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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on November 4, 2025. Claims 1-12 were previously pending, of which claims 1 and 10 have been amended and no claims have been cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 7-20 filed November 4, 2025; 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 specification objections, the amendment to the title has been accepted by the examiner. Therefore, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
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 arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The lack of processing capability defined in the specification does not enable the sensor in the proper system claim to be acknowledged as written. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is maintained.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicant's arguments and amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under is withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), applicant's arguments and amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. 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.,) are not clearly defined in the prior art and maintained for the rejection in view of the amended claims. However, the arguments and new limitations from the amended claims are not persuasive in light of 35 U.S.C. § 103. The specific limitations added in claims 1 and 10 “locations of the false objects being in a region delimited by the movable component in the current position and the movable component in a closed position” and “controlling movement of the movable component based on the objects that remain, after removal of the false objects.” are defined in combination with Schatz and Elie below and can be related to terms that are known in the art. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is presented in the Final Office Action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The structure which goes to make up the system must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative system. The claims currently do not recite structure to build a consensus between the agents or the structure which would be used to control the vehicle to execute the cooperation action.
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 Elie et al., US 11,047,163 B2 (Hereinafter “Elie”)(See PTO-892 filed on August 12, 2025).
Regarding Claim 1 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”.
controlling movement of the movable component based on the objects that remain, after removal of the false objects. See at least Fig.18 and [0077], “a variable-level CFAR can be used to change as the position of the at least one radar unit 52, 54 changes in the vertical direction. The handle 49, 57 can also be opened as long as no obstacles 33 are detected in the path of the opening handle 49, 57. At the same time, the scan using the at least one radar unit 52, 54 scans during the full open sweep.” And [0082], “Responsive to determining that an obstacle 33 is detected during the opening sequence, the method continues with the step of 224 stopping movement of the closure member 26, 30.”
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 ; See at least [0097], “The range Doppler prediction matrix of FIG. 31 shows two objects at the same distance from the radar sensor as a single FFT signal when the sensor is not in motion … This can lead to false positive detections of objects that actually reside outside the path or false negative detections of objects that actually are within the path of the door.” And [0098], “Doppler and CFAR(constant false-alarm rate) algorithms are run to determine the locations of the objects in a two dimensional space. An angle of arrival calculation is run at the ranges where the CFAR algorithms have determined an object to be located in four dimensions.” 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.”
Schatz discloses a door controller with false object detection, but does 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 limitation(s):
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, as claimed in claim 1, See [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.”
Regarding Claim 10, Schatz discloses 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 detecting objects in the surroundings of the vehicle by at least one surroundings sensor, the method comprising: detecting objects in the surroundings of the vehicle using the at least one surroundings sensor; See [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 current movement limit of the movable component based on the detected objects in the surroundings of the vehicle, 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”.
detecting a current position of the movable component; 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.”
Schatz discloses controlling door movement during opening, but does not explicitly disclose the closing movement limitations below. However, Elie teaches:
accepting the current movement limit when the current movement limit is not situated in a position between the movable component in the current position and the movable component in a closed position; 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).”
controlling movement of the movable component based on the detected objects and the current movement limit. See at least In col.10 ln.29-37, “the controller 70 may prioritize a control instruction to 35 control the actuator 22 to limit the angular position of the door 14 to prevent a collision between the door 14 and one or more objects 64 and 66 in the interference zone 32.”
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].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schatz in 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 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].
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 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
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights