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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 11-22, 24-26, and 28-33 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-10, 23, and 27 are cancelled.
Claims 11-14, 17-22, 24-26, and 30 are amended.
Claims 31-33 are newly added.
Claims 11-22, 24-26, and 28-33 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 26 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 11-30 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph have been fully considered. The rejection for claims 11-17 and 23-30 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a door" on line 4. The applicant claims “a door” on line 1. It is unclear whether this is the same door of the vehicle or a new door.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a controller" on line 4. The applicant claims “a controller” on claim 18 lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this is the same controller of the vehicle or a new controller.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a controller" on line 2. The applicant claims “a controller” on claim 18 lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this is the same controller of the vehicle or a new controller.
Because Claim 18 is rejected under 112, all dependent claims, Claims 19-22, are therefore rejected based on their dependency to Claim 18.
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.
(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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11, 14-15, 24, 28, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Kanter et al. (US Publication 2015/0284984 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kanter teaches a method for opening a door of a motor vehicle, the method comprising: scanning for a user terminal configured to open the door of the motor vehicle (Kanter: Para. 12; identifying the authorization unit may be carried out in that a signal exchange takes place, e.g., by radio, between the authorization unit and the vehicle as soon as the authorization unit is within a predetermined perimeter around the vehicle) determining a trajectory of the user terminal when a distance between the user terminal and the motor vehicle is less than a minimum distance (Kanter: Para. 13; movement trajectory may be understood to mean a space curve along which the authorization unit is moving toward the vehicle) comparing the determined trajectory with at least one predefined trajectory of the user terminal (Kanter: Para. 12, 14; select an approach profile which is assigned to the movement trajectory from multiple approach profiles which are assigned to different doors of the vehicle in order to ascertain the relevant door; authorization unit); and opening the door of the motor vehicle when the determined trajectory matches a trajectory of the at least one predefined trajectory (Kanter: Para. 12; approach, or one or multiple characteristic features of the approach; authorization unit; evaluation may take place, for example, using stored reference approaches; open the relevant door and expose the opening to the vehicle interior).
Regarding claim 14, Kanter teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, further comprising: obtaining information about an obstacle in a surrounding area of the door (Kanter: Para. 36, 17; camera system for detecting when driver approaches vehicle; surround-view sensor; checking a swing range that the swing range is free of obstacles); and identifying at least one acceptable trajectory as the at least one predefined trajectory depending on the information obtained about the obstacle in the surrounding area (Kanter: Para. 14, 17; select an approach profile which is assigned to the movement trajectory from multiple approach profiles; checking a swing range that the swing range is free of obstacles).
Regarding claim 15, Kanter teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, further comprising: storing a plurality of determined trajectories (Kanter: Para. 14; storage of multiple movement trajectories in different approach profiles); and adjusting the at least one predefined trajectory using the plurality of determined trajectories (Kanter: Para. 14; approach profile assigned to a door of the vehicle may include, for example, multiple movement trajectories deviating from each other up to a certain degree).
Regarding claim 24, Kanter teaches a motor vehicle configured for communication with a user terminal associated with the motor vehicle, the motor vehicle comprising: one or more interfaces configured to scan for the user terminal (Kanter: Para. 12, 22; interfaces to be separate integrated circuits; identifying the authorization unit may be carried out in that a signal exchange takes place, e.g., by radio, between the authorization unit and the vehicle as soon as the authorization unit is within a predetermined perimeter around the vehicle); and a controller in communication with the one or more interfaces (Kanter: Para. 22; interfaces may be software modules which are present on a microcontroller), the controller configured to: obtain information about an obstacle in a surrounding area of a door of the motor vehicle (Kanter: Para. 36, 17; camera system for detecting when driver approaches vehicle; surround-view sensor; checking a swing range that the swing range is free of obstacles); determine at least one predefined acceptable trajectory depending on the obstacle in the surrounding area (Kanter: Para. 14, 17; select an approach profile which is assigned to the movement trajectory from multiple approach profiles; checking a swing range that the swing range is free of obstacles); determine a trajectory of the user terminal when a distance between the user terminal and the motor vehicle is less than a minimum distance (Kanter: Para. 13; movement trajectory may be understood to mean a space curve along which the authorization unit is moving toward the vehicle); compare the determined trajectory of the user terminal with the at least one predefined acceptable trajectory (Kanter: Para. 12, 14; select an approach profile which is assigned to the movement trajectory from multiple approach profiles which are assigned to different doors of the vehicle in order to ascertain the relevant door); and open the door of the motor vehicle when the determined trajectory of the user terminal matches a trajectory of the at least one predefined acceptable trajectory (Kanter: Para. 12; approach, or one or multiple characteristic features of the approach; evaluation may take place, for example, using stored reference approaches; open the relevant door and expose the opening to the vehicle interior).
Regarding claim 28, Kanter teaches the motor vehicle of claim 24, the controller further configured to: store a plurality of determined trajectories (Kanter: Para. 14; storage of multiple movement trajectories in different approach profiles); and adjust the at least one predefined trajectory using the plurality of determined trajectories (Kanter: Para. 14; approach profile assigned to a door of the vehicle may include, for example, multiple movement trajectories deviating from each other up to a certain degree).
Regarding claim 31, Kanter teaches the method of claim 14 wherein the minimum distance is dependent on a position of the obstacle in the surrounding area (Kanter: Para. 17; checking a swing range that the swing range is free of obstacles).
Regarding claim 32, Kanter teaches the method of claim 14 further comprising determining an extent to which the door of the motor vehicle is opened depending on the obstacle in the surrounding area (Kanter: Para. 18; opening of the relevant door may be stopped in the step of activating if it was established in the step of checking a swing range that a moving obstacle has entered the swing range of the relevant door).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanter et al. (US Publication 2015/0284984 A1) in view of Mionike et al. (US Publication 2020/0217123 A1) and in further view of Cruz et al. (US Publication 2021/0214991 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kanter teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the door is one of the plurality of doors of the motor vehicle, the method further comprising: determining a part of the determined trajectory of the user terminal; comparing the determined part of the determined trajectory of the user terminal with the at least one predefined trajectory (Kanter: Para. 12, 14;authorization unit; select an approach profile which is assigned to the movement trajectory from multiple approach profiles which are assigned to different doors of the vehicle in order to ascertain the relevant door).
Kanter doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the at least one predefined trajectory includes a first angle of approach to the door of the motor vehicle indicative of desire to open said one of the plurality of doors of the motor vehicle, and a second angle of approach to the door of the motor vehicle is indicative of a desire to open none of the plurality of doors of the motor vehicle.
However Mionike, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one predefined trajectory includes a first angle of approach to the door of the motor vehicle indicative of desire to open said one of the plurality of doors of the motor vehicle (Mionike: Para. 10, 31, 35; a predetermined direction from a surface of the door on at least one side of the door; direction normal to the center of the surface of the door(s)” refers to a direction of a normal line that passes through the center of an opening that appears when the door(s) opens), and a second angle of approach to the door of the motor vehicle is indicative of a desire to open none of the plurality of doors of the motor vehicle.
Mionike teaches sensing a person who is about to pass through the door. The successful open door trajectory is in the direction normal to the door. Mionike teaches direction normal as a line that passes through the center surface of the door (Mionike: Para. 10, 31, 35). Since a successful open angle is a trajectory with an angle that goes through the center of the door, a failing open angle is an angle based on the person's trajectory that doesn't pass through the center of the door.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic door opener (Kanter: Para. 12) with the normal direction of the person’s trajectory (Mionike: Para. 35) with a reasonable expectation of success because signaling to the person’s mobile data terminal before a camera can view the person allows for more time to trace the person’s direction and successfully open the door when the direction is normal to the center of the door (Mionike: Para. 11, 31, 35).
Kanter and Mionike don’t explicitly teach outputting information to a user of the user terminal that the user is on an approach trajectory that leads to opening the door of the motor vehicle.
However Cruz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches outputting information to a user of the user terminal that the user is on an approach trajectory that leads to opening the door of the motor vehicle (Cruz: Para. 40, 42; once the user is at least recognized to be within zone, an acknowledgement cue will be provided).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic door opener (Kanter: Para. 12) with the normal direction of the person’s trajectory (Mionike: Para. 35) and the acknowledgment cue (Cruz: Para. 40, 42) with a reasonable expectation of success because self-opening doors can be difficult for the operator to use so determining the operator’s intent to operate a door allows the vehicle to automatically open the correct door (Cruz: Para. 1-2).
Claims 13, 17-22, 25-26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanter et al. (US Publication 2015/0284984 A1) in view of Cruz et al. (US Publication 2021/0214991 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kanter doesn’t explicitly teach the scanning for the user terminal is carried out using a Bluetooth transmitter, wherein the scanning determines whether the distance between the user terminal and the motor vehicle is less than the minimum distance, and further comprising: activating an ultra-wideband transmitter when the scanning determines that the distance is less than the minimum distance, wherein the trajectory of the user terminal is determined by means of the ultra-wideband transmitter,
However Cruz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the scanning for the user terminal is carried out using a Bluetooth transmitter, wherein the scanning determines whether the distance between the user terminal and the motor vehicle is less than the minimum distance (Cruz: Para. 33, 36; remote transmitters that are integrated together with a vehicle key as a single component; keyfob may automatically be paired/linked with telematics unit; Bluetooth), and further comprising: activating an ultra-wideband transmitter when the scanning determines that the distance is less than the minimum distance, wherein the trajectory of the user terminal is determined by means of the ultra-wideband transmitter (Cruz: Para. 33, 36; remote transmitters that are integrated together with a vehicle key as a single component; keyfob may automatically be paired/linked with telematics unit; Ultra-Wideband (UWB)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic door opener (Kanter: Para. 12) with the acknowledgment cue (Cruz: Para. 40, 42) with a reasonable expectation of success because self-opening doors can be difficult for the operator to use so determining the operator’s intent to operate a door allows the vehicle to automatically open the correct door (Cruz: Para. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Kanter doesn’t explicitly teach closing the door of the motor vehicle when, after opening the door of the motor vehicle, a maximum distance between the user terminal and the motor vehicle is exceeded the determined trajectory of the user terminal corresponds to another predefined trajectory other than the at least one predefined trajectory.
However Cruz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches closing the door of the motor vehicle when, after opening the door of the motor vehicle, a maximum distance between the user terminal and the motor vehicle is exceeded the determined trajectory of the user terminal corresponds to another predefined trajectory other than the at least one predefined trajectory (Cruz: Para. 6; after the user returns to the zone, receiving a signal to close the vehicle door; for a second time, recognizing the user no longer remains within the zone; and causing the vehicle door to close after recognizing the user no longer remains within the zone for the second time).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic door opener (Kanter: Para. 12) with the acknowledgment cue (Cruz: Para. 40, 42) with a reasonable expectation of success because self-opening doors can be difficult for the operator to use so determining the operator’s intent to operate a door allows the vehicle to automatically open the correct door (Cruz: Para. 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, Kanter teaches a non-transient computer-readable medium for opening a door of a motor vehicle, wherein the computer-readable medium comprises instructions which, when executed on a controller, causes the controller to: scan for a user terminal configured to open a door of the motor vehicle (Kanter: Para. 12; identifying the authorization unit may be carried out in that a signal exchange takes place, e.g., by radio, between the authorization unit and the vehicle as soon as the authorization unit is within a predetermined perimeter around the vehicle); determine a trajectory of the user terminal when a distance between the user terminal and the motor vehicle is less than a minimum distance (Kanter: Para. 13; movement trajectory may be understood to mean a space curve along which the authorization unit is moving toward the vehicle); compare the determined trajectory of the user terminal with at least one predefined trajectory (Kanter: Para. 12, 14; select an approach profile which is assigned to the movement trajectory from multiple approach profiles which are assigned to different doors of the vehicle in order to ascertain the relevant door); open the door of the motor vehicle when the determined trajectory matches a trajectory of the at least one predefined trajectory (Kanter: Para. 12; approach, or one or multiple characteristic features of the approach. Such an evaluation may take place, for example, using stored reference approaches; open the relevant door and expose the opening to the vehicle interior); determine a further trajectory of the user terminal (Kanter: Para. 12, 14; evaluating the approach, the progression of the approach, or one or multiple characteristic features of the approach).
Kanter doesn’t explicitly teach close the door of the motor vehicle when, after opening the door of the motor vehicle, the determined further trajectory of the user terminal corresponds to another predefined trajectory other than the at least one predefined trajectory.
However Cruz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches close the door of the motor vehicle when, after opening the door of the motor vehicle, the determined further trajectory of the user terminal corresponds to another predefined trajectory other than the at least one predefined trajectory determining an intent of the user based on the movement of the user within the zone; and based on the intent of the user, causing the vehicle door to open; causing the vehicle door to close after recognizing the user no longer remains within the zone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic door opener (Kanter: Para. 12) with the acknowledgment cue (Cruz: Para. 40, 42) with a reasonable expectation of success because self-opening doors can be difficult for the operator to use so determining the operator’s intent to operate a door allows the vehicle to automatically open the correct door (Cruz: Para. 1-2).
Regarding claim 19, Kanter teaches the non-transient computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 18, wherein the computer-readable medium further comprises instructions which, when executed on a controller, causes the controller to: determine a part of the determined trajectory of the user terminal; compare the determined part of the determined trajectory of the user terminal with the at least one predefined trajectory (Kanter: Para. 14; select an approach profile which is assigned to the movement trajectory from multiple approach profiles which are assigned to different doors of the vehicle in order to ascertain the relevant door).
Kanter doesn’t explicitly teach output information to a user of the user terminal that the user is on an approach trajectory that leads to opening the door of the motor vehicle.
However Cruz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches output information to a user of the user terminal that the user is on an approach trajectory that leads to opening the door of the motor vehicle (Cruz: Para. 40, 42; once the user is at least recognized to be within zone, an acknowledgement cue will be provided).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic door opener (Kanter: Para. 12) with the acknowledgment cue (Cruz: Para. 40, 42) with a reasonable expectation of success because self-opening doors can be difficult for the operator to use so determining the operator’s intent to operate a door allows the vehicle to automatically open the correct door (Cruz: Para. 1-2).
Regarding claim 20, Kanter doesn’t explicitly teach activate an ultra-wideband transmitter when the distance is less than the minimum distance, wherein the trajectory is determined by means of the ultra-wideband transmitter and includes an angle of approach to the door of the motor vehicle.
However Cruz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches activate an ultra-wideband transmitter when the distance is less than the minimum distance, wherein the trajectory is determined by means of the ultra-wideband transmitter and includes an angle of approach to the door of the motor vehicle (Cruz: Para. 33, 36; remote transmitters that are integrated together with a vehicle key as a single component; keyfob may automatically be paired/linked with telematics unit; Ultra-Wideband (UWB)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic door opener (Kanter: Para. 12) with the acknowledgment cue (Cruz: Para. 40, 42) with a reasonable expectation of success because self-opening doors can be difficult for the operator to use so determining the operator’s intent to operate a door allows the vehicle to automatically open the correct door (Cruz: Para. 1-2).
Regarding claim 21, Kanter teaches the non-transient computer readable medium as claimed in claim 18, wherein the computer-readable medium further comprises instructions which, when executed on a controller, causes the controller to: obtain information about a surrounding area of the door (Kanter: Para. 36, 17; camera system for detecting when driver approaches vehicle; surround-view sensor; checking a swing range that the swing range is free of obstacles); and identifying at least one acceptable trajectory as the at least one predefined trajectory depending on the information obtained about the surrounding area (Kanter: Para. 14, 17; select an approach profile which is assigned to the movement trajectory from multiple approach profiles; checking a swing range that the swing range is free of obstacles).
Regarding claim 22, Kanter teaches the non-transient computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 18, wherein the computer-readable medium further comprises instructions which, when executed on the controller, causes the controller to: store a plurality of determined trajectories (Kanter: Para. 14; storage of multiple movement trajectories in different approach profiles); and adjust the at least one predefined trajectory using the plurality of determined trajectories (Kanter: Para. 14; approach profile assigned to a door of the vehicle may include, for example, multiple movement trajectories deviating from each other up to a certain degree).
Regarding claim 25, Kanter teaches the motor vehicle of claim 24, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a part of the determined trajectory of the user terminal; compare the determined part of the trajectory of the user terminal with the at least one predefined acceptable trajectory (Kanter: Para. 14; select an approach profile which is assigned to the movement trajectory from multiple approach profiles which are assigned to different doors of the vehicle in order to ascertain the relevant door).
Kanter doesn’t explicitly teach output information to a user of the user terminal that the user is on an approach trajectory that leads to opening the door of the motor vehicle.
