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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 27 May 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The new limitations are disclosed by at least Myers (as explained in the rejection below) and/or Chen (P34, etc).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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 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.
4. Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemper et al. (German Patent Application Publication # DE 10 2019 211 776) in view of Myers et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0234053).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kemper discloses a method for operating a motorized flap arrangement of a motor vehicle (electromotive adjustment device 18 of a motor vehicle 6, claims 1, 8, Figs. 1-2, paragraph [0047]),
wherein a control arrangement (10) for activating a motorized drive arrangement (16) assigned to the flap arrangement (18, 20) and a distance sensor (26, 30) coupled to the control arrangement are provided (paragraphs [0047]-[0049], [0051]), wherein sensor values relating to actions of people (36) outside the motor vehicle are detected by the distance sensor (paragraphs [0051]-[0054], [0005], [0026]),
wherein the detected sensor values are checked by the control arrangement for the fulfillment of predetermined operator action criteria (paragraphs [0051]-[0055], [0005]), wherein actions detected via the sensor values are rejected or qualified as a valid operator action, depending on the result of the check (paragraphs [0058], [0051]-[0055], [0005]), and
wherein, upon detection of a valid operator action, the drive arrangement is activated by the control arrangement for the motorized adjustment of the flap arrangement (paragraphs [0058], [0051]-[0055], [0005]), wherein,
as one of the operator action criteria, an approach criterion is predetermined, which relates to the observance of a predetermined approach movement of the detected person into a predetermined detection region (distance 38) (third step 42, paragraphs [0051]-[0052], [0005], [0037]-[0038]),
wherein, as one of the operator action criteria, a gesture criterion is predetermined, which relates to the observance of a predetermined relative movement of a body part (46) of the detected person relative to the rest of the person in a predetermined triggering region (38) (paragraphs [0053]-[0067]), and
wherein the fulfillment of the approach criterion and gesture criterion is defined as a necessary prerequisite for at least one of the valid operator actions (paragraphs [0051]-[0058]),
wherein a time-dependent association of detected sensor values to the person is carried out by means of the control arrangement in an operator tracking routine (paragraphs [0051]-[0052], [0005], [0037]-[0038]).
Kemper does not explicitly disclose that the vehicle door is a flap, and a vehicle door would not normally be understood as a “flap” under common definitions for “flap”.
However, in the Applicant’s original disclosure the vehicle door is also a flap.
Kemper does not explicitly disclose that a person trajectory is determined from the time dependency of the sensor values associated with the person, and wherein the approach criterion relates to the observance of a trajectory specification by the person trajectory, wherein the person trajectory represents a path curve with which the operator moves according to the sensor values relative to the motor vehicles and indicates, at least at discrete times, the position of the person depending on the time.
In the same field of endeavor, Myers discloses that a time-dependent association of detected sensor values to the person is carried out by means of the control arrangement in an operator tracking routine, wherein a person trajectory is determined from the time dependency of the sensor values associated with the person, and wherein the approach criterion relates to the observance of a trajectory specification by the person trajectory, wherein the person trajectory represents a path curve with which the operator moves according to the sensor values relative to the motor vehicles and indicates, at least at discrete times, the position of the person depending on the time (Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [0020], [0040]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kemper to do so, as taught by Myers, in order to facilitate opening the specific door/flap that the person is approaching (Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [0020], [0040]), with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Kemper further discloses that in the checking of the gesture criterion from the sensor values, a person reference position of the detected person and a deflection of the body part of the detected person relative to the person reference position are determined (paragraph [0024], [0053]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 3, Kemper fails to disclose that a plurality of targets detected in the sensor values are assigned to the person and are combined according to a cluster model to form a cluster target for the determination of the person reference position.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for combining targets according to a cluster model to form a cluster target. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact. See for example Myers (paragraph [0021]) and/or Cao (abstract, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kemper to do so, as well known in the art, in order to classify targets in accordance to the person they belong to and/or distinguish between targets belonging to different people or objects, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Kemper further discloses that in the checking of the gesture criterion, targets approaching in the triggering region are classified as body part targets in the sensor values on the basis of the extent and/or the approach movement (figure 3, paragraphs [0024], [0053]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 5, Kemper further discloses that at least one flap reference position of the flap arrangement is predetermined, wherein, according to the gesture criterion, the predetermined relative movement of the body part substantially runs in the direction of the flap reference position, ends in the region of the flap reference position or brushes over the flap reference position (figures 2-3 and 8, paragraphs [0024], [0053]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 6, Kemper further discloses that as an operator action criterion, a person recognition criterion is predetermined, which relates to a classification of an object detected via the sensor data as a person, and wherein the fulfillment of the person recognition criterion is defined as a further necessary prerequisite for the at least one of the valid operator actions ([0033], [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Kemper further discloses that in the checking of the person recognition criterion, the detected object is classified as a person with reference to the extent and/or the approach movement of the object ([0033], [0051]).
Regarding claim 9, Kemper further discloses that the approach criterion relates to a minimum residence time of the object in the detection region, and/or wherein the gesture criterion relates to a minimum residence time of the body part in the triggering region ([0057], [0063]).
Regarding claim 10, Kemper further discloses that the motorized adjustment is carried out upon detection of the valid operator action in such a way that, with continued relative movement of the body part of the operator in the direction of the flap reference position, when the body part reaches the flap reference position, the motorized adjustment has already been triggered, has already progressed or has already been completed (figure 8, [0038], [0059], [0065]).
Regarding claim 12, Kemper further discloses a flap arrangement for a motor vehicle, designed for carrying out the method as claimed in claim 1 (18, 20).
Regarding claim 13, Kemper further discloses that the gesture criterion relates to the observance of a predetermined movement pattern by the deflection (paragraph [0024], [0053]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 14, Kemper further discloses that the gesture criterion relates to the observance of a predetermined movement path, a predetermined movement velocity, a predetermined movement velocity course, a predetermined movement acceleration and/or a predetermined movement acceleration course (paragraph [0024], [0053]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 15, Kemper further discloses that the deflection of the body part relative to Preliminary Amendment Page 8 the person reference position is determined on the basis of a body part reference position of at least one body part target which is assigned to the person and is approaching in the triggering region (paragraph [0024], [0051]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 17, Kemper further discloses that the flap reference position is provided on a door handle, a B-pillar or an engagement door edge of the flap arrangement (figures 2-3 and 8, paragraphs [0024], [0053]-[0067]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights