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 07/24/2024.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claims 9 and 10 - “wherein the sensor is provided inside a door latch device of the hinged door”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In par. 103, “Alternatively, the door holding control may be switched to the door balance control when at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and the movement distance of the back door 2 is equal to or more than the second threshold” is objected because it is unclear how is the opening and closing speed and the movement distance of the back door being compared to the second threshold when the second threshold seems to be defined as a function of acceleration (i.e., see steps s202 and disclosure on pars. 61-62 comparing the opening and closing acceleration to the second threshold a2).
If the second threshold is not a function of acceleration, examiner questions how can three completely different parameters with three different units (i.e., acceleration, speed, and distance) be compared to one threshold. Is the second threshold a variable threshold or is it set with multiple parameters?
In par. 104, “Alternatively, the door holding control may be switched to the pre-power assistance control when at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and the movement distance of the side door D is equal to or more than the second threshold” is objected for similar reasons above.
Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
Claim Interpretation
In line 13 of claim 1, “a third threshold” is brought to applicant’s attention because there is no preceding recitation of a first threshold nor a second threshold. However examiner notes that, for the sake of clarity and consistency with applicant’s specification (i.e., with step s301 in figure 7 and with par. 68), no objections was set forth. This note also applies to claim 2.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5 of claims 7 and 8, “an other end portion” should read --another end portion --.
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 § 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 3-4 and 7-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3
Recitations such as “when at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and a movement distance of the door is equal to or more than a second threshold in a state that the door holding control is set, the controller switches from the door holding control to the door balance control” on lines 8-11 renders the claim indefinite. How are three different parameters (acceleration, speed, and distance) being compared to one threshold? Also, see specification objection above.
Claim 4
Recitations such as “when at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and a movement distance of the door is equal to or more than a second 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” on lines 8-11 renders the claim indefinite. How are three different parameters (acceleration, speed, and distance) being compared to one threshold? Also, see specification objection above.
Claims 7 and 8
Recitations such as “thereof” on line 3 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear which element of the invention is thereof referring to.
Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above. All claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected for including the 112 issues of the claim from which it depends.
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 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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”).
Claim 1
(Watanabe discloses) A door opening and closing assistance device (figures 1-5), comprising:
a motor (7) configured to generate power for assisting an operation force of a door (2) that is supported on a vehicle body (1) and allowed to be opened and closed (lines 27-31 of col. 2); and
a controller (23; figure 4) configured to control the three-phase DC motor (lines 9-15 of col. 3),
wherein the controller is configured to set and cancel
power assistance control 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 (steps S7-S9 and lines 23-31 of col. 5; steps S10-12 and lines 40-47 of col. 5; figure 5), and
when a state that an opening and closing acceleration of the door is equal to or more than a third threshold (threshold ‘≥ 4’ in steps S8 and S11; figure 5), the controller performs the power assistance control (steps S9 and S12).
Watanabe is silent/fails to disclose:
(i) a three-phase DC motor;
(ii) wherein the controller is configured to set and cancel door balance control in which an output of the three-phase DC motor is controlled to balance a component of a weight of the door in an opening and closing direction of the door such that the door is stationary; and
(iii) when a state that an opening and closing acceleration of the door is equal to or more than a third threshold continues for predetermined time or more in a state that the door balance control is set, the controller switches from the door balance control to the power assistance control.
(i) (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 Watanabe with the three-phase DC motor of Roppongi, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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.
(However, Ozaki teaches) wherein a controller (20; Ozaki figure 1) is configured to set and cancel door balance control (step S110 in Ozaki figure 3A and state ST13 in Ozaki figure 3B; lines 34-40 of col. 9 discussing a stopped position [i.e., door balance control] of the door) in which an output of a motor (40) is controlled in an opening and closing direction of a door (60) such that the door is stationary (lines 34-40 of col. 9 discussing the stopped position of the door).
when a state that an opening and closing acceleration of the door continues for predetermined time (predetermined time Tth; Ozaki figures 3A-3B; see step S110-114 and state ST14) or more in a state that the door balance control is set (during the temporary stoppage of the door at step S110), the controller switches from the door balance control to a power assistance control (door opening operation at step S102; steps S110-114 then back to step S102 in figure 3A; lines 57-64 of col. 9 discussing that when the door balance control is set and the predetermined time Tth has elapsed, the power assistance control is performed).
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 controller of modified Watanabe with the door balance control and the function of performing power assistance control when a predetermined time has elapsed in the door balance control state as taught by Ozaki, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide additional ‘if statements’ to the controller as such there is a delay before the power assistance control is performed thus further reducing damage to the motor and to the door suspensions.
(ii and iii) (Modified Watanabe discloses) wherein the controller is configured to set and cancel door balance control in which an output of the three-phase DC motor is controlled to balance a component of a weight of the door in an opening and closing direction of the door such that the door is stationary (this is taught when the door balance control feature of Ozaki is applied to the upward opening direction of the door of modified Watanabe); and
when a state that an opening and closing acceleration of the door is equal to or more than a third threshold continues for predetermined time or more in a state that the door balance control is set, the controller switches from the door balance control to the power assistance control (this is taught when combining the threshold function of modified Watanabe and the predetermined time of Ozaki above).
Claim 5
(Watanabe discloses) The door opening and closing assistance device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a sensor (20; figure 2) attached to the door,
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 (lines 43-54 of col. 2).
Claim 7
(Watanabe discloses) The door opening and closing assistance device according to claim 5,
wherein the door opening and closing assistance device is coupled to the vehicle body via a door hinge (3; figure 1) provided at a one end portion thereof, and assists an opening and closing operation of a hinged door rotatable about a pivot shaft (4) of the door hinge, and
the sensor is attached to an other end portion of the hinged door opposite to the one end portion (figure 2).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wölfle et al. (US 20240125161 A1) 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 3 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 3 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 3 below), and
when a state that an opening and closing acceleration of the door is equal to or more than a third threshold (S2; Excerpt 3 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 3 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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 3
Claim 6
(Wölfle 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Roppongi in view of Ozaki, as applied to claims 1, 5, and 7 above, in view of Schatz et al. (US 20180258682) (hereinafter “Schatz”).
Claim 3
(Watanabe discloses) The door opening and closing assistance device according to claim 1.
Watanabe 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 set when an opening and closing speed of the door is equal to or less than a first threshold, and
(ii) when at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and a movement distance of the door is equal to or more than a second threshold in a state that the door holding control is set, the controller switches from the door holding control to the door balance control.
(i) (However, Schatz teaches) wherein a controller (52; Schatz figure 2) is configured to set and cancel door holding control (‘self-locking’ feature; Excerpt 1 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 set when an opening and closing speed of the door is equal to or less than a first threshold (Excerpt 2 from par. 39 below also discusses requiring a ‘sufficiently large motion input’ in order to perform control of the door; the first threshold is the respective speed threshold less than the speed correlated to the ‘sufficiently large motion input’), and
when at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and a movement distance of the door is equal to or more than a second threshold (the second threshold is the respective threshold required to meet the ‘sufficiently large motion input’) in a state that the door holding control is set, the controller switches from the door holding control (Excerpt 2 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 Watanabe with the door holding control feature of Schatz, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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.
(ii) (However, Watanabe as modified above, discloses) when at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and a movement distance of the door is equal to or more than a second threshold in a state that the door holding control is set, the controller switches from the door holding control to the door balance control (this is inevitably taught via the combination above).
PNG
media_image2.png
187
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 1
PNG
media_image3.png
125
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 2
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Roppongi in view of Ozaki, as applied to claims 1, 5, and 7 above.
Claim 9
(Watanabe discloses) The door opening and closing assistance device according to claim 7.
Watanabe does disclose a door latch device (DL; figure 1), but fails to disclose wherein the sensor is provided inside a door latch device of the hinged door.
However, examiner is directing applicant’s attention to the fact that the courts have held that ‘the particular placement of a[n element] was held to be an obvious matter of design choice’. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to relocate the sensor of Watanabe such that it is provided inside the door latch device, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide an accurate measurement of the turn radius and position of the door as it moves between the opened and closed positions.
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 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 first threshold, and
(ii) when at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and a movement distance of the door is equal to or more than a second 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.
(i) (However, Schatz teaches) wherein a controller (52; Schatz figure 2) is configured to set and cancel door holding control (‘self-locking’ feature; Excerpt 1 from par. 39 above) 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 first threshold (Excerpt 2 from par. 39 above also discusses requiring a ‘sufficiently large motion input’ in order to perform control of the door; the first threshold is the respective speed threshold less than the speed correlated to the ‘sufficiently large motion input’), and
when at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and a movement distance of the door is equal to or more than a second threshold (the second threshold is the respective threshold required to meet the ‘sufficiently large motion input’’) in a state that the door holding control is set, the controller switches from the door holding control (Excerpt 2 above).
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 Wölfle with the door holding control feature of Schatz, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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.
(ii) (However, Wölfle as modified above, discloses) when at least one of the opening and closing acceleration, the opening and closing speed, and a movement distance of the door is equal to or more than a second 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 (this is inevitably taught via the combination above).
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 discloses) The door opening and closing assistance device according to claim 6.
Wölfle 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 thereof, and assists an opening and closing operation of a hinged door rotatable about a pivot shaft of the door hinge, and
the sensor is attached to an other 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 thereof, and assists an opening and closing operation of a hinged door (2) rotatable about a pivot shaft (4) of the door hinge, and
a sensor (20 is attached to an other 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 Wölfle such that it is coupled to the vehicle body via a door hinge and provide the sensor such that it is attached to an other end portion of the hinged door opposite to the one end portion as taught by Watanabe, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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.
Claim 10 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wölfle in view of Roppongi in view of Watanabe, as applied to claim 8 above in further view of Schatz.
Claim 10
(Wölfle discloses) The door opening and closing assistance device according to claim 8.
Wölfle is silent regarding a latch therefore it fails to disclose wherein the sensor is provided inside a door latch device of the hinged door.
(However, Schatz teaches) a door latch device (155; Schatz figure 3A) of a hinged door (12).
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 door of modified Wölfle with the door latch device of Schatz, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the predictable and expected benefits of securing and locking the door when it is in the closed position.
However, examiner is directing applicant’s attention to the fact that the courts have held that ‘the particular placement of a[n element] was held to be an obvious matter of design choice’. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to relocate the sensor of modified Wölfle such that it is provided inside the door latch device, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide an accurate measurement of the turn radius and position of the door as it moves between the opened and closed positions.
Conclusion
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