitioned from being deactivated to being activated if it is identified, by means of the at least one presence sensor, that there is no body part of the vehicle door user in the test area [see at least MENARD, ¶ 0013, "Preferably, the present invention is only active when the door is being opened from the inside of the vehicle, which is when the majority of accidental damage is done to a vehicle door.”); ¶ 0017 ("It is envisioned that the system of the present invention will not be active at all times.”); 0018 ("One operational limitation for the present invention is to limit operation to only those occasions where a vehicle is occupied by a driver and/or passengers.”); ¶ 0022].
Claim 11
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Menard further discloses in response to an adjustment of the vehicle door into a predetermined position [see at least Menard, ¶ 0030; 0033 (“predetermined circumstances”)].
Menard does not specifically disclose but Mehler does teach “testing” and at least one of: the testing is repeated at predetermined time intervals, and the testing is repeated at predetermined time intervals, in response to an adjustment of the vehicle door into a predetermined test position [Menard, Abstract; ¶ 0012 (“adjustment movement”); 0082; 0087 (‘adjustment movement of the vehicle door”); 0127 (“predetermined time intervals”)].
Claims 12-13. (Cancelled)
Claim 14
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Menard further discloses the collision protection device is activated if an adjustment position of the vehicle door reaches a predetermined activation position [see at least Menard, ¶ 0030 (“The method includes a first step 100 of arming a vehicle door blocking mechanism”); 0033 (“The predetermined circumstances of the overriding step include where an override switch is activated, where the vehicle is in motion, and where an accident is detected, as explained previously.”)].
Claim 15. (Cancelled)
Claim 18
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Menard further discloses a result of the testing and/or a detection of an obstacle is displayed via an optical and/or acoustic signal [see at least Menard, ¶ 0013 (“The alert serves the function of notifying the user that the system has sensed an object and that the door will be deterred from opening a full amount.”)].
Menard does not specifically teach testing but Mehler does teach testing [see at least Mehler, ¶ 0009 -0010 (“test area”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Claim 19
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Menard does not specifically disclose but Mehler teaches the at least one monitoring sensor is a radar sensor [see at least Mehler, ¶ 0086 (“at least one monitoring sensor can comprise at least one radar sensor.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is the system of the method in Claim 1, Claim 20 has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 21
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 20.
Menard discloses at least one of: for motor-assisted pivoting of the vehicle door, the system comprises at least one drive that is coupled to an adjustment mechanism of the vehicle door, the system comprises at least one touch sensor, coupled to the control unit, for touch detection on at least one operating element of the vehicle door [see at least Menard, ¶ 0030 (“protecting a door of a vehicle”); 0022 (touch technology discussed)];
the system comprises, for identifying an operating event of the vehicle door, at least one use sensor that is coupled to the control unit, and the control unit is configured to trigger the testing in response to the operating event [see at least Menard, Abstract (“sensor system”); ¶ 0014 (“a sensor with a larger range or multiple sensors, and under the control of a device such as a microcontroller, can use triangulation, as is known in the art, to determine the distance between the vehicle door and the external object, and to decide when the vehicle door has come too close to the external object.”); 0016 (discusses sensors and the limitations and advantages of them)] and
the system comprises, for identifying an adjustment position of the vehicle door, at least one position sensor that is coupled to the control means, [see at least Menard, ¶ 0013-0014 (discusses how the Menard reference uses the sensors to control the door); 0022 (“interior door sensor”).
Menard does not specifically teach testing but Mehler does teach the control unit is configured to trigger a repeated testing if the adjustment position reaches a predetermined activation position [see at least Mehler, ¶ 0009 -0010 (“test area”); 0150 (“the testing can be repeated”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Claims 22-24. (Cancelled)
Claim 25
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 20.
Menard does not specifically disclose but Mehler teaches the control unit is coupled to a timer and is configured to repeatedly test at predetermined time intervals, and wherein the control unit is configured to deactivate the activated collision protection device if repeated testing reveals that at least one body part of the vehicle door user is in the test area. [see at least Mehler, ¶ 0056 (“repeated at predetermined time intervals.”); 0117 (“Thus, the control unit 3 is configured to deactivate the collision protection device”); 0120; 0013 (“presence of at least one body part of the vehicle user is identified”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
26. (Cancelled)
Claim 27
With regards to claim 27, this claim is the vehicle system claim for vehicle door system claim 20 substantially similar to claim 20 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 28 (new)
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Menard further discloses the concept of adjustments to protect a car door [see at least Menard, Abstract; ¶ 0011 (“prevents external damage to the car door, through an external sensor and an internal mechanism located within the vehicle.”)].
Menard does not specifically teach but Mehler does teach the test area is determined on the basis of an expected or actual adjustment movement along a first or second adjustment direction of the vehicle door and the test area for an actual and/or expected opening process of the vehicle door along a first adjustment direction can differ from the test area for an actual and/or expected closing process of the vehicle door along a second adjustment direction [see at least Mehler, abstract, ¶ 0009-0010 (“test area”); 0040 (“The vehicle door along a first adjustment direction can differ from the test area for an actual and/or expected closing process of the vehicle door along a second adjustment direction.”); 0048 (“second adjustment direction”); 0080 (“the collision protection device can be activated by each adjustment of the vehicle door along the second adjustment direction.”); 0139 (“In FIG. 5A, analogously to FIG. 4A the vehicle door user U, viewed from the vehicle 1, is beyond the vehicle door 11. Via the outside door handle 111, the vehicle door user U introduces an adjustment force, acting along the second adjustment direction D2, into the vehicle door 11. In this case, the vehicle door user U is not in the test area 24.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Claim 29 (new)
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Menard does not specifically disclose but Mehler does teach an expected or actual adjustment movement is determined from an adjustment position and/or adjustment speed of the vehicle door [see at least Mehler, ¶ 0089 (“the collision protection device can be configured to stop and/or to reverse the adjustment movement if the distance between the vehicle door and the possible obstacle falls below a predetermined threshold value. By way of example, the threshold value can depend on the adjustment speed.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Claim 16, 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menard [US20050242618, now Menard], with Mehler, et al. [US20240191552, now Mehler], further in view of SENGUTTUVAN (US20160208537, now Sengut].
Claim 16
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Menard further discloses the collision protection device [see at least Menard, Abstract; ¶ 0030 (“method for protecting a door of a vehicle”)].
Nether Menard or Mehler disclose/teach but Sengut teaches the collision protection device is activated on the basis an adjustment speed of the vehicle door [see at least Sengut, ¶ 0006 -0010 (“notification signal can activate other vehicle systems to provide an alert to an occupant within the vehicle (either the driver or a passenger). The notification signal can thereby help to protect the vehicle door from damage, for example to trigger an alert to notify the vehicle occupant that the vehicle door cannot be fully opened due to the presence of a detected obstruction.”); 0016 (“The notification signal can control operation of the actuator, for example to inhibit actuation or to adjust an operating speed of the actuator.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler, further with the more robust technology of Sengut. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Claim 17
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Menard further discloses the collision protection device [see at least Menard, Abstract; ¶ 0030 (“method for protecting a door of a vehicle”)].
Nether Menard or Mehler disclose/teach but Sengut teaches the collision protection device is activated if it is identified, by sensors, that the vehicle door is adjusted by a vehicle door user at an adjustment speed that exceeds a predefined speed threshold value [see at least Sengut, ¶ 0006-0010 (“determine the proximity of the vehicle door to the obstruction(s);… or in addition, the notification signal can activate other vehicle systems to provide an alert to persons outside the vehicle, for example other road users. The notification signal can thereby function as a feature to improve safety.”); 0016 (“to inhibit actuation or to adjust an operating speed of the actuator.”); 0065 (Summarizes the actions of a decision module and “Alternatively, or in addition, the difference between the lateral distance d1 and the lateral offset d2 could be calculated and the actuator 45 operated when the difference is less than or equal to a predefined threshold.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler, further with the more robust technology of Sengut. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Claim 30 and 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menard [US20050242618, now Menard], with Mehler, et al. [US20240191552, now Mehler], further in view of CALAMATAS (US6452353, now Calmatas].
Claim 30
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 1.
Menard does not disclose but Mehler teaches the expected adjustment movement [see at least Mehler, ¶ 0087 (adjustment movement); 0089 (adjustment movement); 0092 (adjustment movement)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Neither Menard or Mehler specifically teach using logic but Calmatas teaches predicted with a trainable and/or individualizable logic [see at least Calmatas, Col. 5, lines 48-55 (discusses using logic to determine outcome)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler, further with the logic used for determining an action of Calmatas. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Claim 31
Menard and Mehler disclose/teach the method of Claim 30.
Menard does not specifically disclose but Mehler teaches interruption and/or a direction reversal of the adjustment movement is predicted on the basis of a time profile of the adjustment position and/or of the adjustment speed [see at least Mehler, ¶ 0079 (discusses direction reversal)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Neither Menard or Mehler specifically discloses/teaches but Calmatas teaches profiling to help with determining actions using logic. [see at least Calmatas, Claim 1; Col. 6, lines 8-14 (“ a predetermined door trajectory profile is generated“)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the sensor system for protecting a door and adjusting based on sensor data of Menard, with the test area and adjustment features that can be triggered by Mehler, further with the logic used for determining an action of Calmatas. Thus providing a more robust, effective, efficient, safer technique for controlling and adjusting a vehicle door to prevent collision damage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RACHID BENDIDI can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.uspot.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 the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
(571) 270-7952
Prosecution Insights