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 the Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 01/07/2026. Claims 1-11 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 4, & 9 have been amended, and no new claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-11 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement filed 01/19/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because a foreign application and the two non-patent documents that have been listed didn’t come with an English translation for those specific documents. Applications and documents that are of a foreign language require an English translation. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 13 of the specification recites the word “unevennesses” which is incorrect. Word should just be “unevenness”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
6. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 7-10, filed on 01/07/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
7. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and persuasive. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the newly added limitation as amended in claim 1. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art. Further search found that Molnar did disclose this limitation as mapped in the final office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1, 4 – 5, 7 – 9, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190383647A1 (hereinafter, “Elie”), and further in view of US20200300020A1 (hereinafter, “Molnar”).
10. Regarding claims 1 & 9, Elie discloses a system for a vehicle having a vehicle body and a vehicle door held pivotably on the vehicle body the system comprising ([0035] Fig. 2): Figure 2 clearly shows a vehicle body with a vehicle door that can open and be held pivotably. Vehicle also has a door assist system (12) that helps with the opening and holding of a door pivotably [0035].
an anti-trap protection device to detect a trapping event occurring between the vehicle door and the vehicle body; ([0037] Fig. 1) An interference sensor (26) may be implemented in order to prevent an inner swing path of a door, constitutes as a trapping event, from colliding with an object. The interference sensor (26) can also be referred to as an anti-trap protection device due to the sensor preventing a trapping event from occurring.
an obstacle identification system to detect a collision event occurring between the vehicle door and an object in surroundings of the vehicle; and [0054] – [0056] The door assist system (12) can further detect an object (64 & 66) in the situation where the vehicle door is opening in an outer swing path (92) and prevent the collision event from happening by controlling the actuator (22) of the door. The door assist system (12) constitutes as an obstacle identification system because it can identify if an object (64 & 66) is present in the outer door swing [0054].
11. Elie teaches …operating both for detection of the trapping event and for detection of the collision event [0037], [0054]. The one sensor that can operate for both detecting an object in the inner swing and outer swing of a door in order to prevent a trapping event and a collision event is the interference sensor (26). The interference sensor can detect objects in the interference zone (32).
Elie does not explicitly teach a sensor mounted to the vehicle body and…
However, Molnar teaches a sensor mounted to the vehicle body and… ([0041] Fig. 1) Molnar teaches sensors (21) that are located on the vehicle body. Figure 21 shows a few sensors (21) located on the vehicle body. Therefore, Molnar teaches at least one sensor (21) is located on the vehicle body.
Elie and Molnar are analogous art because Elie teaches interference sensors that can detect both the trapping and collision of objects for the vehicle door while Molnar teaches sensors that are located on the vehicle body. One of ordinary skill would have the motivation to combine Elie and Molnar to improve the safety and reliability of door related sensing systems in the vehicle. Such a combination would improve spatial awareness and safety by allowing a single integrated object detection sensor to detect both internal interference and external collision risks while opening and closing a vehicle door. Both Elie and Molnar address complementing aspects of a door and detecting objects. This combination would’ve been predictable since vehicle designers commonly integrate sensors on the body of a vehicle for spatial awareness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Molnar, to modify the teachings of Elie to include the teachings of Molnar to overall enhance door related safety.
12. Regarding claim 4, Elie discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the sensor is located in a region of an end of the vehicle door facing away from an attachment point of the vehicle door [0032] – [0033]; The interference sensor (26) as pointed to in Figure 1 shows that the sensor is located in a region at the end of the vehicle door. The interference sensor (26) would definitively have to face away from the attachment point of the vehicle door in order to monitor the interference zones 36, 38, and 40.
the vehicle door does not obstruct the sensor when the vehicle door is closed [0032], [0038]. Elie teaches on an interference sensor (26) or (62) being a magnetic or capacitive type sensor [0032]. These types of sensors detect objects based on the disturbance of a magnetic field or arrays of dielectric changes. These modalities can detect through small gaps or via a field disturbance and therefore, are not inherently obstructed simply because the door is closed.
13. Regarding claim 5, Elie discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a door drive assigned to the vehicle door, wherein the door drive is designed for partially or fully automatic pivoting of the vehicle door [0023] – [0024]. An actuator (22) is used in order to automatically pivot the door between fully opened and closed positions. The actuator (22) works exactly like a door drive in which it acts as a mechanism to pivot the vehicle door (14) automatically to a fully opened, partial, or closed position. The actuator (22) will pivot the door partially if the interference sensor (26) detects an object in either its inner or outer swing path.
14. Regarding claim 7, Elie discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a second sensor assigned to the vehicle door [0033]; The interference sensor (26) may be a plurality of sensors which means that one or more sensors may be present such as a second sensor.
wherein the second sensor comprises a contact operating sensor or a near-field operating sensor with a capacitively or resistively operating sensor [0033]. A capacitive sensor may be used as a second sensor. A capacitive sensor is a near-field operating type of sensor.
15. Regarding claim 8, Elie teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
a control device assigned to the anti-trap protection device and the obstacle identification system, wherein the control device has one or more of the following functions [0023] – [0024]: The actuator is the control device for the opening and closing of the vehicle door (14).
door assistance, whereby one or more of the following functions are triggered in the event of detection of a trapping event and/or a collision event: emitting a warning signal; limiting an opening or closing path of the door [0023] – [0024]; limiting a closing force of the door; initiating countermeasures; blocking or releasing the door in a door angle position, a door opening position or a door closing position; Due to the beginning of the claim saying “wherein the control device has one or more of the following…”, only one of these limitations is required to be mapped. An actuator (22) is used in order to automatically pivot the door between fully opened and closed positions. The actuator (22) assists the vehicle door (14) in which it acts as a mechanism to pivot the vehicle door (14) automatically to a fully opened, partial, or closed position. The actuator (22) will pivot the door partially in order to limit the vehicle door’s inner and outer swing path to prevent a collision from occurring if the interference sensor (26) detects an object in either door swing path.
driving assistance, whereby the sensor is designed to ascertain moving and/or static objects in the surroundings of the vehicle, such as, for example, a turn assist system, a parking garage assist system or similar [0060] – [0061]; The vision module (166) which is a type of sensor can identify objects and items surrounding the vehicle (10) while the vehicle (10) is traveling.
access assistance, whereby the sensor is used to enable and/or monitor the door for identification of persons, gesture recognition and motion detection as an alarm function;
teaching mode for teaching a new door geometry;
parking assistance, whereby the sensor is designed to ascertain parking spaces;
driving assistance, whereby the sensor is designed to ascertain moving and/or static objects in the surroundings of the vehicle, such as, for example, a turn assist system, a parking garage assist system or similar;
recognition of a gesture or hands-on function; and
warning in case of unsafe terrain, such as holes, debris or similar.
16. Regarding claim 10, Elie discloses the vehicle as recited in claim 2, wherein: two
doors of the vehicle are monitored (Fig. 2); Figure 2 shows both doors being monitored
with sensors.
and at least one different sensor is assigned to each one of the two doors
([0033] Fig. 2). Figure 2 shows that both doors are being monitored but the interference sensor (26) can be a plurality of sensors which implies there can be multiple kinds of sensors. This suggests that a person of ordinary skill could simply just attach a different sensor to each of the two doors.
17. Claim(s) 2 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190383647A1 (hereinafter, “Elie”), and further in view of US20200300020A1 (hereinafter, “Molnar”), and further in view of US20180111480A1 (hereinafter, “Machak”).
18. Regarding claim 2, Elie discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a data memory storing ([0066] Fig. 11): Figure 11 shows that the controller (70) has a memory (170) in which information received from sensors are stored.
19. The modified Elie reference does not explicitly teach a first view of a contour of the vehicle door, viewed starting from a mounting point of the sensor, wherein the first view is assigned to a first door opening angle of the vehicle door relative to the vehicle body; and
However, Machak in the same field of endeavor, teaches a first view of a contour of the vehicle door, viewed starting from a mounting point of the sensor, wherein the first view is assigned to a first door opening angle of the vehicle door relative to the vehicle body; and [0047] - [0048], [0064] A first view of a contour of a vehicle meaning that when the door is fully open, the view of the vehicle door is captured by an image sensor which is a camera (400) [0064]. This camera (400) is located near the roof of the vehicle, the mounting point, which encompasses an area that captures the first view of a contour of the vehicle door due to the camera’s (400) positioning as it captures images. The door status sensor (107) uses these images to provide a status of the opening of a vehicle by using a reference or current image of the vehicle door captured by camera (400) such as a first view of the contour of the vehicle door [0047] - [0048]. The images being stored and used as a reference for a comparison requires the images to be stored in a memory.
a second view of the contour of the door, viewed starting from the mounting point of the sensor, wherein the second view is assigned to a second door opening angle of the door relative to the vehicle body [0047] - [0048], [0064] A second view of a contour of a vehicle meaning that when the door is fully open, the view of the vehicle door is captured by an image sensor which is a camera (400) [0064]. This camera (400) is located near the roof of the vehicle, the mounting point, which encompasses an area that captures the second view of a contour of the vehicle door due to the camera’s (400) positioning as it captures images. The door status sensor (107) uses these images to provide a status of the opening of a vehicle by using a reference or current image of the vehicle door captured by camera (400) such as a second view of the contour of the vehicle door [0047] - [0048]. The images being stored and used as a reference for a comparison requires the images to be stored in a memory.
wherein the first door opening angle is greater than the second door opening angle [0023]. A door status sensor (107) may be configured to determine the positioning of the door. It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill to simply declare that when the door is fully open, that is the first view the camera (400) is monitoring. Same applies for when the door is partially open. When the door is partially open, that is the second view the camera (400) is monitoring.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Elie reference with the teachings of Machak, to cover a wider region of the door opening and closing travel path to further prevent bumps or any trapping from occurring.
20. Regarding claim 11, Elie discloses the system as claimed in claim 2, further comprising an angle encoder to determine the opening angle [0023]. The door position sensor (24) can identify the angular position of the door. This constitutes as an angle encoder.
21. Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190383647A1 (hereinafter, “Elie”), and further in view of US20200300020A1 (hereinafter, “Molnar”), and further in view of US20180111480A1 (hereinafter, “Machak”), and further in view of US20210230921A1 (hereinafter, “Battlogg”).
22. Regarding claim 3, the modified Elie reference does not explicitly teach the system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the sensor determines the door opening angle.
However, Battlogg in the same field of endeavor, teaches the system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the sensor determines the door opening angle [0110], [0125]. A damping sensor (12) can be placed in order to determine two connection units to derive an angular position of a door. Battlogg uses an angular position of a door in order to determine at what angular position of the vehicle door currently is in relation to the object when the vehicle door is opening to prevent a bump from occurring.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Elie reference with the teachings of Battlogg, to implement a damping sensor in order to determine the angular position of the vehicle door to know exactly at what position the door is in when opening or closing the vehicle door.
23. Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190383647A1 (hereinafter, “Elie”), and further in view of US20200300020A1 (hereinafter, “Molnar”), and further in view of US20210230921A1 (hereinafter, “Battlogg”), and further in view of US20210300246A1 (hereinafter, “Peterson”).
24. Regarding claim 6, Elie teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the sensor comprises a non-contact operating sensor and operates according to one or more of the following measuring principles: ultrasound, radar, optical [0060]; It is inherent that the sensor that is gathering information for the vision module (166) be a non-contact operating type of sensor due to the fact that the vehicle may work autonomously which requires no human intervention. If no human intervention is required, then the sensors operating on the vehicle would have to also rely on no human intervention. The vision module (166) may include a radar or a light field camera (optical).
The modified Elie reference does not explicitly teach the sensor is designed for one-dimensional, two- dimensional or three-dimensional identification of the surroundings and/or for measuring distances and/or angles;
However, Battlogg teaches the sensor is designed for one-dimensional, two- dimensional or three-dimensional identification of the surroundings and/or for measuring distances and/or angles [0019], [0149] - [0150]; A camera device (203) is equipped with an image sensor (221). These image sensors can identify the surroundings of a vehicle through images, images are two-dimensional, in order to detect objects or obstacles.
and the sensor is designed to determine the position of a trapping event and/or a collision event [0110], [0125]. A damping sensor (12) can be placed in order to determine two connection units to derive an angular position of a door. Battlogg uses an angular position of a door in order to determine at what angular position of the vehicle door currently is in relation to the object when the vehicle door is opening to prevent a collision from occurring. If a trapping event or collision event did occur, the damping sensor (12) would inherently be able to determine that angular position of the door of when that trapping or collision event happened due to it already determining the angular position of the door. If the vehicle door were to stop, that angular position of the door would be determined in that instant because of the damping sensor (12) always tracking the angular position of the vehicle door.
The modified Elie reference does not appear to teach the sensor can be folded out and/or extended and/or pivoted; and/or
However, Peterson teaches the sensor can be folded out and/or extended and/or pivoted; and/or ([0125] – [0126] Fig. 64 – 65) Peterson teaches on having a camera sensor that is pivotable.
Elie, Battlogg, and Peterson are analogous art because Elie teaches on sensors that need no contact. Those sensors can also take two-dimensional video and identify objects surrounding the vehicle. Elie also teaches on a sensor that can determine the position of a vehicle door during both a trapping and collision event. Battlogg teaches on incorporating a damping sensor which determines a door opening angle. This sensor would be able to determine the angular position of a vehicle door inherently in all states such as a trapping event, collision event, or no event. Peterson teaches on the capabilities of pivoting a camera sensor which Elie uses as a sensor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Battlogg and Peterson, to modify the teachings of the combination of Elie to include the teachings of Battlogg and Peterson, to have sensors that can cover more of a broader range due to the pivotability of the sensors and also be able to record the angular position of a vehicle door for when a trapping or collision event occurs to have more information on that event.
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 DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669