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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues Yamagata (US 20170145727) contrasts with the amended claims and is silent on how movement of a motor against the counterbalance spring is accounted for and does not allude to how the spring force of the counterbalance spring is taken into account. Therefore, Applicant concludes Yamagata does not anticipate amended claims 1 and 9.
Yamagata indeed does not teach the newly amended features of independent claim 1 and therefore new reference Battlogg has been necessitated. As such this argument is moot.
Nonetheless, Yamagata teaches the controller controls the motor to output force in accordance with biasing force to move the vehicle door where the force direction and magnitude at least are adjusted based upon the position of the door and direction it is being moved. The motor is driven while accounting for biasing force to either work with or work against the biasing force as required, which necessarily determines a force that negates the effect of the spring. This is what is required by claims 1 and 9 and therefore this portion of the arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues Thiele (US 5770934) and Broadhead (US 20160348413) do not remedy the same deficiencies of Yamagata as established in regards to claims 1 and 9, and therefore claim 16 is not rendered obvious for the same reasons.
This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons as given above. The remaining references are not required to remedy any challenged limitation, but remain applied for the limitations they have been stated to teach resulting in the claim as a whole being rendered obvious.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been rejected and for the reasons as given above.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-8 and 10-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In regards to claim 4, the claim recites “start a thermal timer; and control the motor to allow the lift gate to move to a steady state position after expiry of a thermal time out.” No single prior art reference has been found to anticipate these limitations, nor any combination of prior art references to render these limitations obvious when viewed in the context of the remaining limitations of the claim and the limitations to which the claim depends. As such, dependent claim 4 would be found allowable if incorporated into independent form including all intervening limitations. Dependent claim 10 recites similar limitations to dependent claim 4 and therefore would similarly be allowable if incorporated into independent form including every intervening limitation. Claims 5-8 and 11-14 depend upon claims 4 and 10 respectively and therefore are similarly objected to at least by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Yamagata et al. (US 20170145727).
In regards to claim 9, Yamagata teaches a method of operating an actuator system of a vehicle comprising the steps of: ([0052] system performs operations which together form a method of operating actuator system of vehicle.)
determining a position of a closure panel; ([0047]-[0049] the door is operated from a closed position to an open position or from an open position to a closed position, which required at least determining an initial position of closed or open.)
determining a force that negates an effect of a counterbalance mechanism acting on the closure panel at the determined position; ([0047]-[0049] motor is driven while accounting for biasing force to either work with or work against the biasing force as required, which necessarily determines a force that negates the effect of the spring and occurs at each position of the door.) and
adjusting a target compensation force to be provided to a motor, of an actuator assembly using the force that negates the effect of the counterbalance mechanism acting on the closure panel. ([0047]-[0049] motor is driven while accounting for biasing force to either work with or work against the biasing force as required, which necessarily determines a force that negates the effect of the spring.)
In regards to claim 15, Yamagata teaches the method as set forth in claim 9.
Claim 15 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 2 below, therefore claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata in view of Battlogg (US 20200087965).
In regards to claim 1, Yamagata teaches an actuator system for a closure panel of a vehicle comprising: (Figs 1-8.)
a biasing member adapted to apply a biasing member force to the closure panel; ([0035], [0040] coil spring applies biasing force to door of vehicle.)
an actuator assembly comprising: (Figs 1-8.)
an actuator housing, ([0031], [0035] first and second housing house actuator system which together form actuator housing.) and
a motor disposed in the actuator housing and configured to rotate a motor shaft operably coupled to an extensible member coupled to one of a body and the closure panel for opening or closing the closure panel; ([0031], [0047]-[0049] motor within housing is driven to operate shaft and extend or retract support member connected to door, to raise or lower the door as required.) and
an actuator controller configured to control the motor to output an adjusted force wherein the adjustment force is based on the biasing member force as a function of a detected position of the closure panel. ([0030], [0031], [0047]-[0049] controller controls motor to output force in accordance with biasing force to move the vehicle door where the force direction and magnitude at least are adjusted based upon the position of the door and direction it is being moved.)
Yamagata does not teach:
an actuator controller configured to control the motor to output an adjusted force to move the closure panel in response to the actuator controller detecting a user manually moving the closure panel, wherein the adjusted force is based on the biasing member force as a function of a detected position of the closure panel.
However, Battlogg teaches semi-active motor assisted door opening and closing such that when a door is manually operated, the motor assists the operation to provide a force based at least on whether the door is in a closed position and being opened or in an opened position and being closed ([0141]). This outputs an adjusted force at least depending on direction as a function of detected position of the door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle door control system of Yamagata, by incorporating the teachings of Battlogg, such that, as the door adjustment force is biased as in Yamagata, the motor provides assistance to manual operation of the doors based at least in part on the position of the door in response to detection of manual operation.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Battlogg, this allows for improved, cheap door control ([0004]).
In regards to claim 2, Yamagata, as modified by Battlogg, teaches the actuator system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the biasing member comprises a counterbalance spring. ([0035], [0040] coil spring applies biasing force to door of vehicle which is a counterbalance spring.)
In regards to claim 3, Yamagata, as modified by Battlogg, teaches the actuator system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the actuator controller is further configured to:
determine a position of the closure panel; ([0047]-[0049] the door is operated from a closed position to an open position or from an open position to a closed position, which required at least determining an initial position of closed or open.)
determine a force that negates an effect of the biasing member acting on the closure panel; ([0047]-[0049] motor is driven while accounting for biasing force to either work with or work against the biasing force as required, which necessarily determines a force that negates the effect of the spring.) and
adjust a target compensation force to be provided to the motor using the force that negates the effect of the biasing member acting on the closure panel. ([0047]-[0049] motor is driven while accounting for biasing force to either work with or work against the biasing force as required, which necessarily determines a force that negates the effect of the spring.)
Claim 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata in view of Theile (US 5770934).
In regards to claim 16, Yamagata teaches an actuator system for a closure panel of a vehicle comprising: (Figs 1-8.)
an actuator assembly comprising: (Figs 1-8.)
an actuator housing, ([0031], [0035] first and second housing house actuator system which together form actuator housing.)
a power spring at least partially disposed in the actuator housing and adapted to apply a biasing member force to the closure panel, ([0035], [0040] coil spring applies biasing force to door of vehicle which acts as power spring.) and
a motor disposed in the actuator housing and configured to rotate a motor shaft operably coupled to an extensible member coupled to one of a body and the closure panel for opening or closing the closure panel; [0031], [0047]-[0049] motor within housing is driven to operate shaft and extend or retract support member connected to door, to raise or lower the door as required.)
an actuator controller configured to control the motor and output an adjusted force based on the biasing member force to move the closure panel; ([0030], [0031], [0047]-[0048] controller controls motor to output force in accordance with biasing force to move the vehicle door.) and
the actuator controller including: ([0030], [0031], [0047]-[0048] controller controls motor to output force in accordance with biasing force to move the vehicle door.)
wherein the actuator controller is configured to determine a position of the closure panel, determine a compensating force corresponding to the biasing member force at the determined position, and adjusting by the motor to negate an effect of the power spring on the closure panel. ([0047]-[0049] motor is driven while accounting for biasing force to either work with or work against the biasing force as required, which necessarily determines a force that negates the effect of the spring and occurs at each position of the door.)
Yamagata does not teach:
a closed loop current feedback motor control system configured to supply the motor with a drive current,
a haptic control algorithm configured to determine a target torque the motor, controlled by the closed loop current feedback motor control system, applies to the closure panel, and
a drive unit configured to convert the target torque from the haptic control algorithm into a target current for input into the closed loop current feedback motor control system;
and adjusting the target torque applied by the motor to negate an effect of the power spring on the closure panel.
However, Theile teaches closed loop feedback control of a drive motor that drives a door, where the motor current is determined or monitored and governs the torque output of the motor, which is operated to provide a desired torque (Col 7 lines 57-67, Col 9 lines 41-54). This is a control algorithm that acts as a haptic control algorithm that converts a desired torque into current to drive the motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle door system of Yamagata, by incorporating the teachings of Theile, such that closed loop feedback control of the drive motors of Yamagata are operated to arrive at a desired torque by a corresponding current using algorithms, including Yamagata’s negation of power spring effect.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Theile, this allows for improved safety of door panels (Col 1 lines 17-44).
In regards to claim 17, Yamagata, as modified by Theile, teaches the actuator system as set forth in claim 16, further including a current sensor configured to detect a sensed current flowing in the motor and communicate the sensed current to the haptic control algorithm. (Col 2 lines 59-65, current may be measured itself and used to operate motor, which must be communicated to algorithm to be used in motor operation.)
23. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata in view of Theile, in further view of Broadhead et al. (US 20160348413).
In regards to claim 18, Yamagata, as modified by Theile, teaches the actuator system as set forth in claim 16.
Yamagata, as modified by Theile, does not teach:
further including an accelerometer configured to sense motion of the closure panel and output an acceleration signal to at least one of the drive unit or the haptic control algorithm.
However, Broadhead teaches a door mounted accelerometer that determines acceleration of the door and is used to further control the door ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle door system of Yamagata, as already modified by Theile, by incorporating the teachings of Broadhead, such that an accelerometer is incorporated into the door of Yamagata and measurements of the accelerometer are given to the control system of Yamagata which are further used to control the motor.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Broadhead, this allows for improved positioning control of doors ([0002]-[0004]).
In regards to claim 19, Yamagata, as modified by Theile, teaches the actuator system as set forth in claim 16.
Yamagata, as modified by Theile, does not teach:
further including closure panel position sensors configured to indicate the position of the closure panel to the drive unit.
However, Broadhead teaches a door mounted position sensor that determines position of the door and is used to further control the door ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle door system of Yamagata, as already modified by Theile, by incorporating the teachings of Broadhead, such that a position sensor is incorporated into the door of Yamagata and measurements of the position sensor are given to the control system of Yamagata which are further used to control the motor.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Broadhead in regards to claim 18.
In regards to claim 20, Yamagata, as modified by Theile and Broadhead, teaches the actuator system as set forth in claim 19.
Theile teaches determining speed of the drive system and closed loop feedback control of a drive motor that drives a door, where the motor current is determined or monitored and governs the torque output of the motor, which is operated to provide a desired torque (Col 7 lines 57-67, Col 9 lines 41-54).
Broadhead teaches a door mounted position sensor that determines position of the door and is used to further control the door ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle door system of Yamagata, as already modified by Theile and Broadhead, by further incorporating the teachings of Theile and Broadhead, such that the position sensor of Broadhead is incorporated into Yamagata along with feedback determining the position of the door and this is coupled to the motor with determinations of the speed of the drive, which is speed of the motor.
The motivations to do so are the same as acknowledged by Theile in regards to claim 16 and Yamagata in regards to claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamagata et al. (US 20190169901) teaches a spring installed to aid in the opening of a door by applying a biasing force.
Scheuring et al. (US 20200190883) teaches a variety of sensors positioned to detect information of a vehicle’s closure panel.
Kidokuro et al. (US 20050012482) teaches setting a feedback gain for torque of a motor to operate a door.
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 MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights