DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amended claims filed on 1/28/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jimbo et al. (US 2017/0272025).
As to claim 1 Jimbo discloses a safety critical system for controlling a vehicle component, comprising:
a safety controller (figure 3 #50) configured to issue a safety command signal representative of a safety critical decision based on a safety-related function (paragraph 0029);
an actuator controller (figure 3 #20 and 30) configured to receive the safety command signal and generate a motor actuation command signal using the safety command signal, and further configured to generate a validated motor actuation command signal using the motor actuation command signal and the safety command signal (pargapgh 0042); and
an actuator comprising a motor (figure 3 #90 and 100) configured to control the vehicle component in response to receiving the validated motor actuation command signal.
wherein the actuator controller (figure 3) is configured to prevent actuation of the motor in response to the motor actuation command signal being incorrectly generated by comparing the safety command signal to the motor actuation command signal. (see paragraph 0037 below)
[0037] The cut-off circuit 209 is arranged between the dedicated circuit and the inverter 211, and cuts the supply of a drive voltage to the motor based on a safety input signal and an output permission signal. The cut-off circuit 209, which is typically a switching circuit, receives a PWM signal, a safety input signal, and an output permission signal. When the safety input signal and the output permission signal indicate a permitted state, the cut-off circuit 209 provides the PWM signal to the inverter 211. (Here is the comparison of the signals.) When the safety input signal does not indicate a permitted state, (This is an incorrect signal being sent.) the cut-off circuit 209 provides no PWM signal to the inverter 211 to cut the voltage supply from the inverter 211 to the motor 90 or 100.
Also note that the applicant’s specification does not give a definition of what it means to compare the signals. It is stated twice (see paragraphs 0024 and 0072) in the specification and can be broadly interpreted to mean the same as looking at the signals for the correct signals from both outputs.
As to claim 2 Jimbo discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 1, the actuator controller further configured to receive another safety command signal, generate the motor actuation command signal using the safety command signal and the another safety command signal, and generate the validated motor actuation command signal using the motor actuation command signal and at least one of the safety command signal and the another safety command signal (shown in figure 3 is the two lines for the two safety signals).
As to claim 4 Jimbo discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 2, wherein the actuator controller is configured to generate the validated motor actuation command signal in response to determining a discrepancy between the motor actuation command signal and at least one of the safety command signal and the another safety command signal. (paragraph 0042 and 0043)
As to claim 5 Jimbo discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 4, wherein the actuator controller (figure 2 #20 and 30) further includes a safety module (50) configured to receive the motor actuation command signal and at least one of the safety command signal and the another safety command signal (shown in figure 2), to determine the discrepancy, to generate the validated motor actuation command signal using the motor actuation command signal and at least one of the safety command signal and the another safety command signal, and to supply the actuator (90 and 100) with the validated motor actuation command signal.
As to claim 6 Jimbo discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 5, wherein the motor actuation command signal comprises at least one of a motor high side drive signal for controlling a high side drive circuit coupled to the actuator, and a motor low side drive signal for controlling a low side drive circuit coupled to the actuator. (paragraph 0008)
An inverter puts out a high and low signal.
As to claim 7 Jimbo discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 6, wherein the safety module is configured to not modify the at least one of the motor high side drive signal and the motor low side drive signal in response to not determining a discrepancy between the motor actuation command signal and the at least one of the safety command signal and the another safety command signal, and to modify the at least one of the motor high side drive signal and the motor low side drive signal in response to determining the discrepancy between the motor actuation command signal and at least one of the safety command signal and the another safety command signal.
(paragraph 0008) the voltage signal is modified by being cut off from the motor which zeros out the command signal.
As to claim 8 Jimbo discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 7, wherein in response to determining the discrepancy between the motor actuation command signal and at least one of the safety command signal and the another safety command signal, the modified at least one of the motor high side drive signal and the motor low side drive signal causes disablement to operation of the actuator.
(paragraph 0008) the voltage signal is modified by being cut off from the motor which zeros out the command signal.
As to claim 9 Jimbo discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 8, wherein the modified at least one of the motor high side drive signal and the motor low side drive signal controls at least one switch to prevent a voltage from being applied across terminals of the motor to cause disablement to operation of the actuator.
(paragraph 0008) the voltage signal is modified by being cut off from the motor which zeros out the command signal.
As to claim 19 Jimbo discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the safety controller is a Body Control Module. (The name of the module has no merit on its function. The inventor could also title this module as a Body Control Module)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimbo et al. (US 2017/0272025).
As to claims 3 and 13 Jimbo discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 2, however does not disclose the system comprising a second safety controller configured to issue the another safety command signal. Jimbo discloses a single controller issuing another safety signal.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In this case the there are no new results by using two controllers instead of one controller. The one controller can be programed to product the second signal and there is no need of a second controller unless it produces something unexpected
As to claim 14 Jimbo discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 13, wherein one of the first safety controller and the second safety controller are each configured to generate one of a low side command signal (low side being the off signal) using the control input and a safety integrity function, and the other one of the first safety controller and the second safety controller is configured to generate a high side command signal (high side being the on signal) using the control input and another safety integrity function.
As to claim 15 Jimbo discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 13, wherein one of the first safety controller and the second safety controller is a Body Control Module. (The name of the module has no merit on its function. The inventor could also title this module as a Body Control Module)
Claim(s) 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimbo et al. (US 2017/0272025) in further view of Johann et al. (US 2020/0318400).
As to claim 16 Jimbo discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 13, however is silent to the actuator system being on the vehicle component is a frunk, the control input is a power release command, and the vehicle system is a user activated device provided within a cabin of a vehicle.
Johann discloses a trunk/frunk vehicle system with a motor for an actuator. It would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to use the control system of Jimbo on the latch of Johann as the latch would need a control system with a safety feature.
As to claim 17 Jimbo discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 1, however does not disclose the actuator controller is a Latch Control Module, and the actuator is configured to control at least one of a power release operation, a cinch operation, or a lock/unlock operation of a latch.
Johann discloses the actuator controller is a Latch Control Module (figure 2A), and the actuator is configured to control at least one of a power release operation, a cinch operation, or a lock/unlock operation of a latch. It would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to use the control system of Jimbo on the latch of Johann as the latch would need a control system with a safety feature.
As to claim 18 Johann discloses the safety critical system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the vehicle component is a frunk (figure 1).
As to claim 20 Johann discloses an ASIL D compliant latch control module having a safety module having a output interlock circuit for receiving a safety signal from a safety controller having a lower than an ASIL D safety compliance level as substantially shown and described (see figures 2), the safety module configured to receive a motor actuation command signal (via controller 116), the ASIL D compliant latch control module configured to receive the safety signal and generate the motor actuation command signal using the safety signal, the ASIL D compliant latch control module configured to operate an actuator (38) comprising a motor (38) configured to control a vehicle component (12), and the ASIL D compliant latch control module configured to prevent actuation of the motor in response to the motor actuation command signal being incorrectly generated by comparing the safety signal to the motor actuation command signal. (The controller 116 is configured to receiving commands from a program that has the safety function. Disclosed in paragraph 0072 the controller 116 is capable of receiving commands from a stand-alone controller and a Body Control Module both of which would carry the programming. Note that there is not a specific safety control program required in the claim limitations, but if in the future the programming of claim 1 is required the examiner see the ability to do a 103 rejection.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the new limitations would overcome the prior art. Please see the rejections above including the new limitations within the prior office action rejections.
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 SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747