DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the response filed on 7/9/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-13, and 15-19 are now pending in this application. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
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 § 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, 2, 4, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bussis et al., US Patent No. 10,822,845 B2 (hereinafter as Bussis) in view of Sugiura et al., US Patent No. 10,597,927 B2 (hereinafter as Sugiura).
Regarding independent claim 1, Bussis teaches an apparatus for the contactless triggering of a tailgate of a motor vehicle having a vehicle taillamp [note the apparatus in fig. 1 and related description; see e.g. col. 25, line 63-col. 26, line 2 describing the contactless opening of a rear access closure of a vehicle responsive to the detection of a predefined hand waving gesture within a detection range of the object detection assembly; note the triggering of a tailgate operation indicated in col. 14, lines 31-34], the apparatus comprising;
a motor vehicle tailgate [note the tailgate of the vehicle indicated in col. 14, lines 31-34]; and
a gesture sensor system arranged in the motor vehicle taillamp [see e.g. col. 27, lines 5-26 indicating that the object detection module may be integrated into a rear lamp assembly, as shown in fig. 34], the gesture sensor system including at least one of a radar sensor, a LiDAR sensor, or a time-of-flight sensor [see e.g. the radar sensor described in col. 16, lines 9-11],
wherein the gesture sensor system monitors at least a sub-area of an environment of the motor vehicle to detect a hand movement by a user of the motor vehicle and, if the gesture sensor system recognizes the hand movement, to trigger an opening of the tailgate [note the object detection module 12 shown in fig. 2 and described e.g. in col. 5, line 52 – col. 6, line 9; note the sensing region; see e.g. col. 25, line 63-col. 26, line 2 describing the opening of a rear access closure of a vehicle responsive to the detection of a predefined hand waving gesture within a detection range of the object detection assembly; especially note the opening of a tailgate indicated in col. 14, lines 31-34].
Bussis, however, does not explicitly teach recognizing an upward hand movement to trigger the opening of the tailgate.
Sugiura teaches a function comprising an opening of a tailgate of a motor vehicle by an upward hand movement [see col. 9, lines 12-15 indicating the opening of the backdoor responsive to the waving of a user hand from a lower to an upper position (i.e. an upward hand movement); Examiner notes that the specification of the instant application uses a tailgate and a trunk of a vehicle interchangeably].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Bussis and Sugiura before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bussis’ hand movement by explicitly specifying an upward hand movement to trigger the opening of the tailgate, as taught by Sugiura. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to associate an intuitive hand waving gesture in which a passenger/authorized user waves his hand from a lower to a higher position (i.e. an upward hand movement) with the operation of opening a tailgate, as suggested by Sugiura [again see e.g. see col. 9, lines 6-20].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bussis further teaches that the apparatus is further configured to trigger at least one further function comprising comprises a locking and/or unlocking of vehicle doors [see col. 12, lines 31-34 indicating a function of unlocking or locking a door of the vehicle] and/or vehicle windows and/or sunroofs, and/or an activating of welcome effects and/or farewell effects, and/or a switching on of a reversing lamp.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sugiura further teaches that the apparatus is further configured to trigger a closing of the tailgate if the gesture sensor system recognizes a downward hand movement [see col. 9, lines 16-20 indicating the closing of the backdoor responsive to the waving of a user hand from the upper to the lower position (i.e. an downward hand movement); Examiner notes that the specification of the instant application uses a tailgate and a trunk of a vehicle interchangeably]. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bussis further teaches that the gesture sensor system comprises an optical infrared sensor, at least two infrared light-emitting diodes, and a sensor control unit [note in col. 5, line 52 – col. 6, line 9 the controller 14, the two or more infrared LEDs and the IR sensors].
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Sugiura further teaches that the gesture sensor system comprises a sensor, at least two light-emitting diodes, and a sensor control unit [note in col. 4, lines 29-41 the ECU 12, the sensors 33 and 34, and the two LED light sources 35 and 35 as shown in fig. 4].
Bussis teaches a sensor system comprising a sensor sensitive to visible light and light-emitting diodes with which visible light can be emitted (for recognizing gestures for triggering vehicle function performance) [see e.g. col. 17, lines 23-29 and col. 41, lines 28-40].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Bussis and Sugiura before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the type of sensor and LED taught by Sugiura for the corresponding elements in the sensor system taught by Bussis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make a simple substitution of infrared sensor and LEDS for visible-light sensors and LEDS to generate the predictive result of allowing spectral sensitivity similar to that of the human eye. See MPEP 2143 I B.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sugiura further teaches a sensor system that comprises a capacitive sensor [see e.g. col. 4, lines 37-38 and col. 10, lines 4-10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Bussis and Sugiura before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bussis’ gesture sensor system by explicitly specifying a capacitive sensor, as taught by Sugiura. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable sensing a variety of gestures by utilizing sensors that employ a variety of sensing technologies in the gesture sensor system, as suggested by the examples provided by Sugiura [again see e.g. see col. 10, lines 4-10].
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bussis further teaches recognizing a plurality of different gestures so as to trigger a plurality of different functions of the motor vehicle to be performed [see e.g. col. 12, line 34 indicating multiple different predefined gestures; note in col. 14, lines 31-40 indicating a plurality of functions; Examiner notes that the phrase “thus to make it possible to trigger a plurality of different functions of the motor vehicle to be performed” is a recitation of an intended result that is not recited with sufficient detail to add further limitations to the claim and therefore does not provide a patentable distinction].
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Bussis further teaches that the plurality of functions includes at least one of the following functions: opening/closing of a tailgate [again, see col. 12, lines 31-34 indicating a function of opening a tailgate of the vehicle], activating/deactivating of a position light or a welcome function, personalizing of a taillamp signature, interacting with a light, displaying information, battery charge level, or weather using a mini LED display in a taillamp, switching on of a reversing light in order to illuminate an area behind the vehicle, and opening/closing of the vehicle windows.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bussis in view of Sugiura (as applied to claim 1) and further in view of KIM, US PGPUB 2016/0332562 Al (hereinafter as Kim).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Bussis further teaches using semiconductor light sources of the gesture sensor system in order to signal a position of the gesture sensor system [see e.g. col. 14, lines 20-25 indicating the use of the illumination devices 112 (which can be – as per col. 7, lines 21-30– an array of LEDS that are semiconductor light sources) to visually direct the user to a particular location; see also col. 26, lines 6-23 indicating using the illumination devices 112 to direct the user to the position to open the enclosure].
Bussis further teaches that the motor vehicle taillamp includes the gesture sensor system [again, see e.g. col. 27, lines 5-26 indicating that the object detection module may be integrated into a rear lamp assembly as shown in fig. 34].
Bussis, however, does not explicitly teach that the semiconductor light sources used are included in the motor vehicle taillamp.
Kim teaches a rear combination lamp of a vehicle that has a plurality of semiconductor light sources [see e.g. [0069] as well as [0054] indicating LED elements in the display; see also figs. 1B and 1] and that is used both for functions of a rear lamp such as braking, etc., as well as for delivering various information [see e.g. [0004] and [0006]; see also [0071]].
All of the features included in the claim limitations are known on Bussis and Kim. The only difference is the combination of these different elements/features into a single apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Bussis and Kim before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to explicitly utilize the semiconductor light sources in the rear combination lamp of the vehicle taught by Kim to do the function of signaling a position of the gesture sensor system performed by the semiconductor light sources of the gesture sensor system taught by Bussis, since these features are mere additional features that are in-line with the other functionalities taught by Kim and can be performed by the semiconductor light sources in the rear combination lamp. Therefore, the result of the combination would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, also allowing for utilizing the already existing light sources in the rear combination lamp to deliver various additional information, as suggested by Kim [see [0004]-[0006]]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bussis and Kim to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP 2143 I.A.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Bussis further teaches, after a hand movement has been recognized , to use semiconductor light sources of the gesture sensor system in order to signal to the user, by lighting up the semiconductor light sources, that the hand movement has been recognized [see e.g. col. 12, lines 53-58 and col. 13, lines 1-2 and 9-17 indicating the use of the illumination devices 112 (which can be – as per col. 7, lines 21-30– an array of LEDS that are semiconductor light sources) to indicate to the user that the gesture has been recognized; note the hand wave gesture indicated in col. 26, lines 1-2 and see fig. 5].
Bussis further teaches that the motor vehicle taillamp includes the gesture sensor system [again, see e.g. col. 27, lines 5-26 indicating that the object detection module may be integrated into a rear lamp assembly as shown in fig. 34].
Bussis, however, does not explicitly teach using the one or more semiconductor light sources already present for taillamp light functions of the motor vehicle taillamp, in order to do the signaling.
Kim teaches a rear combination lamp of a vehicle that has a plurality of semiconductor light sources [see e.g. [0069] as well as [0054] indicating LED elements in the display; see also figs. 1B and 1] and that is used both for functions of a rear lamp such as braking, etc., as well as for delivering various information [see e.g. [0004] and [0006]; see also [0071]].
All of the features included in the claim limitations are known on Bussis and Kim. The only difference is the combination of these different elements/features into a single apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Bussis and Kim before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to explicitly utilize the semiconductor light sources in the rear combination lamp of the vehicle taught by Kim to do the function of signaling to the user, by lighting up the semiconductor light sources, that the hand movement has been recognized performed by the semiconductor light sources of the gesture sensor system taught by Bussis, since these features are mere additional features that are in-line with the other functionalities taught by Kim and can be performed by the semiconductor light sources in the rear combination lamp. Therefore, the result of the combination would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, also allowing for utilizing the already existing light sources in the rear combination lamp to deliver various additional information, as suggested by Kim [see [0004]-[0006]]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bussis and Kim to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP 2143 I.A.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is fully incorporated.
Kim further teaches that the taillamp comprises a plurality of semiconductor light sources lined up along a line, as light sources for the taillamp light functions [see e.g. [0167] indicating an array of a plurality of LED elements in a taillight].
Bussis further teaches sequentially switching on a plurality of semiconductor light sources in order to produce an optical effect of a swipe movement so that the impression of the swiping movement of a bright area is given [see e.g. col. 12, lines 53-58 and col. 13, lines 1-2 and 9-17 indicating the use of the illumination devices 112 (which can be – as per col. 7, lines 21-30– an array of LEDS that are semiconductor light sources) to provide an indication to the user by sequentially activating and deactivating the illumination devices with a predefined frequency and/or duty cycle; see also fig. 5; Examiner notes that the phrase “in order to produce the optical effect of a swipe movement so that the impression of the swiping movement of a bright area is given” is a recitation of an intended result that is not recited with sufficient detail to add further limitations to the claim and therefore does not provide a patentable distinction].
Again, Bussis further teaches that the gesture sensor system is integrated into the motor vehicle taillamp [again, see e.g. col. 27, lines 5-26 indicating that the object detection module may be integrated into a rear lamp assembly as shown in fig. 34]. Refer to the rejection of claim 8 for combining the teachings of Bussis and Kim to use the plurality of semiconductor light sources of the taillight to do the sequential switching on.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bussis in view of Sugiura (as applied to claim 1) and further in view of McMahon et al., US PGPUB 2018/0170309 Al (hereinafter as McMahon).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Bussis does not explicitly teach using static symbols to signal a position of the gesture sensor system and to inform the user about the available gestures.
McMahon teaches using static symbols to signal a position of a gesture sensor system and to inform the user about available gestures [note indicator 28 shown in figs. 2-9 and described in [0037] which can be an icon and informs the user of the appropriate location to make an activation gesture; further note that the indicator can inform the user if an incorrect or invalid gesture are made (thus providing information about available gestures); again, Examiner notes that the phrase “to signal the position of the gesture sensor system and to inform the user about the available gestures” is a recitation of an intended result that is not recited with sufficient detail to add further limitations to the claim and therefore does not provide a patentable distinction].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Bussis and McMahon before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bussis’ apparatus by explicitly indicating the use of static symbols to signal a position of the gesture sensor system and to inform the user about the available gestures, as taught by McMahon. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to facilitate communicating with the user thus illuminating the guessing process when trying to make an activation gesture to control a vehicle member, as suggested by McMahon [again see e.g. [0037]].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bussis in view of Sugiura and McMahon, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of HALLITSCHKE, US PGPUB 2018/0170309 Al (hereinafter as HALLITSCHKE).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. The previously combined art does not explicitly teach a mini LED display which is integrated into the motor vehicle taillamp and which makes dynamic interaction with the user possible.
HALLITSCHKE teaches a mini LED display which is integrated into the taillamp and which makes dynamic interaction with the user possible [see e.g. [0031]-[0032] and fig. 3-4 indicating mini-LEDs integrated into a tail light; see also the second half of [0037] as well as [0040] and [0042] indicating the display of a pictogram, animation or designated pattern to users; again, Examiner notes that the phrase “which makes dynamic interaction with the user possible” is a recitation of an intended result that is not recited with sufficient detail to add further limitations to the claim and therefore does not provide a patentable distinction].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and HALLITSCHKE before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bussis’ apparatus that has been modified by Sugiura and McMahon by explicitly specifying a mini LED display which is integrated into the taillamp and which makes dynamic interaction with the user possible, as taught by HALLITSCHKE. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable providing superior appearance and design versatility, as suggested by HALLITSCHKE [again see e.g. [0037]].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bussis in view of Sugiura and McMahon, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of DE 102014114049 A1 for which a machine translation is provided (hereinafter as Dirk).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. The previously combined art does not explicitly teach using static holographic 3D symbols to interact with the user.
Dirk teaches using static holographic 3D symbols to interact with the user [see e.g. figs. 1a-b, and figs. 9-13 indicating the use of static holographic 3D symbols to interact with the user].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Dirk before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bussis’ apparatus that has been modified by McMahon’s teaching by explicitly specifying using static holographic 3D symbols to interact with the user, as taught by Dirk. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to provide a more entertaining and immersive user interaction regarding gestures, thus providing more clarity and engagement [see e.g. the description in [0062]-[0063] as well as [0027] in the translated document].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s submission of replacement drawing sheets has been noted and the previously presented Objections to the Drawings have been accordingly withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to the specifications has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to the specifications has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims in regard to the previously presented various informalities have been fully considered. The claim objections previously presented have been accordingly withdrawn.
The independent claims have been amended to address indefiniteness issues and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been respectfully withdrawn.
Applicants arguments regarding the previously presented claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) with respect to the amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection of the amended independent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applicant is referred to the new ground of rejection presented above for further details.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes the following cited art:
LEE, US 20140156112 A1, which teaches controlling a vehicle tailgate including different proximity detection zones [see e.g. fig. 3].
Ghannam et al., US 20200141171 A1, which teaches taillights including sensors for specific hand gestures [see e.g. fig. 1A and [0020]].
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 MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
