DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4A. Claims 11-15 and 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 11-15 are directed to a method , and claims 1-10 are directed a system, which are of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 11 and 1 recite: receiving with a computer processor sensed information from one or more sensors or one or more cameras of an automobile; generating a space map of an area around the automobile within which one or more doors or a tailgate of the automobile can move without colliding with an object; determining whether the one or more doors or tailgate can open or close without colliding with an object; and controlling an actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate of the automobile to a) move within the space map or b) not move if it is not possible to do so without colliding with an object.
The limitations from claim 11 and 1 : receiving with a computer processor sensed information from one or more sensors or one or more cameras of an automobile; (a person standing outside a garage of a vehicle and looking around the vehicle and seeing any object/obstacle near the vehicle); generating a space map of an area around the automobile within which one or more doors or a tailgate of the automobile can move without colliding with an object;( the person is figuring out in his mind (calculating in his mind) how much space needed to open any door or tailgate safely without colliding with the obstacle); determining whether the one or more doors or tailgate can open or close without colliding with an object; and ( the person is calculating in his mind is there enough space to open any door or tailgate without colliding with obstacle); and controlling an actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate of the automobile to a) move within the space map or b) not move if it is not possible to do so without colliding with an object. ( the person is telling /directing the vehicle driver to move straight backward to get out from the garage or asking him (the driver) not to move backward if it warrants collision with the object), which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process, more specifically, a concept performed in the human mind of receiving information ….. of an automobile; generating a space map of an area around the automobile ; determining ….. doors or tailgate can opening …… controlling an actuation of ….. doors or tailgate.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation a certain method of a concept performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claims recite sensors, camera, automobile etc. which are electro-mechanical machines, and computer processors which are recited only with a very high level of generality and nothing in the claims preclude the steps from being practically performed in the human mind.
Thus claims 11 and 1 recite a mental process (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). In particular, the claims only recite the steps of: receiving information ….. of an automobile; generating a space map of an area around the automobile ; determining ….. doors or tailgate can opening …… controlling an actuation of ….. doors or tailgate.
The claims 11 and 1 recite processor which is recited only very high level of generality and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 11 and 1 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims 11 and 1 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the processor to perform the steps of claims 11 and 1 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, it cannot provide an inventive concept.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. At least the data gathering/ generating by the sensor/computer recited in the claim are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (WURC).
The MPEP provides support that the additional limitations in the claim are directed to well-understood routine and conventional steps:
MPEP 2106.05(d) II recites:
II. ELEMENTS THAT THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED AS WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL ACTIVITY IN PARTICULAR FIELDS
Because examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well-understood, routine activities, the following section provides examples of elements that have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields. It should be noted, however, that many of these examples failed to satisfy other Step 2B considerations (e.g., because they were recited at a high level of generality and thus were mere instructions to apply an exception, or were insignificant extra-solution activity). Thus, examiners should carefully analyze additional elements in a claim with respect to all relevant Step 2B considerations, including this consideration, before making a conclusion as to whether they amount to an inventive concept.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681,1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 11 and 1 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more).
None of the dependent claims when taken separately or in combination with each dependent claim with parent claim overcomes the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible. Therefore, Claims 12-15 and 2-10 are also non-statutory.
4B. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 16 is directed to "a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions…..”
A machine readable medium or Computer readable media (CRM), under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), will cover an ineligible signal per se, unless defined otherwise in the application as filed. As the Specification is silent, the BRI of a CRM and computer readable storage media (CRSM) in view of the state of the art covers as signal per se. Thus in this case, a claim to a CRM or CRSM is ineligible unless amended to avoid the signal embodiment.
However, signal is not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and OFFICIAL GAZETTE of the UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, volume 1351, February 23, 2010, OG 212 (subject matter eligibility of computer readable media).
In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claims 17-20 inherit the deficiencies of the base claim 16 respectively and therefore are non-statutory by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3-5, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (USP 2017/0268280) in view of Katahara et al. (JP-2022-086805).
As Per Claim 1, Kim teaches, a system (a vehicle door control apparatus 200 (a around view monitoring apparatus ((AVM), 200, [0057], Figs. 1-2)) for operating opening or closing doors or a tailgate of an automobile (Abstract), comprising: one or more sensors of the automobile; ([0006]-0007]), [0062], [0010])); one or more cameras of the automobile; ([0010],[0083], [0089], [0093]); and a computer processor in communication with the one or more sensors and the one or more cameras, the computer processor( via processors 0170, 0270, Figs. 2 ,3) configured to: receive sensed information from the one or more sensors or the one or more cameras, based on the sensed information,(via AVM, BSD and rear cameras, [0090-0094]), determine whether the one or more doors or tailgate can open or close without colliding with an object, ([0011-0013],[00238-0247]), and control an actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate of the automobile to a) move within the space map or b) not move if it is not possible to do so without colliding with an object. (Fig.5, 7 and 11 ) also see ([00248-0257]), Figs. 6A-8B).
However, Kim does not disclose generate a space map of an area around the automobile within which one or more doors or a tailgate of the automobile can move without colliding with an object.
Examiner interprets, “a space map of an area around the automobile” as ‘moving range (moving space) of the door around the vehicle’.
In a related field of art, Katahara et al. ( Katahara) teaches, an obstacle detection device 10, being equipped with an ultrasonic sensor signal processing part 22, camera image processing part 21 and a controller 13, wherein, generate a space map of an area around the automobile within which one or more doors or a tailgate of the automobile can move without colliding with an object, (via camera image processing part 21 capturing an image of an area including a moving range of the vehicle door during opening and the detection range of the ultrasonic sensor, detecting the distance to the obstacle and the shape of the obstacle; (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kim and Katahara before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kim, to include the teachings (processing part 22, 21 and controller) of Katahara and configure with the system of Kim in order to capture (generate) a moving range of the vehicle door for opening/closing, and detecting the distance to the obstacle, to facilitate vehicle door or tailgate movement without colliding with the obstacle. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to facilitate door opening /closing without colliding with an object (i.e., an added safety feature to prevent damage of vehicle body and the surroundings).
As per Claim 3, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Kim in view of Katahara teaches, wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more ultrasonic sensors. (Kim : sensing unit 125 comprises an ultrasonic sensor ,[0010], [0085]).
As per Claim 4, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Kim in view of Katahara teaches, wherein the object is a person, a ceiling, a garage door, a wall, or another automobile. (Kim : via object 1000 is a person , [0226], Fig.8A).
As per Claim 5, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Kim in view of Katahara does not explicitly teach, wherein said actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate comprises a powered actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate.
However, Kim teaches, the processor is operating the tailgate ( “if the object 1000 is located in the opening trajectory 810 of the tailgate 20, the processor 270 may stop opening of the tailgate 20” [0229-00231, Fig.8A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to recognize that since the processor is controlling the opening of tailgate , therefore, it is power actuated. Therefore, Kim has such teachings.
As per Claim 10, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Kim in view of Katahara teaches, the system further comprising a user interface in communication with the computer processor, the computer processor configured to generate a visual representation of the space map, and the user interface configured to display the visual representation of the space map. (Kim : [0011], [0026], [0092], Fig. 15).
As Per Claim 11 , Kim teaches, a method (a vehicle door control apparatus 200 (a around view monitoring apparatus ((AVM), 200, [0057], Figs. 1-2)) for operating opening or closing doors or tailgate of an automobile (Abstract) comprising:
receiving with a computer processor sensed information from one or more sensors
or one or more cameras of an automobile; ([0006]-0007]), [0062], [0010])) ([0010],[0083], [0089], [0093]); ,( via AVM, BSD and rear cameras, [0090-0094]);
determining whether the one or more doors or tailgate can open or close without colliding with an object; ([0011-0013],[00238-0247]), and controlling an actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate of the automobile to a) move within the space map or b) not move if it is not possible to do so without colliding with an object. (Fig.5, 7 and 11 ) also see ( [00248-0257]), Figs. 6A-8B).
However, Kim does not disclose generating a space map of an area around the automobile within which one or more doors or a tailgate of the automobile can move without colliding with an object.
Examiner interprets, “a space map of an area around the automobile” as ‘moving range (moving space) of the door around the vehicle’.
In a related field of art, Katahara et al. (Katahara) teaches, an obstacle detection device 10, being equipped with an ultrasonic sensor signal processing part 22, camera image processing part 21 and a controller 13, wherein, generating a space map of an area around the automobile within which one or more doors or a tailgate of the automobile can move without colliding with an object; ( via camera image processing part 21 capturing an image of an area including a moving range of the vehicle door during opening and the detection range of the ultrasonic sensor, detecting the distance to the obstacle and the shape of the obstacle; (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kim and Katahara before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kim, to include the teachings (processing part 22, 21 and controller) of Katahara and configure with the system of Kim in order to capture (generate) a moving range of the vehicle door for opening/closing, and detecting the distance to the obstacle, to facilitate vehicle door or tailgate movement without colliding with the obstacle. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to facilitate door opening /closing without colliding with an object (i.e., an added safety feature to prevent damage of vehicle body and the surroundings).
As per Claim 12, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Kim in view of Katahara teaches, wherein receiving with a computer processor sensed information from one or more sensors comprises receiving sensed information from one or more ultrasonic sensors (Kim : sensing unit 125 comprises an ultrasonic sensor ,[0010], [0085]).
As per Claim 14, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Kim in view of Katahara teaches, wherein the object is a person, a ceiling, a garage door, a wall or another automobile (Kim : via object 1000 is a person, [0226], Fig.8A).
As per Claim 15, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Kim in view of Katahara does not explicitly teach, wherein controlling an actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate of the automobile comprises powering via one or more motors the actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate.
However, Kim teaches, the processor is operating the tailgate ( “if the object 1000 is located in the opening trajectory 810 of the tailgate 20, the processor 270 may stop opening of the tailgate 20” [0229-00231, Fig.8A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to recognize that since the processor is controlling the opening of tailgate , therefore, it is power actuated. Therefore, Kim has such teachings.
As Per Claim 16, Kim teaches, a computer executable code stored in a computer readable memory, that when executed by a computer processor [0006], [0012-0014], Fig.2) is configured to cause the computer processor ( via processors 0170, 0270, Figs. 2 ,3) to: receive sensed information from one or more sensors or one or more cameras of an automobile (via AVM, BSD and rear cameras, ([0006]-0007]), [0010], [0090-0094]); determine whether the one or more doors or tailgate can open or close without colliding with an object; ([0011-0013],[00238-0247]); and control an actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate of the automobile to a) move within the space map or b) not move if it is not possible to do so without colliding with an object. (Fig.5, 7 and 11 ) also see ( [00248-0257]), Figs. 6A-8B).
However, Kim does not disclose, generate a space map of an area around the automobile within which one or more doors or a tailgate of the automobile can move without colliding with an object.
Examiner interprets, “a space map of an area around the automobile” as ‘moving range (moving space) of the door around the vehicle’.
In a related field of art, Katahara et al. ( Katahara) teaches, an obstacle detection device 10, being equipped with an ultrasonic sensor signal processing part 22, camera image processing part 21 and a controller 13, wherein, generate a space map of an area around the automobile within which one or more doors or a tailgate of the automobile can move without colliding with an object, (via camera image processing part 21 capturing an image of an area including a moving range of the vehicle door during opening and the detection range of the ultrasonic sensor, detecting the distance to the obstacle and the shape of the obstacle; (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kim and Katahara before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kim, to include the teachings (processing part 22, 21 and controller) of Katahara and configure with the system of Kim in order to capture (generate) a moving range of the vehicle door for opening/closing, and detecting the distance to the obstacle, to facilitate vehicle door or tailgate movement without colliding with the obstacle. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to facilitate door opening /closing without colliding with an object (i.e., an added safety feature to prevent damage of vehicle body and the surroundings).
As per Claim 18, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 16. However, Kim in view of Katahara teaches, wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more ultrasonic sensors. (Kim: sensing unit 125 comprises an ultrasonic sensor, [0010], [0085]).
As per Claim 19, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 16. However, Kim in view of Katahara does not explicitly teach, wherein said actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate comprises a powered actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate.
However, Kim teaches, the processor is operating the tailgate (“if the object 1000 is located in the opening trajectory 810 of the tailgate 20, the processor 270 may stop opening of the tailgate 20” [0229-00231, Fig.8A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to recognize that since the processor is controlling the opening of tailgate , therefore, it is power actuated. Therefore, Kim has such teachings.
As per Claim 20, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 16. However, Kim in view of Katahara teaches, to cause the computer processor to generate a visual representation of the space map and display the visual representation of the space map on a user interface (Kim : [0011], [0026], [0092], Fig. 15).
7. Claims 2, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (USP 2017/0268280) in view of Katahara et al. (JP-2022-086805) in view of Schmidt et al. (USP 2004/0193363).
As per Claim 2, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Kim in view of Katahara does not explicitly teach, wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more proximity sensors.
In a related field of art, Schmidt et al. (Schmidt) teaches, a vehicle control system being equipped with sensors, wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more proximity sensors. (via sensors including proximity sensors , ultrasonic obstacle detector etc. [0033], [0036], Figs. 1, 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kim and Katahara and Schmidt before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kim, to include the teachings (proximity sensor, ultrasonic obstacle detector) of Schmidt and configure with the system of Kim and mount on the periphery of the vehicle in order to obtain redundant or robust obstacle detection.
As per Claim 13, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Kim in view of Katahara does not explicitly teach, wherein receiving with a computer processor sensed information from one or more sensors comprises receiving sensed information from one or more proximity sensors.
In a related field of art, Schmidt et al. (Schmidt) teaches, a vehicle control system being equipped with sensors, wherein receiving with a computer processor sensed information from one or more sensors comprises receiving sensed information from one or more proximity sensors (via sensors including proximity sensors, ultrasonic obstacle detector etc. [0033], [0036], Figs. 1, 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kim and Katahara and Schmidt before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kim, to include the teachings (proximity sensor, ultrasonic obstacle detector) of Schmidt and configure with the system of Kim and mount on the periphery of the vehicle in order to obtain redundant or robust obstacle detection.
As per Claim 17, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 16. However, Kim in view of Katahara does not explicitly teach, wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more proximity sensors.
In a related field of art, Schmidt et al. (Schmidt) teaches, a vehicle control system being equipped with sensors, wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more proximity sensors. ( via sensors including proximity sensors , ultrasonic obstacle detector etc. [0033], [0036], Figs. 1, 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kim and Katahara and Schmidt before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kim, to include the teachings (proximity sensor, ultrasonic obstacle detector) of Schmidt and configure with the system of Kim and mount on the periphery of the vehicle in order to obtain redundant or robust obstacle detection.
8. Claims 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (USP 2017/0268280) in view of Katahara et al. (JP-2022-086805) in view of Beom-Taek (KR-200172060 Y1).
As per Claim 6, Kim as modified by Katahara teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Kim in view of Katahara does not explicitly teach, the system comprising a remote in communication with the computer processor, the remote configured to selectively operate actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate of the automobile
In a related field of art, Beom-Taek teaches a vehicle door lock automatic opening and closing device , wherein, the system comprising a remote in communication with the computer processor, the remote configured to selectively operate actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate of the automobile( via a remote controller wirelessly executing the operation, See Abstract , First para, Page 7 last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kim and Katahara and Beom-Taek before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kim, to include the teachings (remote controller ) of Beom-Taek and configure with the system of Kim in order to remote controller wirelessly transmitting signal to execute opening/closing the vehicle door. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to facilitate remotely vehicle door closing /opening (i.e., ease of door/tailgate opening/closing, user convenience).
As per Claim 7, Kim as modified by Katahara and Beom-Taek teaches the limitation of Claim 6. However, Kim in view of Katahara and Beom-Taek teaches, wherein and the remote communicates with the computer processor wirelessly (via remote controller wirelessly executing the operation, See Abstract , First para, Page 7 last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kim and Katahara and Beom-Taek before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kim, to include the teachings (remote controller ) of Beom-Taek and configure with the system of Kim in order to remote controller wirelessly transmitting signal to execute opening/closing the vehicle door. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to facilitate remotely vehicle door closing /opening (i.e., ease of door/tailgate opening/closing, user convenience).
9. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (USP 2017/0268280) in view of Katahara et al. (JP-2022-086805) in view of Beom-Taek (KR-200172060 Y1) and in view of Chatziioannou (USP 2020/0248497).
As per Claim 8, Kim as modified by Katahara and Beom-Taek teaches the limitation of Claim 6. However, Kim in view of Katahara and Beom-Taek does not explicitly teach, wherein in response to the remote being pressed once, the computer processor controls actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate of the automobile to a) move within the space map or b) not move if the computer processor determines it is not possible to do so without colliding with the object.
In a related field of Art, Chatziioannou teaches, a door assist system for handling of remotely triggered operation of a power door of a vehicle, wherein, in response to the remote being pressed once, the computer processor controls actuation of the one or more doors or tailgate of the automobile to a) move within the space map or b) not move if the computer processor determines it is not possible to do so without colliding with the object. (Chatziioannou: claim 19), [0007], [0022], [0029], Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kim and Katahara, Beom-Taek and Catziioannou before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kim, to include the teachings (door assist system ) of Chatziioannou and configure with the system of Kim in order to remotely controlling the door movement operation by moving within space and not moving if it warrants door collision with another object. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to facilitate remotely vehicle door closing /opening (i.e., ease of door/tailgate opening/closing, user convenience).
As per Claim 9, Kim as modified by Katahara and Beom-Taek teaches the limitation of Claim 6. However, Kim in view of Katahara and Beom-Taek teaches, wherein in response to the remote being actively pressed, the computer processor moves the one or more doors or tailgate of the automobile irrespective of a proximity of the object. (Chatziioannou: claim 19, [0007], [0022], [0029], Figs. 1-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C