DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 06/02/2026.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined below. Claims 9-10 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 13 of claim 2, “the power assistance controls” should read --the power assistance control--.
Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wölfle et al. (US 2024012516) in view of Roppongi et al. (US 10122303) (hereinafter “Roppongi”).
Claim 2
(Wölfle discloses) A door opening and closing assistance device (figures 1-2), comprising:
a motor (2) configured to assist an operation force of a door (1) that is supported on a vehicle body (7) and allowed to be opened and closed; and
a controller (3) configured to control the three-phase DC motor (par. 21),
wherein the controller is configured to set and cancel
pre-power assistance control (assist feature when the voltage signal lies between S1 and S2; see underlined section of Excerpt 1 from par. 23 below) in which an output of the three-phase DC motor is controlled such that a resultant force with a component of a weight of the door in an opening and closing direction of the door has a predetermined magnitude in a direction opposite to the opening and closing direction due to the weight of the door, to move the door (Excerpt 1 below), and
power assistance control (full operating control of the motor when the voltage signal lies between S2 and S3) in which the output of the three-phase DC motor is controlled to generate an assistance force in the opening and closing direction of the door (Excerpt 1 below),
the output of the three-phase DC motor under the pre-power assistance control is smaller than the output of the three-phase DC motor under the power assistance controls (figure 2 shows the voltage between S2-S3 [in power assistance control] is higher than the voltage between S1-S2 [in pre-power assistance control], therefore the output of the motor is also higher between S2-S3), and
when a state that an opening and closing acceleration of the door is equal to or more than a first threshold (S2; Excerpt 1 below) continues for predetermined time (specific time period; par. 21) or more in a state that the pre-power assistance control is set, the controller switches from the pre-power assistance control to the power assistance control (Excerpt 1 below; par. 21 discusses the controller observes the voltage of the motor over a specific time period [i.e., predetermined time] as a function for performing the power assistance control of the door).
Wölfle is silent regarding a three-phase DC motor.
(However, Roppongi teaches) a three-phase DC motor (21; lines 20-24 of col. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the motor of Wölfle with the three-phase DC motor of Roppongi for the predictable and expected benefits of a three-phase DC motor such as being highly efficient and low maintenance while still providing adequate performance to operate the door.
PNG
media_image1.png
193
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 1
Claim 6
(Wölfle, as modified above, discloses) The door opening and closing assistance device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a sensor (6) attached to the door (figure 2; by way of other elements in between),
wherein the controller is configured to acquire at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, an opening and closing speed, and a movement distance of the door based on a detection value of the sensor (par. 20).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wölfle in view of Roppongi, as applied to claims 2 and 6 above, in view of Schatz et al. (US 20180258682) (hereinafter “Schatz”).
Claim 4
(Wölfle, as modified above, discloses) The door opening and closing assistance device according to claim 2.
Wölfle fails to disclose:
(i) wherein the controller is configured to set and cancel door holding control of maintaining a position of the door in which at least two phases of the three-phase DC motor are energized, and set energized phases according to a circumferential position of a rotor relative to a stator of the three-phase DC motor,
the door holding control is started when an opening and closing speed of the door is equal to or less than a second threshold, and
(ii) a third threshold is set up for at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and a movement distance of the door and when the at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and the movement distance of the door is equal to or more than third threshold in a state that the door holding control is set, the controller switches from the door holding control to the pre-power assistance control.
However, Schatz teaches:
(i) wherein a controller (52; Schatz figure 2) is configured to set and cancel door holding control (‘self-locking’ feature; Excerpt 2 from par. 39 below) of maintaining a position of a door in which at least two phases of a three-phase DC motor are energized, and set energized phases according to a circumferential position of a rotor relative to a stator of the three-phase DC motor (the clause “and set energized phases…relative to a stator of the three-phase DC motor” was interpreted as intended use language),
the door holding control is started when an opening and closing speed of the door is equal to or less than a second threshold (Excerpt 3 from par. 39 below also discusses requiring a ‘sufficiently large motion input’ in order to perform control of the door; the second threshold is the respective speed threshold less than the speed correlated to the ‘sufficiently large motion input’), and
(ii) a third threshold (the third threshold is the respective threshold required to meet the ‘sufficiently large motion input’; Excerpt 3 from par. 39 below) is set up for at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and a movement distance of the door (note that the force required for the ‘sufficiently large motion input’ will inherently have an acceleration as [Force = mass X acceleration]) and when the at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and the movement distance of the door is equal to or more than third threshold in a state that the door holding control is set, the controller switches from the door holding control to a pre-power assistance control (Excerpts 2 and 3 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the assistance device of modified Wölfle with the door holding control feature of Schatz to provide an input-sensitive control to the operation of the door as such the user does not need to reach for the keys or phone to operate the door thus improving convenience of operation.
PNG
media_image2.png
187
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 2
PNG
media_image3.png
125
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 3
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wölfle in view of Roppongi, as applied to claims 2 and 6 above, in view of Watanabe.
Claim 8
(Wölfle, as modified above, discloses) The door opening and closing assistance device according to claim 6.
Modified Wölfle does disclose a hinged door rotatable about a door hinge, but fails to disclose wherein the door opening and closing assistance device is coupled to the vehicle body via a door hinge provided at a one end portion of a hinged door, and assists an opening and closing operation of the hinged door rotatable about a pivot shaft of the door hinge, and
the sensor is attached to another end portion of the hinged door opposite to the one end portion.
(However, Watanabe teaches) wherein a door opening and closing assistance device (5; Watanabe figures 1-2) is coupled to a vehicle body (1) via a door hinge (3) provided at a one end portion of a hinged door (2), and assists an opening and closing operation of the hinged door (2) rotatable about a pivot shaft (4) of the door hinge, and
a sensor (20) is attached to another end portion of the hinged door opposite to the one end portion (Watanabe figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the assistance device of modified Wölfle such that it is coupled to the vehicle body via a door hinge and relocate the sensor such that it is attached at another end portion of the hinged door opposite to the one end portion as taught by Watanabe to improve the accuracy of the measurement tracking of specific parameters of the door. Additionally, moving both parts allow additional space within the vehicle body for other parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art Watanabe (US 10190356) in view of Roppongi et al. (US 10122303) (hereinafter "Roppongi") and in further view of Ozaki et al. (US 11091950) (hereinafter "Ozaki") appears to teach most of the limitations of claim 1.
However, claim 1 was amended to recite “door balance control in which the three-phase DC motor is controlled to generate an output in a direction opposite to a component of a weight of the door such that the component of the weight of the door in an opening and closing direction of the door is balanced with the output from the three-phase DC motor and the door is in a stationary state…when a state that an opening and closing acceleration of the door is equal to or more than a first threshold continues for predetermined time or more”. In addition to the amended recitations, examiner also agrees with applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Watanabe and Ozaki (see Remarks filed on 06/02/2026).
The previous Office Action relies on the teachings of Ozaki for the door balance control feature and the door balance control of Ozaki does disclose a function to keep the door in stationary over a predetermined time (step S114; figure 3A), however examiner agrees with applicant that the combination of Watanabe and Ozaki fails to disclose the component of the weight of the door is balanced with the output from the three-phase DC motor. In col. 12 of Ozaki, the motor outputs a force accounting for the weight of the door and other forces such as static friction force and the like (Excerpt 4 from col. 12 below) which would not meet the ‘the component of the weight of the door in an opening and closing direction of the door is balanced with the output from the three-phase DC motor’ as required by the claims.
PNG
media_image4.png
238
426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 4
Examiner has considered applying other combinations to Watanabe to meet the limitations of claim 1, however decided that it would be unreasonable to do so as the functionality of the door balance control and power assistance control, and the switching between both control modes are the crux of applicant’s invention which are not directly taught nor anticipated by either Watanabe or Ozaki.
Further modifications such that a combination would read into the claim limitations will require hindsight and/or a piece meal rejection such that examiner finds the combination to be unreasonable to apply and reject the claims as recited. Thus, examiner has indicated the claims allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments directed to the drawing and specification objections have been considered and the objections were withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments directed to the claim objections and 112 rejections have been considered.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding “Wolfle fails to disclose the concept such as "the component (gravitational acceleration) of the weight of the door in the opening and closing direction of the door." What Wolfle discloses is power-assistance control”, note that since gravity is always present regardless of the position of the door, Ozaki need not to mention the weight of the door - i.e., when the door is stationary between the opened and closed positions, gravity is present and the door will always have a component of weight. Furthermore, par. 23 of Wolfle discloses a force applied by the motor to assist on the opening of the door, and also the claims do not require that the ‘resultant force’ is equivalent to force plus the weight of the door.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights