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, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
Amendments and Remarks filed on 05/06/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follow:
Regarding the Claim Objections: Applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. The claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the non-final office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged and being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 10, 13-14, 19-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US PGPub 2017/0124859) in view of Matsuoka (JP2016186187) and in further view of Suzuki (US PGPub 2010/0090495).
With respect to claim 1: Lee discloses A method for controlling a vehicle door, comprising:
Collecting, by a knocking sensor, a knocking signal [Lee ¶ 0029 "the acoustic wave processing unit 30 may include an acoustic wave sensor 31 configured to receive the acoustic wave generated by knocking on the door 5" and Figure 9 S2];
determining, based on the knocking signal, whether the knocking signal is effective [Lee ¶ 0049 "determine whether an external noise is introduced" and ¶ 0050 "determine whether the external force is exerted onto the door" and Figure 9 S5 and S7];
in response to determining that the status information of the vehicle meets a condition, controlling the vehicle door to be opened [Lee ¶ 0058 "the MCU 35 may generate a control signal for opening or closing of the door 90 in operation S20"].
wherein the determining, based on the knocking signal, whether the knocking signal is effective comprises [Lee, Figure 10 steps 14-20]:
collecting a plurality of knocking signals within a first time period [Lee ¶ 0054 “he MCU 35 may be configured to store an interval of event occurrence (e.g., interval occurrence of force being exerted onto the door panel) and analyze whether the interval of the event occurrence is within a predetermined range to determine whether a rhythm pattern of the knocking or beating applied to the door 90 corresponds to a rhythm pattern for opening or closing of the door 90 in operation S16.”]; and
in response to that a quantity of the knocking signals collected within the first time period reaches a quantity threshold, determining that the knocking signal is effective [Lee ¶ 0055 “Through the above-described analysis of the rhythm pattern, the MCU 35 may be configured to determine whether the knocking or beating applied to the door 90 is input at least twice consecutively in operation S17.”].
Lee does not teach wherein the knocking sensor is a force detection sensor disposed between an outer panel of the vehicle door and an inner panel of the vehicle door, and a sensing surface of the knocking sensor fits an inner side of the outer panel of the vehicle door, and a knocking force value of each of the knocking signals detected by the knocking sensor is greater than a knocking force value threshold.
However, in a related field of invention, Matsuoka does teach
wherein the knocking sensor is a force detection sensor [Matsuoka ¶ 0025 “The shock sensor (impact sensor) 12 is an impact sensing sensor that detects the intensity of an impact received by the vehicle C from the outside, and is installed at an appropriate location on the vehicle C. The shock sensor 12 may be configured as, for example, an acceleration sensor.”]
a knocking force value of each of the knocking signals detected by the knocking sensor is greater than a knocking force value threshold [Matsuoka ¶ 0026 "determines whether the impact force detected by the shock sensor 12 is greater than or equal to a predetermined value"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the opening and closing door device as taught by Lee with using a knocking force threshold as taught by Matsuoka in order to more effectively detect a knocking signal.
Lee and Matsuoka do not teach a force detection sensor disposed between an outer panel of the vehicle door and an inner panel of the vehicle door, and a sensing surface of the knocking sensor fits an inner side of the outer panel of the vehicle door.
However, in a related field of invention, Suzuki does teach a force detection sensor disposed between an outer panel of the vehicle door and an inner panel of the vehicle door, and a sensing surface of the knocking sensor fits an inner side of the outer panel of the vehicle door [Suzuki ¶ 0038 “The acceleration sensor 50 is supported by the inner panel 42 of the door body 46 via a bracket 52, which serves as a support portion.” And Figure 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the opening and closing door device that uses an acceleration force sensor as taught by Lee and Matsuoka with placing the acceleration force sensor inside the door as taught by Suzuki in order to protect the force sensor and create a seamless design.
With respect to claim 4: Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki teach the method according to claim 1. Matsuoka further teaches wherein the determining, based on the knocking signal, whether the knocking signal is effective further comprises:
in response to that no knocking action occurs within a second time period after the vehicle door is opened and then closed, determining that the knocking signal is effective [Matsuoka ¶ 0010-0011 "the door control unit does not cause the door opening/closing device to open the door until a predetermined time elapses after the door opening/closing device performs a closing operation of the door."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the opening and closing door device using pattern analysis as taught by Lee with using a knocking force threshold and a second time period as taught by Matsuoka in order to more effectively detect a knocking signal.
With respect to claim 5: Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki disclose the method according to claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein in response to that the vehicle door is in a closed state, the vehicle is in an unlocked state, and the vehicle speed of the vehicle is less than a vehicle speed threshold, determining that the status information of the vehicle meets the condition [Lee ¶ 0050-0051 "stop condition"].
With respect to claim 10, 13, and 14: All limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 1, 4, and 5. The method taught/disclosed in claims 1, 4, and 5 can clearly perform on the system of claims 10, 13, and 14. Therefore, claims 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 19: Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki teach A vehicle [Lee ¶ 0022], comprising the vehicle controller [Lee ¶ 0023] according to claim 10. Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10.
With respect to claim 20: All limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 1. The method taught/disclosed in claim 1 can clearly perform on the medium of claim 20. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 21, Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki teach claim 1. Suzuki further teaches wherein the knocking sensor is fastened to the inner side of the outer panel of the vehicle door by a bracket, and the bracket is connected and fastened to the outer panel of the vehicle door by a connecting material [Suzuki ¶ 0039 “Specifically, the bracket 52 includes a fixed portion 52A, a free end portion 52B and an intermediate portion 52C. The fixed portion 52A serves as a supported portion and is connected to the flat portion 42A of the inner panel 42 in an overlapped manner by spot welding, or the like.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the opening and closing door device that uses an acceleration force sensor as taught by Lee and Matsuoka with placing the acceleration force sensor inside the door as taught by Suzuki in order to protect the force sensor and create a seamless design.
With respect to claim 22, Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki teach claim 4. Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki do not explicitly teach wherein the first time period is 1 second, the quantity threshold is two, and the second time period is 500 milliseconds.
However, Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki at least suggest the idea of wherein the first time period is 1 second, the quantity threshold is two, and the second time period is 500 milliseconds. [Lee ¶ 0055 “For example, when the interval of the event occurrence is within a predetermined range of about 300-500 ms, the MCU 35 may be configured to determine that the knocking or beating applied to the external panel 91 of the door 90 is input at least twice consecutively.”] [Matsuoka ¶ 0053 The door control device 1 uses a timer that measures a predetermined time (for example, a few seconds to about 10 seconds).]
Further, similar and overlapping ranges and amounts are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such timing in order to determine an effective knock.
With respect to claim 24, Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki teach claim 1. Suzuki further teaches wherein the knocking sensor is hidden on the inner side of the outer panel of the vehicle door such that the outer panel of the vehicle door is not perforated [Suzuki ¶ 0038-0039 “the acceleration sensor 50, which serves as an acceleration detector, is arranged in a hollow space R of the door body 46.” and Figure 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the opening and closing door device that uses an acceleration force sensor as taught by Lee and Matsuoka with placing the acceleration force sensor inside the door as taught by Suzuki in order to protect the force sensor and create a seamless design.
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Matsuoka in view of Suzuki and in further in view of XingQi (CN108979440).
With respect to claim 6: Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki teach the method of claim 1. Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki do not teach before the controlling the vehicle door to be opened, the method further comprising: obtaining information about a road condition around the vehicle; and determining, based on the information about the road condition, whether an obstacle exists outside the vehicle door.
However, in a related field of invention, XingQi does teach before the controlling the vehicle door to be opened, the method further comprising: obtaining information about a road condition around the vehicle; and determining, based on the information about the road condition, whether an obstacle exists outside the vehicle door [XingQi ¶ 0012 "radar device … for detecting whether there is an obstacle"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the opening and closing door device as taught by Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki with using an obstacle detector as taught by XingQi in order to create a more user-friendly opening and closing door device.
With respect to claim 7: Lee, Matsuoka, Suzuki, and XingQi teaches the method according to claim 6. XingQi further teaches wherein in response to determining that no obstacle exists outside the vehicle door, unlocking the vehicle door, and opening the vehicle door [XingQi ¶ 0034 "the controller generates an unlocking instruction or a locking instruction according to the acquired state information of the door lock and the obstacle information" and ¶ 0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the opening and closing door device as taught by Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki with using an obstacle detector as taught by XingQi in order to create a more user-friendly opening and closing door device.
With respect to claim 8: Lee, Matsuoka, Suzuki, and XingQi teaches the method according to claim 7. XingQi further teaches during the opening of the vehicle door, the method further comprising:
in response to determining that an obstacle exists outside the vehicle door, stopping movement of the vehicle door [XingQi ¶ 0034 "the controller generates an unlocking instruction or a locking instruction according to the acquired state information of the door lock and the obstacle information" and ¶ 0046-0047 "door stop signal"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the opening and closing door device as taught by Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki with using an obstacle detector as taught by XingQi in order to create a more user-friendly opening and closing door device.
With respect to claim 9: Lee, Matsuoka, Suzuki, and XingQi teaches the method according to claim 7. XingQi further teaches during the opening of the vehicle door, the method further comprising:
in response to determining that no obstacle exists outside the vehicle door, controlling the vehicle door to be opened to a preset maximum angle [XingQi ¶ 0040 "the current maximum opening range"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the opening and closing door device as taught by Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki with using an obstacle detector as taught by XingQi in order to create a more user-friendly opening and closing door device.
With respect to claims 15-18: All limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 6-9. The method taught/disclosed in claims 6-9 can clearly perform on the system of claims 15-18. Therefore, claims 15-18 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Matsuoka in view of Suzuki in view of XingQi and in further view of Tanaka (US PGPub 2023/0148076).
Regarding claim 23, Lee, Matsuoka, Suzuki, and XingQi teach the method according to claim 6. XingQi further teaches wherein the obtaining information about the road condition around the vehicle comprises: collecting rear image information by using a millimeter wave radar installed in a rear of the vehicle [XingQi ¶ 0020 “The millimeter-wave radar is installed on the front and rear four corners of the vehicle body to detect whether there are obstacles entering within the maximum opening range of the doors.”] and collecting image information on both sides of the vehicle by using an ultrasonic radar installed on a vehicle body [XingQi ¶ 0021 “The ultrasonic radar is installed on the door or the side of the vehicle body to detect obstacles within the maximum opening range of the door.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the opening and closing door device as taught by Lee, Matsuoka, and Suzuki with using an obstacle detector as taught by XingQi in order to create a more user-friendly opening and closing door device.
Lee, Matsuoka, Suzuki, and XingQi do not teach collecting image information by using camera installed on a rearview mirror of the vehicle.
However, in a related field of invention, Tanaka does teach collecting image information by using camera installed on a rearview mirror of the vehicle [Tanaka ¶ 0067 “The camera is disposed, for example, on a rear side of a rearview mirror inside a vehicle cabin and used to take images on the front side of the vehicle 10. Image processing using artificial intelligence (AI) or an image processing processor is performed on images and videos taken by the camera to allow recognition of other vehicles, obstacles, persons, etc. present on the front side of the vehicle 10.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the opening and closing door device using cameras on the rear and side of the vehicle to detect obstacles as taught by Lee, Matsuoka, Suzuki, and XingQi with using a camera on a rearview mirror to capture images in front of the vehicle as taught by Tanaka in order to create a more effective system to detect obstacles all around the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights