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 Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 11/05/2025.
Claims 1 – 4 were amended by Applicant.
Claim 5 is new.
Claims 1 – 5 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 103 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 09/10/2025 as to claims 1 – 4 are maintained in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments. New claim 5 is similarly rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
There are no new grounds of rejection herein as to any of the claims.
Applicant argues essentially that the claims as amended (11/05/2025) cure any deficit per 35 USC 103 which was set forth in the prior non-Final Rejection of 09/10/2025. Remarks 5 – 7. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Appellant’s argument in this respect is difficult to follow, but is apparently that the door open signal is only available post some sort of delay (“predetermined period”) vis a vis the shift control lever. Remarks 6. While the amendments are clearly reworded in this regard, they claim the exact same thing that was analyzed and rejected in the prior NFR using Sugiura and Park as references, and the ”delay” post switching request (per amended claims of 11/05/2025) is mapped as noted above. Please see the 35 USC 103 analysis below for any additional details on this point regarding the placement in time of any claimed delay regarding the drive switching signal.
Applicant additionally argues per 35 USC 103 that the dependent claims should also be free from any 35 USC 103 rejections. Remarks 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The dependent claims (as well as new claim 5) are all analyzed separately and, despite their (claims 2 – 4) substantial rewording, claim the same thing that was analyzed in the prior Non-Final Rejection. Please see the 35 USC 103 analysis below for any additional details on this point.
Examiner also notes that new claim 5, which incorporates a buzzer/warning in connection with the door opening, is analyzed separately below using the additional reference of Weinerman.
Generally as to obviousness, examiner submits that it is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685,686 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,147 (CCPA 1976). Using this standard, examiner submits that the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness was successfully established in the prior Office Action of 09/10/2025, and also respecting the pending amended claim set of 11/05/2025, as seen below.
Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily altered or modified, and that there must be some reason why a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art would be motivated to make the proposed modifications. Although the motivation or suggestion to make modifications must be articulated, it is respectfully submitted that there is no requirement that the motivation to make modifications must be expressly articulated within the references themselves. References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures, In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
Examiner also notes that the motivation to combine the applied references is, where appropriate in the below detailed analysis pursuant to 35 USC 103, additionally accompanied by select passages from the respective references which specifically support that particular motivation. It is also respectfully submitted that motivation based on the logic and scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, which evidence can also support a finding of obviousness, is otherwise provided in the detailed 35 USC 103 analysis of the claim set below. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 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 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura (US20150203127A1) in view of Park (US20160159369A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Sugiura discloses:
A vehicle control device comprising a door control ECU that controls opening and closing of a door; and (“FIG. 1 to FIG. 10 show an exemplary door control system with transmission shift range control, which is under development, as a comparative embodiment. This system is configured to fix a shift range in a transmission of a shift-by-wire type when the shift range is in a non-drive range. A door control system 1 with transmission shift range control according to the comparative embodiment includes, as shown in FIG. 1, a shift ECU (electronic control unit, which is a transmission shift range control device) 2 and a door ECU (door control device) 3. The shift ECU 2 forms a shift range control apparatus. The door ECU 3 forms a door control apparatus.”, [028]);
a shift control ECU that controls switching of a shift range, (“FIG. 1 to FIG. 10 show an exemplary door control system with transmission shift range control, which is under development, as a comparative embodiment. This system is configured to fix a shift range in a transmission of a shift-by-wire type when the shift range is in a non-drive range. A door control system 1 with transmission shift range control according to the comparative embodiment includes, as shown in FIG. 1, a shift ECU (electronic control unit, which is a transmission shift range control device) 2 and a door ECU (door control device) 3. The shift ECU 2 forms a shift range control apparatus. The door ECU 3 forms a door control apparatus.”, [028]);
wherein data is input and output between the door control ECU and the shift control ECU, (“The shift ECU 2 transmits a shift range signal, which indicates whether a present shift range of the transmission 9 is either a drive range or a non-drive range, to the door ECU 3. The shift ECU 2 receives a shift lock request signal transmitted from the door ECU 3.”, [029]);
the shift control ECU executes a shift change control, to switch the shift range from a parking range to a drive range in response to receiving a range switching request, the range switching request being a request to switch the shift range from the parking range to the drive range indicated by the range switching request (“The shift range control apparatus includes a drive range control part, a non-drive range control part and a signal output part. The drive range control part shifts a shift range of the transmission to a drive range and sets a shift range signal to indicate the drive range, when a manipulation for shifting the shift range of the transmission to the drive range is performed”, [007]);
the door control ECU executes an opening control to switch the door from a closed state to an open state in response to receiving a door opening request, the door opening request being a request to switch the door from a closed state to an open state; and a shift range signal from the shift control ECU indicating that the shift range is the P range, the door control ECU outputs a door-state signal indicating an open/close state of the door to the shift control ECU, … (“The shift range control apparatus includes a drive range control part, a non-drive range control part and a signal output part. The drive range control part shifts a shift range of the transmission to a drive range and sets a shift range signal to indicate the drive range, when a manipulation for shifting the shift range of the transmission to the drive range is performed under a state that no shift lock request is outputted from the door control apparatus. The non-drive range control part shifts the shift range of the transmission to a non-drive range and sets the shift range signal to indicate the non-drive range, when a manipulation for shifting the shift range of the transmission to the non-drive range is performed. The signal output part outputs the shift range signal to the door control apparatus.”, [0007]) and (“The door control apparatus includes a door opening part and a door closing part. The door opening part outputs the shift lock request to the shift range control apparatus when a door switch is manipulated to open, checks whether the shift range signal from the shift range control apparatus indicates the non-drive range after a delay from time of output of the shift lock request, and opens the door when the shift range signal indicates the non-drive range.”, [008]) and (“The door ECU 3 has a function of controlling opening/closing of a door of a vehicle as well as functions of a door opening part and a door closing part. The door ECU 3 receives a door signal from a door switch 7 and outputs a door opening command signal or a door closing command signal to a door opening/closing device 8. The door switch 7 outputs a door signal of ON state to the door ECU 3 when a user (driver) turns it on under a state that the door signal is OFF. The door switch 7 changes the door signal to OFF (that is, outputs the door signal of OFF state to the door ECU 3) when the user turns it off under a state that the door signal is ON.”, [032]) and (“The shift ECU 2 receives a shift manipulation signal from a shift manipulation device 4, generates a range drive command signal for switching over a shift range of the transmission 9 based on the received shift manipulation signal, and outputs the generated range drive command signal to an actuator (not shown) for switching over the shift range of the transmission 9.”, [029]);
within a predetermined period after receiving the range switching request. (“That is, the door ECU 3 is configured to execute the processing of opening the door after a delay of a predetermined time period by setting the time delay from the time of turning on of the door switch 7.”, [051]) and (“The door control apparatus includes a door opening part and a door closing part. The door opening part outputs the shift lock request to the shift range control apparatus when a door switch is manipulated to open, checks whether the shift range signal from the shift range control apparatus indicates the non-drive range after a delay from time of output of the shift lock request, and opens the door when the shift range signal indicates the non-drive range.”, [008]), and see Abstract, published 06/09/2016.
Sugiura does not expressly disclose, but Park teaches:
the shift control ECU switches the shift range from the drive range to a non-drive range in response to determining that the received door-state signal indicates the door is switched from the closed state to the open state (“In order to accomplish the above object, the present invention provides a safety method for a passenger of a vehicle. The method includes: a control logic for detecting a current gear position in a state where the vehicle is stopped, determining whether a passenger door and a rear seat door are open, and allowing driving in a state where the passenger door and the rear seat door are closed but limiting a vehicle drive by changing the gear position to a non-drivable gear position in a state where the passenger door or the rear seat door is open.”, [012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Sugiura to incorporate the teachings of Park because Sugiura would be more efficient and versatile if it could ensure that a vehicle door was closed in order for the vehicle to be in a “drive” shift position, as done in Park. (“Nowadays, in order to prevent safety accidents, technology for allowing a door not to be opened is applied when driving in the drivable gear position.”, see Park at [006]).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Sugiura and Park disclose the limitations of claim 1:
Sugiura further teaches:
the shift control ECU maintains the shift range in the drive range indicated by the range switching request when it is determined that the received door-state signal indicates the door is switched from the closed to the open state after has elapsed. (“That is, the door ECU 3 is configured to execute the processing of opening the door after a delay of a predetermined time period by setting the time delay from the time of turning on of the door switch 7.”, [051]), and see [008] (as above), and see Abstract (as above), published 06/09/2016.
and Park further teaches:
the door control ECU does not execute the opening control when he shift range signal indicates that the shift the shift range is the drive range; and (“In order to accomplish the above object, the present invention provides a safety method for a passenger of a vehicle. The method includes: a control logic for detecting a current gear position in a state where the vehicle is stopped, determining whether a passenger door and a rear seat door are open, and allowing driving in a state where the passenger door and the rear seat door are closed but limiting a vehicle drive by changing the gear position to a non-drivable gear position in a state where the passenger door or the rear seat door is open.”, [012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Sugiura to incorporate the teachings of Park because Sugiura would be more efficient and versatile if it could ensure that a vehicle door was closed for the vehicle to be in a “drive” shift position, as done in Park. (“Nowadays, in order to prevent safety accidents, technology for allowing a door not to be opened is applied when driving in the drivable gear position.”, see Park at [006]).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Sugiura and Park disclose the limitations of claim 1:
Sugiura further teaches:
wherein: the predetermined period is set in advance based on a longest delay in the transmission of the data between the door control ECU and the shift control ECU. (“That is, the door ECU 3 is configured to execute the processing of opening the door after a delay of a predetermined time period by setting the time delay from the time of turning on of the door switch 7”, [051]) and (“The door control apparatus includes a door opening part and a door closing part. The door opening part outputs the shift lock request to the shift range control apparatus when a door switch is manipulated to open, checks whether the shift range signal from the shift range control apparatus indicates the non-drive range after a delay from time of output of the shift lock request, and opens the door when the shift range signal indicates the non-drive range.”, [008]),
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Sugiura and Park disclose the limitations of claim 1:
Park further teaches:
wherein: the shift control ECU informs a driver that the shift range has been switched from the drive range to the non-drive range in response to determining that the received door-state signal indicates the door is switched from the closed state to the open state within the predetermined period, and the shift range has been switched from the drive range to the non-drive range. Examiner broadly interprets this claim to include the meaning that the vehicle driver is informed by the vehicle that the vehicle has been positioned in the non-drive range, … (“5. The safety method for the passenger of the vehicle of claim 2, wherein at the safety precaution step, the gear position is fixed to the non-drivable gear position and at a same time, a warning message is sent to a driver.”, [claim 5 of Park]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Sugiura to incorporate the teachings of Park because Sugiura would be more efficient and versatile if it could ensure that a vehicle door was closed for the vehicle to be in a “drive” shift position, as done in Park. (“Nowadays, in order to prevent safety accidents, technology for allowing a door not to be opened is applied when driving in the drivable gear position.”, see Park at [006]).
Claim 5 is rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura (US20150203127A1) in view of Park (US20160159369A1) and in further view of Weinerman (US12049778B1).
Regarding claim 5 (new):
The combination of Sugiura and Park disclose the limitations of claim 1:
That combination does not expressly disclose, but Weinerman teaches:
further comprising: a buzzer configured to output an alarm sound to notify a driver that the shift range is switched from the drive range to the non-drive range, wherein the shift control ECU further causes the buzzer to output a warning sound in response to determining that the door is switched from the closed state to the open state within the predetermined period after receiving the range switching request. (“If in step 312 is determined that the sensed force level is at least as great as the data corresponding to the stored at least one threshold closing force, the exemplary controller is operative to identify the condition as corresponding to at least one of the doors encountering an obstruction or another type of abnormal condition. Responsive to the determination in step 312 the exemplary controller is operative to cause at least one indicator to provide at least one output. This is represented by step 314. In exemplary arrangements the at least one indicator that is caused to be operated by the at least one controller may include an audible indicator such as a buzzer.”, [col. 26: 4 - 15]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Sugiura to incorporate the teachings of Weinerman because Sugiura would be more efficient and versatile if it could sound a buzzer alert / warning when a vehicle door is ajar when the vehicle is otherwise drive enabled as done in Weinerman (“the exemplary controller is operative to identify the condition as corresponding to at least one of the doors encountering an obstruction or another type of abnormal condition.”, [col. 26: 6 - 9]).
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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Ishida (US20220268079A1) - A control device is mounted on a vehicle including a door opening and closing mechanism for opening and closing a door of an entrance and exit where a passenger gets on and off, and a shift device for changing a driving range of a transmission. The driving range is input to the control device and the control device opens and closes the door by the door opening and closing mechanism. The control device permits opening of the door when the driving range is a parking range, and prohibits a change of the driving range of the shift device when the driving range is the parking range and the door is open.
Sugiyama (US20190003238A1) – 102a1 - An opening-closing body driving motor includes a motor body, a drive circuit, and a control circuit. The motor body is provided to automatically open and close an opening-closing body of a vehicle. The drive circuit supplies driving power to the motor body. The control circuit includes a PWM controller. The control circuit is configured to adjust the driving power by PWM control and control an operation mode of the opening-closing body through the motor body such that the operation mode is changeable. The PWM controller is configured to have a control frequency of the PWM control include a frequency in an audible range based on a predetermined trigger so that the motor body vibrates in the audible range, thereby performing a sound producing operation. The predetermined trigger includes information about an opening-closing state of the opening-closing body or information about activation and deactivation of a child lock.
Seok (US20240191554A1) – A door control device includes a communicator configured to receive gear position information, obstacle information, and wind speed information, and a processor. The processor is configured to determine at least two of a gear position, presence or absence of an obstacle, or a wind speed based on the gear position information, the obstacle information, and the wind speed information, and, based on a determination that (i) the gear position is at parking and the obstacle exists or (ii) the gear position is at parking and the wind speed is greater than or equal to a reference wind speed, control a safety device of a door to secure a position of the door.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661