However Cruz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches output information to a user of the user terminal that the user is on an approach trajectory that leads to opening the door of the motor vehicle (Cruz: Para. 40, 42; once the user is at least recognized to be within zone, an acknowledgement cue will be provided).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic door opener (Kanter: Para. 12) with the acknowledgment cue (Cruz: Para. 40, 42) with a reasonable expectation of success because self-opening doors can be difficult for the operator to use so determining the operator’s intent to operate a door allows the vehicle to automatically open the correct door (Cruz: Para. 1-2).
Regarding claim 26, Kanter doesn’t explicitly teach the scanning for the user terminal is carried out using a Bluetooth transmitter, the controller further configured to: activate an ultra-wideband transmitter when the distance is less than the minimum distance, wherein the trajectory of the user terminal is determined by means of the ultra-wideband transmitter.
However Cruz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the scanning for the user terminal is carried out using a Bluetooth transmitter (Cruz: Para. 33, 36; remote transmitters that are integrated together with a vehicle key as a single component; keyfob may automatically be paired/linked with telematics unit; Bluetooth), the controller further configured to: activate an ultra-wideband transmitter when the distance is less than the minimum distance, wherein the trajectory of the user terminal is determined by means of the ultra-wideband transmitter (Cruz: Para. 33, 36; remote transmitters that are integrated together with a vehicle key as a single component; keyfob may automatically be paired/linked with telematics unit; Ultra-Wideband (UWB)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic door opener (Kanter: Para. 12) with the acknowledgment cue (Cruz: Para. 40, 42) with a reasonable expectation of success because self-opening doors can be difficult for the operator to use so determining the operator’s intent to operate a door allows the vehicle to automatically open the correct door (Cruz: Para. 1-2).
Regarding claim 30, Kanter doesn’t explicitly teach close the door of the motor vehicle when, after opening the door of the motor vehicle, a maximum distance between the user terminal and the motor vehicle is exceeded or the determined trajectory of the user terminal corresponds to another predefined trajectory other than the at least one predefined acceptable trajectory.
However Cruz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches close the door of the motor vehicle when, after opening the door of the motor vehicle, a maximum distance between the user terminal and the motor vehicle is exceeded or the determined trajectory of the user terminal corresponds to another predefined trajectory other than the at least one predefined acceptable trajectory (Cruz: Para. 6; after the user returns to the zone, receiving a signal to close the vehicle door; for a second time, recognizing the user no longer remains within the zone; and causing the vehicle door to close after recognizing the user no longer remains within the zone for the second time).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic door opener (Kanter: Para. 12) with the acknowledgment cue (Cruz: Para. 40, 42) with a reasonable expectation of success because self-opening doors can be difficult for the operator to use so determining the operator’s intent to operate a door allows the vehicle to automatically open the correct door (Cruz: Para. 1-2).
Claims 16, 29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanter et al. (US Publication 2015/0284984 A1) in view of Rodrigues et al. (US Publication 2021/0214991 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kanter doesn’t explicitly teach wherein adjusting the at least one predefined trajectory is carried out by an artificial intelligence.
However Rodrigues, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein adjusting the at least one predefined trajectory is carried out by an artificial intelligence (Rodrigues: Para. 77, 99; artificial or computational intelligence algorithms; based on the door closing path and the location of the person).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic door opener (Kanter: Para. 12)with the artificial intelligence (Rodrigues: Para. 77, 99) with a reasonable expectation of success because object identification using artificial intelligence can better detect and predict the relationship between the person and the vehicle’s door (Rodrigues: Para. 77, 99).
Regarding claim 29, Kanter doesn’t explicitly teach wherein adjusting the at least one predefined trajectory is carried out by an artificial intelligence.
However Rodrigues, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein adjusting the at least one predefined trajectory is carried out by an artificial intelligence (Rodrigues: Para. 77, 99; artificial or computational intelligence algorithms; based on the door closing path and the location of the person).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic door opener (Kanter: Para. 12)with the artificial intelligence (Rodrigues: Para. 77, 99) with a reasonable expectation of success because object identification using artificial intelligence can better detect and predict the relationship between the person and the vehicle’s door (Rodrigues: Para. 77, 99).
Regarding claim 33, Kanter doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the obstacle is one or more of a garage, a tree and a puddle.
However Rodrigues, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the obstacle is one or more of a garage, a tree and a puddle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic door opener (Kanter: Para. 12)with the artificial intelligence (Rodrigues: Para. 77, 99) with a reasonable expectation of success because object identification using artificial intelligence can better detect and predict the relationship between the person and the vehicle’s door (Rodrigues: Para. 77, 99).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 11, 14-15, 18, 21-22, 24, and 27-28 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claims 12-13, 16-17, 19-20, 23, 25-26, and 29-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s attorney argues that claim 11’s “determining a trajectory of the user terminal when a distance between the user terminal and the motor vehicle is less than a minimum distance” is not taught by Kanter.
In response to the argument above, Kanter teaches an authorization unit (Kanter: Para. 21) which is shown as 126 being held by the 124 person. Kanter monitors the directional arrow and on which authorization unit, together with person, is moving toward the vehicle Kanter teaches a predetermined perimeter around the vehicle (Kanter: Para. 12, 30, Fig. 1). The BRI of a minimum distance is taught by the predetermined perimeter around the vehicle. Kanter teaches a directional progression, a speed progression or an end point of approach of the authorization unit to a relevant vehicle door (Kanter: Para. 12, 14). Determining a progression of approach is determining a trajectory. The authorization unit is an example of a user terminal as it is an electronic device that is scanned for by the motor vehicle.
The applicant next argues that claim 18’s “determine a further trajectory of the user terminal; and close the door of the motor vehicle …. after opening the door of the motor vehicle” is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the argument above, Cruz teaches recognizing the movement of the user within the zone, determining an intent based on the movement within the zone, and opening the door (Cruz: Para. 3). Cruz teaches recognizing that the user no long remains within the zone and causing the vehicle’s door to close after recognizing the user no longer remains within the zone (Cruz: Para. 4).
The applicant next argues that claim 18’s “determine a further trajectory of the user terminal; and close the door of the motor vehicle when, after opening the door of the motor vehicle, the determined further trajectory of the user terminal corresponds to another predefined trajectory other than the at least one predefined trajectory” is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the argument above, Cruz teaches recognizing the movement of the user within the zone, determining an intent based on the movement within the zone, and opening the door (Cruz: Para. 3). Cruz teaches recognizing that the user no long remains within the zone and causing the vehicle’s door to close after recognizing the user no longer remains within the zone (Cruz: Para. 4). Cruz’s user intent that opens the vehicle’s door is a successful trajectory. When the user leaves the zone after the movement into the zone with an intent that causes the door to open, the leaving trajectory would not be a successful trajectory. When the user leaves the zone, the vehicle’s door is closed. Figure 1 of Cruz teaches a key and a cellphone which is a passive physical or virtual vehicle key (Cruz: Para. 21). Cruz teaches a user will approach vehicle and PEPS module will identify them via a connection that is created with their keyfob or mobile computing device (Cruz: Para. 39). Cruz teaches a user terminal being carried by the user during the recognizing and monitoring processes.
The applicant next argues that claim 24’s “a controller … configured to: obtain information about an obstacle in a surrounding area of the door; and determine at least one predefined acceptable trajectory depending on the obstacle in the surrounding area” is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the argument above, Kanter teaches a camera to determine the items around the vehicle. Kanter uses the sensor to check the swing range of the relevant door is free of obstacles. This prevents damage to the door by not opening the door into an obstacle (Kanter: Para. 17, 36). Kanter teaches multiple approach profiles that are known and assigned to different doors of the vehicle in order to ascertain the relevant door (Kanter: Para. 14). Kanter selects an approach profile that matches one of the multiple known approach profiles to determine when door to check the swing angle for obstacles (Kanter: Para. 14, 17).
The applicant next argues that dependent claims 12, 14-17, 19-22, 25-26, and 28-30 should be allowable at least based on their dependencies.
In response to the argument above, independent claims 11, 18, and 24 are rejected. Therefore all dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
The applicant’s arguments have failed to point out the distinguishing characteristics of the amended claim language over the prior art. For the above reasons, Kanter’s automatic door opener reads on applicant’s method and system for opening a door of a motor vehicle. The rejection is maintained.
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 LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571)272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights