Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 10, and 20 were amended.
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 were canceled.
This FINAL Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 01/13/2026.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/13/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follow:
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103: Applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Since the examiner is using the same cited prior art for the claimed subject matter, the examiner will address the relevant remarks.
On page 8, applicant argues that Lee fails to teach a “quantity of the knocking signals” but instead teaches a pattern of a knocking signal. Applicant argues that “quantity” is different from “pattern”. However, the examiner disagrees, Lee does teach detecting a “quantity” of knocking signals as part of the rhythm pattern analysis of the electrical signals that make up the knocking signals. The examiner points to Lee Figure 10 steps 16-19. Lee paragraph 55 teaches the analysis of a rhythm pattern to “determine whether the knocking or beating applied to the door 90 is input at least twice consecutively in operation S17.” Lee teaches detecting at least two knocks consecutively which means a quantity of knocking signals have to be collected within a certain time period to be considered at least two consecutive knocks.
Therefore, Lee in view of Matsuoka does teach the limitation “in response to that a quantity of the knocking signals collected within the first time period reaches a quantity threshold and a knocking force value of each of the knocking signals is greater than a knocking force value threshold, determining that the knocking signal is effective.”
Applicant further remarks that the other independent claims 10 and 20 which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject matter and the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the examiner’s stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office respectfully disagrees with applicant’ arguments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged and being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 refers to claim 3, but claim 3 has been canceled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 refers to claim 12, but claim 12 has been canceled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 refers to claim 11, but claim 11 has been canceled. Appropriate correction is required.
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, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (US PGPub 2017/0124859) in view of Matsuoka (JP2016186187).
With respect to claim 1: Lee discloses A method for controlling a vehicle door, comprising:
collecting 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 a knocking force value of each of the knocking signals is greater than a knocking force value threshold.
However, in a related field of invention, Matsuoka does teach a knocking force value of each of the knocking signals 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.
With respect to claim 4: Lee and Matsuoka teach the method according to claim 1. Lee does not teach 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.
However, in a related field of invention, Matsuoka does teach 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 and Matsuoka 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 as modified by Matsuoka teaches 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.
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Matsuoka and in further in view of XingQi (CN108979440).
With respect to claim 6: Lee and Matsuoka teach the method of claim 1. Lee and Matsuoka 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 and Matsuoka 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 as modified by Matsuoka 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 and Matsuoka 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 as modified by Matsuoka 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 and Matsuoka 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 as modified by Matsuoka 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 and Matsuoka 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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