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
This first non-final action is in response to applicant's original filing on March 18, 2024. 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jang (US 20130169197 A1) in view of Lee (US 20130151071 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches a vehicle control apparatus, comprising:
a sensor device (Jang, a Hall sensor);
a memory configured to store at least one instruction (controller); and
a controller operatively connected to the input device, the sensor device, and the memory (Figs. 2-3 and corresponding paragraphs),
wherein when executing the at least one instruction, the controller is configured to:
perform tailgate control corresponding to the user input based on an amount of target control (Figs. 2-3 and corresponding paragraphs);
calculate a compensation value based on at least one of an amount of change in revolutions per minute (RPM) identified using the sensor device in a tailgate control process, latch data, or any combination thereof ([0014] The control unit may control the motor such that a revolution per minute (RPM) of the motor measured using the Hall sensor and an RPM of the target velocity are compared, and a difference between the RPM of the motor and the RPM of the target velocity is compensated using a PID control scheme. [035]-[0049], Fig. 4), when it is determined that a first problem about the opening operation or a second problem about the closing operation occurs ([0010] a problem may occur in the power trunk velocity control when external environment changes during driving. In addition, in order to constantly maintain a power trunk velocity in consideration of external environment, the control system necessitates some factors such as a target or a profile, which are logically complicated); and
reflect the compensation value into the amount of target control ( [0035]-[0036] the control unit 120 may perform PID control/compensation using the equations MV n =MV n-1 +ΔMV n , and ΔMV n =Kp *(e n −e n-1)+Ki*e n +Kd *((e n −e n-1)−(e n-1 −e n-2)).
Jang does not explicitly teach however Lee teaches an input device (Lee, a memory switch 13 that is operated by a user) and receive a user input about an opening operation or a closing operation for a tailgate through the input device (Lee, a memory switch 13 that is operated by a user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a method for controlling a tailgate, as taught by Jang, an input to control the tailgate, as taught by Lee, as Jang and Lee are directed to vehicle tailgate control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using the input to control the tailgate and predictably applied Jang’s teaching to provide convenience and security to a vehicle driver.
Regarding claim 11, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 1, which is commensurate in scope to claim 1, with claim 1 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 11 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 2, Jang teaches wherein when executing the at least one instruction, the controller is further configured to: identify the RPM magnitude in the inflection (at the transition between circle 1 and circle 2 in Fig. 5a) as the opening compensation value when the time point when the inflection has occurred is before a specified time point (Fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 12, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 2, which is commensurate in scope to claim 12, with claim 2 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 12 being drawn to a corresponding method
Regarding claim 3, Jang teaches wherein when executing the at least one instruction, the controller is further configured to: identify the RPM magnitude in the inflection (at the transition between circle 1 and circle 2 in Fig. 5a) as the opening compensation value when the time point when the inflection has occurred is before a specified time point (Fig. 5a and corresponding paragraphs).
Regarding claim 13, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 3, which is commensurate in scope to claim 13, with claim 3 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 13 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 4, Jang teaches wherein when executing the at least one instruction, the controller is further configured to: identify the predetermined maximum opening compensation value as the opening compensation value when the time point when the inflection has occurred is after a specified time point (PID control).
Regarding claim 14, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 4, which is commensurate in scope to claim 14, with claim 4 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 14 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 5, Jang teaches wherein when executing the at least one instruction, the controller is further configured to: when the user input corresponding to the opening operation for the tailgate is received again, perform the opening operation based on the amount of target control to which the opening compensation value has been applied (PID control); and identify the opening compensation value as the predetermined maximum opening compensation value or less(PID control); and reflect the opening compensation value into the amount of target control, when it is determined that the first problem has occurred (PID control).
Regarding claim 15, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 5, which is commensurate in scope to claim 15, with claim 5 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 15 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 6, Jang teaches determine that the second problem has occurred, when identifying cinching of a latch is not performed during the closing operation, based on the latch motor operation signal (Fig. 5a and corresponding paragraphs);
identify a closing compensation value based on at least one of a first time point when a first switch included in the latch controller is turned on, a second time point when a second switch is turned on, a predetermined maximum closing compensation value, a compensation constant, or any combination (PID control); and reflect the closing compensation value into the amount of target control ([0035]-[0036]).
Jang does not explicitly teach however Lee teaches a latch controller (Lee, controller 16) and wherein when executing the at least one instruction, the controller is further configured to: when the tailgate control corresponding to the user input is the closing operation, identify a latch motor operation signal during the closing operation by the latch controller (Lee, [0029] , a controller 16 that receives and stores the information from the hall sensor 22 when the memory switch 13 is operated and controls operation of a power supply 15 supplying power to the motor 21 on the basis of the stored information from the hall sensor 22 when a main switch 14 is operated, and an acoustic generator 17 that generates at least one sound under the control of the controller 16 when the memory switch 13 is operated);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a method for controlling a tailgate, as taught by Jang, an input to control the tailgate, as taught by Lee, as Jang and Lee are directed to vehicle tailgate control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using the input to control the tailgate and predictably applied Jang’s teaching to provide convenience and security to a vehicle driver.
Regarding claim 16, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 6, which is commensurate in scope to claim 16, with claim 6 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 16 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 7, Jang teaches wherein when executing the at least one instruction, the controller is further configured to: identify a smaller value between a first value identified using a difference between the first time point and the second time point and the compensation constant and the predetermined maximum closing compensation value as the closing compensation value, when the difference between the first time point and the second time point is less than or equal to a specified time (PID control [0035]-[0036], [0032] The control unit 120 computes a current trunk position and an operational velocity of the trunk based on information on the velocity of the motor 130 sensed by the velocity sensing unit 110 and controls the motor 130 based on computation results regarding the position and the operational velocity. The control unit 120 controls the motor 130 such that the operational velocity is compared with a predetermined target velocity, and a difference therebetween is compensated using a proportional integral derivative (PID) control scheme).
Regarding claim 17, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 7, which is commensurate in scope to claim 17, with claim 7 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 17 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 8, Jang teaches wherein when executing the at least one instruction, the controller is further configured to: not reflect the closing compensation value into the amount of target control when a difference between the first time point and the second time point is greater than a specified time ( PID control [0035]-[0036], [0032] The control unit 120 computes a current trunk position and an operational velocity of the trunk based on information on the velocity of the motor 130 sensed by the velocity sensing unit 110 and controls the motor 130 based on computation results regarding the position and the operational velocity. The control unit 120 controls the motor 130 such that the operational velocity is compared with a predetermined target velocity, and a difference therebetween is compensated using a proportional integral derivative (PID) control scheme).
Regarding claim 18, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 8, which is commensurate in scope to claim 18, with claim 8 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 18 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 9, Jang teaches wherein when executing the at least one instruction, the controller is further configured to: when the user input corresponding to the closing operation for the tailgate is received again, perform the closing operation based on the amount of target control into which the closing compensation value has been reflected (PID control, [0035]-[0036], [0032] The control unit 120 computes a current trunk position and an operational velocity of the trunk based on information on the velocity of the motor 130 sensed by the velocity sensing unit 110 and controls the motor 130 based on computation results regarding the position and the operational velocity. The control unit 120 controls the motor 130 such that the operational velocity is compared with a predetermined target velocity, and a difference therebetween is compensated using a proportional integral derivative (PID) control scheme); and
identify the closing compensation value as the predetermined maximum closing compensation value or less and reflect the closing compensation value into the amount of target control, when it is determined that the second problem has occurred while performing the closing operation ( PID control [0035]-[0036], [0032] The control unit 120 computes a current trunk position and an operational velocity of the trunk based on information on the velocity of the motor 130 sensed by the velocity sensing unit 110 and controls the motor 130 based on computation results regarding the position and the operational velocity. The control unit 120 controls the motor 130 such that the operational velocity is compared with a predetermined target velocity, and a difference therebetween is compensated using a proportional integral derivative (PID) control scheme).
Regarding claim 19, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 9, which is commensurate in scope to claim 19, with claim 9 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 19 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 10, Jang teaches wherein when executing the at least one instruction, the controller is further configured to: when the first problem has occurred, calculate an opening compensation value in the compensation value and add the opening compensation value to an opening control parameter in the amount of target control; and when the second problem has occurred, calculate a closing compensation value in the compensation value and subtract the closing compensation value from a closing control parameter in the amount of target control ( PID control, [0035]-[0036], [0032] The control unit 120 computes a current trunk position and an operational velocity of the trunk based on information on the velocity of the motor 130 sensed by the velocity sensing unit 110 and controls the motor 130 based on computation results regarding the position and the operational velocity. The control unit 120 controls the motor 130 such that the operational velocity is compared with a predetermined target velocity, and a difference therebetween is compensated using a proportional integral derivative (PID) control scheme).
Regarding claim 20, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 10, which is commensurate in scope to claim 20, with claim 10 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 20 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. For example, Takada (US20230220716A1) teaches opening-closing body control device of vehicle, Fig. 4 shows an inflection where RPM increase and then decrease.
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666