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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of JP2023-143198 filed on 4 September 2023 was received on 9 July 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 June 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0159347 (hereinafter, Mayr) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0265261 (Urase et al., hereinafter, Urase).
Regarding Claim 1, Mayr discloses A control device that is installed in a vehicle equipped with a tailgate that is remotely controllable (see at least [0006]-[0010], and FIG. 1: electronic control unit 2 is shown installed on motor vehicle 1, “An opening command may be input, for example, by remote control via a transponder (smart key) or by way of a button in the passenger compartment, for example in the vicinity of the driver's seat.”; “The electronic control unit 2 may be integrated into a control device which is already provided in any case for the energization of the locks, or may be a separate central control device.”), the control device comprising a control unit for executing opening control of the tailgate (see at least [0006]-[0010], [0018], and FIG. 1: “The control unit is preferably configurable, by way of a user interface connected thereto, with regard to whether an at least complete opening is prevented in the presence of an opening command, or with regard to which particular opening command prevents an at least complete opening.”; “The electronic control unit 2 may be integrated into a control device which is already provided in any case for the energization of the locks, or may be a separate central control device.”), when a predetermined condition is satisfied when an opening control command of the tailgate is received from an external device, wherein the predetermined condition includes…an inclination angle in a front-rear direction with respect to a horizontal plane of the vehicle is no greater than a predetermined angle (see at least [0006], [0011]-[0012], and [0021]: “according to the invention, in the case of a tailgate arrangement as per FIG. 1, following an opening command from an operating person, at least in the presence of a longitudinal inclination φ exceeding a predefined threshold (which in the extreme case may also be zero), an automatic opening at least of the lower tailgate 4 is prevented”; opening is prevented when longitudinal inclination φ is greater than a certain angle, therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that opening occurs when longitudinal inclination φ is no greater than a predetermined angle).
Mayr does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined condition includes that driving of a motive power source of the vehicle is stopped.
Urase, in the same field of vehicle controls, and therefore analogous art teaches wherein the predetermined condition includes that driving of a motive power source of the vehicle is stopped (see at least [0023], [0050], [0054], [0058]-[0062], [0075]-[0083], FIG. 4, and TABLE 1: “the opening-closing member provided to the vehicle 100 is not limited to the slide door 101 but may be an electric swing door 400 or backdoor 500”; “The ignition switch 301 outputs a signal indicating ON or OFF of the ignition to the ECU 200, and the ECU 200 can utilize the signal in order to determine the traveling state of the vehicle 100.”; “At step S401, the ECU 200 is input with a signal indicating a traveling state of the vehicle from at least one of the sensors 301 to 310 of the set of sensors 300.”; “If the vehicle state determination unit 204 determines that the vehicle 100 is in a state of traveling (S402) and if the open/close state determination unit 206 determines that the slide door 101 is in an opening/opened state (S404), the control unit 203 of the ECU 200 generates a control signal for causing a short brake of the motor 102c and outputs it to the opening/closing driving device 102 at step S405.”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of Mayr and Urase because “even when a vehicle opening-closing member is unintendedly opened during the vehicle traveling, the control device and the control method can stop the opening motion of the vehicle opening-closing member and realizes a fail-safe against an unintended opening motion of the vehicle opening-closing member during the vehicle traveling” (see at least Urase [0006]).
Regarding Claim 4, the Mayr and Urase combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Urase teaches wherein the predetermined condition further includes that a parking brake is applied in the vehicle (see at least [0023], [0052], [0054], [0058]-[0062], [0075]-[0083], FIG. 4, and TABLE 1: “the opening-closing member provided to the vehicle 100 is not limited to the slide door 101 but may be an electric swing door 400 or backdoor 500”; “the parking brake sensor 310 outputs a signal indicating ON/OFF of a parking brake to the ECU 200, and the ECU 200 can utilize the signal in order to determine a traveling state of the vehicle 100”; “At step S401, the ECU 200 is input with a signal indicating a traveling state of the vehicle from at least one of the sensors 301 to 310 of the set of sensors 300.”; “If the vehicle state determination unit 204 determines that the vehicle 100 is in a state of traveling (S402) and if the open/close state determination unit 206 determines that the slide door 101 is in an opening/opened state (S404), the control unit 203 of the ECU 200 generates a control signal for causing a short brake of the motor 102c and outputs it to the opening/closing driving device 102 at step S405.”).
Note: the motivation to combine is the same as Claim 1
Regarding Claim 5, the Mayr and Urase combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Mayr further discloses A vehicle, comprising the control device according to claim 1 (see at least [0018] and FIG. 1: motor vehicle 1 includes electronic control unit 2).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayr in view of Urase in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0114583 (Banvait et al., hereinafter, Banvait).
Regarding Claim 2, the Mayr and Urase combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. The Mayr and Urase combination does not teach wherein the predetermined condition further includes that no load is being applied to the tailgate from inside of the vehicle.
Banvait, in the same field of vehicle controls, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the predetermined condition further includes that no load is being applied to the tailgate from inside of the vehicle (see at least [0014]-[0015], [0017], [0019], [0034]-[0045], and FIG. 6: “cover opening and closing mechanism 160 may be capable of detecting the amount of force required to open cover 110, and controller 150 may determine whether the detected amount of force is different from a predetermined amount of force used to open cover 110 under normal operating conditions. Accordingly, in an event that the detected amount of force required to open cover 110 is less than the predetermined amount of force, then it may imply that some object (e.g., object 130) is pushing or leaning against cover 110 and thus may fall off as cover 110 is opened even more. Consequently, controller 150 may send a “pause opening” signal to cover opening and closing mechanism 160 to pause the opening of cover 110.”; opening is paused when there is a load, therefore, opening proceeds when there is no load).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Banvait with the Mayr and Urase combination because without this type of detection an object may fall out of the vehicle and “the falling object may hurt someone's leg or foot and the object may be damaged, resulting in monetary loss” (see at least Banvait [0002]).
Regarding Claim 3, the Mayr, Urase , and Banvait combination teaches the limitations of Claim 2. Additionally, Banvait teaches wherein
the vehicle is equipped with a sensor for detecting a load applied to a motor for opening and closing driving of the tailgate (see at least [0014]-[0015], [0017], [0019], [0034]-[0045], and FIG. 6: “In some embodiments, in detecting the presence of object 130, process 600 may involve controller 150 measuring an amount of force used by mechanism 160 to open cover 110”), and
no load being is applied to the tailgate from inside of the vehicle is that a load applied to the motor in an opening direction of the tailgate, detected by the sensor, is no greater than a predetermined load (see at least [0014]-[0015], [0017], [0019], [0034]-[0045], and FIG. 6: “process 600 may involve controller 150 determining whether the measured amount of force is different from a predetermined amount of force”; “process 600 may also involve controller 150 detecting the presence of object 130 in an event that the measured amount of force is less than the predetermined amount of force. For instance, if the measured amount of force is less than the predetermined amount of force, controller 150 may determine that object 130 is leaning on or against cover 110 and thereby exerting at least a part of the weight of object 130 on cover 110, thus making it relatively easier to open cover 110 (i.e., requiring mechanism 160 to exert less force to open cover 110)”).
Note: the motivation to combine is the same as Claim 2.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0323281 which teaches determining responses to a liftgate opening command to prevent an object from falling out of a vehicle.
U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0114505 which teaches a system to detect and avoid spilled cargo in an automobile vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658