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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on June 8, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on June 8, 2026. Claims 1-12 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 10 and 12 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and claim 13 has been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-13 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 6-17 filed June 8, 2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) claim interpretation, the amendments have been reviewed by the examiner, however, the amendments do not address the interpretation. Therefore, the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are maintained.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), applicant's argument’s and amendment have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The lack of processing capability defined has been addressed to enable the sensor in the proper system claim to be acknowledged as written. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant's arguments and amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "filtering the false objects from the detected objects;" and "controlling movement of the movable component based on the objects that remain, after the filtering of the false objects.") are clearly defined in the prior art and maintained for the rejection in view of the amended claims. The specific limitations added in claims 1 and 10 “filtering the false objects from the detected objects” are defined in combination with the prior art below and can be related to terms that are known in the art. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is upheld in the Office Action below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“door opening system” in claim 12. A review of the specification shows that it embodies on a computer [0019] .
“collision warning system” in claim 12. A review of the specification shows that it embodies on a computer [0019].
“surroundings monitoring system” in claim 12. A review of the specification shows that it embodies on a computer [0014].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5, 7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schatz et al., US 2021/0262274 Al (Hereinafter, “Schatz”), in view of Hurd et al., US 20200284876 A1 (Hereinafter “Hurd”), in further view of Elie et al., US 11,047,163 B2 (Hereinafter “Elie”)(See PTO-892 filed on August 12, 2025).
Regarding Claim 1, 10 and 11, Schatz discloses the following limitation(s):
A method for detecting objects in the surroundings of a vehicle, for a door opening system or a collision warning system for vehicle doors, using at least one surroundings sensor, wherein the vehicle comprises at least one movable component, and the method comprising: detecting objects in the surroundings of the vehicle using the at least one surroundings sensor; See [0005], “It is an aspect of the present disclosure to provide a vehicular door opening control system that opens (and optionally closes) a vehicle door. The vehicular door opening control system includes a radar unit at a vehicle equipped with the vehicular door opening control system. The radar unit has a field of sensing adjacent to and exterior of the door of the vehicle, and transmits emitted radar signals and receives reflected radar signals reflected from an object present in the field of”.
detecting a current position of the at least one movable component; See at least [0046], “At least one first Hall-effect sensor 68 is coupled to the first electronic control unit 32 for monitoring a position and speed of the first closure member 26 during movement”.
Schatz discloses a door controller with false object detection, but does not explicitly disclose identifying and filtering false objects in the path of a door opening. However, Hurd teaches an automatic door control system which includes: identifying false objects from the detected objects based on locations of the false objectsbeing in a region delimited by the movable component in the current position and the filtering the false objects from the detected objects, and controlling movement of the movable component based on the objects that remain, after filtering of the false objects. See at least [0046-0048], “ FIG. 6 depicts a vehicle-learning mode to detect and mitigate false objects according to one or more embodiments. While the vehicle 310 is under normal operation, data generated by the radar system 325 of vehicle 310 and radar-based sensors 581 can be used to train the obstacle detection sensors 360 (FIG. 3) to identify false objects, i.e., vehicle environment noise.” Also [0053], “At block 820, the system can identify a true external environment using the filtered object data. At block 825, the system can operate one or more doors of the vehicle based on the true external environment. “ And [0055], “Noise caused by reflections from an internal vehicle environment can cause a radar to report false objects that appear outside of the vehicle in a relevant field of view. In applications such as power door opening sensing, the environment of interest is primarily stationary objects and moving objects that could contact a power door, if opened. False objects can be mapped over top of relevant stationary objects in the same field of view. Thus, the system can separate the relevant stationary objects from the false objects.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Schatz’s device with the false object detection and filtering limitations disclosed in Hurd with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to filter and identify, by the at least one radar sensor, vehicle environment noise in an external environment based on the filtered input, See Hurd [abstract].
Schatz and Hurd teach a door controller with false object detection, but do not explicitly disclose the closing direction. However, Elie teaches this in at least In col.10 ln.50-55, “As the actuator 22 begins to position the door 14, the controller 70 is configured to identify if an obstruction is detected (110). If an obstruction is detected, the controller 70 may halt the closing operation of the door (112).”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Schatz’s device with the closing direction limitations disclosed in Elie with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve user convenience and safety. See Elie [col.1 ln.21-34].
Regarding Claim 2, Schatz discloses the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
the method further comprising: creating a map of the surroundings with the detected objects in the surroundings of the vehicle. In [0082], “the method is 212 initiating the handle opening sequence while transmitting the emitted radar signals and receiving the emitted radar signals reflected from the obstacle 33 and mapping the radar data. The method continues with the step of 214 initiating a handle closing sequence while transmitting the emitted radar signals and receiving the emitted radar signals reflected from the obstacle 33 and mapping the radar data.
Regarding Claim 3, Schatz discloses the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
the detection of a current position of the movable component comprises detecting a current angular position (α, β) of the movable component. In [0072], “The closure member 26, 30 opens to a maximum angle by determining distance to obstacles 33 and adding a safety buffer.” Also [0099], “Once the objects have been detected and located, the controller calculates the door opening angle and determines if the door movement has been initiated”.
Regarding Claim 4, Schatz discloses the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
the method further comprising: detecting a movement of the at least one movable component based on a change in the detected position of the at least one movable component, and wherein the identification of false objects from the detected objects based on their positions between the at least one movable component in its current position and in its normal position additionally takes into account the detected movement of the at least one movable component. See [0072], “The closure member 26, 30 opens to a maximum angle by determining distance to obstacles 33 and adding a safety buffer.” Also see [0076], “A scan using the at least one radar unit 52, 54 is activated and the scan begins at the first horizontal radar rotation angle (e.g., 60 degrees) with a first constant false-alarm rate setting (CFAR). The scanning actuator rotates the at least one radar unit 52, 54 to the second horizontal radar rotation position in which the at least one radar unit 52, 54 is angled relative to the closure member 26, 30 at the second horizontal radar rotation angle (e.g., 10 degrees) with a second constant false-alarm rate Setting”.
Regarding Claim 5, Schatz discloses the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
the method further comprising: detecting a change in a configuration of the at least one surroundings sensor, In [0094], “If no non-moving object is detected, the controller controls the door actuator to move the door. Then, obstacle detection state two commences. The controller activates the radar sensors during the opening of the door to detect moving objects in the opening path of the door during the door opening”.
wherein the identification of false objects from the detected objects based on their positions between the at least one movable component in its current position and in its normal position additionally takes into account the detected change in the configuration of the at least one surroundings sensor.
In [0100], “The dynamic radar scanning provided by the system 20 disclosed herein advantageously provides improved object detection as compared to static radar scanning. Specifically, relative movement has been found to improve the detection of low radar cross-section (RCS) objects due to the
fact that a stationary or static obstacle 33 can be tracked by the moving radar unit 52, 54, while any random noise shown during a static scan can be filtered out during the dynamic scan”.
Regarding Claim 7 and 12, Schatz discloses the following limitations dependent on Claims 1 and 7:
A method for determining a movement limit for a movement of a movable component of a vehicle for a door opening system or a collision warning system for vehicle doors, wherein the method is based on the detection of objects in the surroundings of the vehicle using at least one surroundings sensor, the method comprising; detecting objects in the surroundings of the vehicle using the at least one surroundings sensor, See [0046], “At least one first Hall-effect sensor 68 is coupled to the first electronic control unit 32 for monitoring a position and speed of the first closure member 26 during movement”. And [0072], “scan using the at least one radar unit 52, 54 is activated and the motor 115 drives the handle 49, 57 to open (e.g., 70 degrees), as long as no obstacles 33 are detected in the path of the opening handle 49, 57”.
establishing a movement limit of the movable component from its normal position based on the detected objects in the surroundings of the vehicle with no false objects. See [0099], “Once the objects have been detected and located, the controller calculates the door opening angle and determines if the door movement has been initiated. If the door movement has not been initiated, the controller controls the scanning actuator to begin movement of the radar (such as by rotating the handle at which the radar sensor is disposed) to enable radar Doppler detections. The controller operates the scanning actuator to fully move the radar sensor across its range of motion ( such as by rotating the handle fully open and fully closed) to completely scan the radar field of view. Then the controller determines if the door can begin opening without contacting the object. If the door movement has already been initiated, the controller determines if the door can continue opening without contacting the object. If the door can open without contacting the object, the controller continues the door open sequence, continues radar scanning, and performs the radar calculation steps until the door is fully opened or an object is detected. If the door cannot continue opening without contacting an object, the controller stops or does not open the door and emits an audible indicator. Then the sequence is ended”.
Regarding Claim 9, Schatz discloses the following limitation dependent on claim 7:
the method further comprising detecting a movement pause of the movement of the movable component, wherein the establishing of the movement limit of the movable component is suspended in the movement pause. In [0046], “At least one first Hall-effect sensor 68 is coupled to the first electronic control unit 32 for monitoring a position and speed of the first closure member
26 during movement”. In [0078], “The closure member 26, 30 begins power opening after the at least one radar unit 52, 54 has completed scanning. The closure member 26, 30 opens to a maximum angle by determining distance to obstacles 33 and adding a safety buffer”. In [0099], “If the door cannot continue opening without contacting an object, the controller stops or does not open the door and emits an audible indicator. Then the sequence is ended.”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schatz in view of Hurd in further view of Elie, in further view of Tokudome et al., US 2021/0180390 A1 (Hereinafter, “Tokudome”).
Regarding Claim 6, Schatz does not disclose the following limitation dependent on claim 1. However, Tokudome teaches:
the method further comprising: detecting the length of time taken for detecting objects in the surroundings of the vehicle, See [0081] and Fig. 7A.
wherein the identification of false objects from the detected objects based on their positions between
the at least one movable component in its current position and in its normal position additionally
takes into account the length of time taken to detect the false objects at their positions between the
at least one movable component in its current position and in its normal position. In [0081], “the
detection is performed for every 0.5 seconds when a detection object which is an object to be detected
does not exist within the approach region 32”. Also [0082], “ When a time counted by a built-in timer of
the controller 30 reaches the detection time, in step S3, radio signals are outputted from both or one of
the transmission parts 21A, 21B of the distance measuring sensors 20A, 20B in accordance with the
instruction from the transmission/reception mode switching part 30c”.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Schatz’s device with the detection zone timing disclosed in Tokudome with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to detect an operation intention of the user stably and with high accuracy while preventing an erroneous operation which may be caused due to the obstacle., see Tokudome [0011].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schatz in view of Hurd in further view of Elie, in further view of Battlogg et al., US 2020/0386032 A1 (Hereinafter, “Battlogg”).
Regarding Claim 8, Schatz does not explicitly disclose the following limitation dependent on claim 7. However, Battlogg teaches:
wherein establishing a movement limit of the movable component from its normal position based on the detected objects in the surroundings of the vehicle comprises the application of a hysteresis. In [0019], “Following an at least partial closing motion the door wing is preferably reopened as the distance from the object increases. A hysteresis function may be used for controlling so that the actual distance is initially somewhat larger than the minimum distance as the door is reopened”.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Schatz’s device with the hysteresis limitations disclosed in Battlogg with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent damage to the vehicle, see Battlogg, [0011].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schatz in view of Hurd in further view of Elie, in further view of Satazoda et al., US 20180012082 A1 (Hereinafter “Satazoda”).
Regarding Claim 13, Schatz discloses controlling door movement during opening, but does not explicitly disclose the false object labeling. However, Satazoda teaches an object detection method with the following:
further comprising: labelling the false objects in the surroundings of the vehicle. See [0078] In another specific implementation of Block S400, labeling the bounding box includes automatically determining a horizon in modified image data based on image fiducials, and automatically labeling a detected object as a false positive based on at least a portion of the bounding box including pixels located above the horizon line. In an alternative specific implementation, Block S400 can include automatically calculating a score for an annotation based on its location relative to the determined horizon. The score is preferably a probability, but can additionally or alternatively be any suitable score. In this specific implementation, the image data is labeled as a false positive in response to the score falling below (or above) a threshold value.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Schatz’s device with the false object labeling limitations disclosed in Satazoda with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to automatically detecting objects within a second image sequence recorded with the vehicle system with the trained detection module. See Satazoda [Abstract].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669 /KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights