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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first limitation should read "an opening and closing body that is supported. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 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. The claims are ultimately dependent on a claim which recites the limitation “during advance control on the motor”; in light of this limitation, it is not clear whether “during normal control on the motor in which the advance angle control is not performed” is a state in which normal control occurs prior to, after, or in place of the previously recited advance angle control. Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7, and thus indefinite for at least the same reasons.
The terms “prone to vary” and “hard to vary” in claims 7 and 8 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “prone to vary” and “hard to vary” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as referring to a changing load and a constant load, respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidokoro (US 20030115803) in view of Takenaka et al. (US 20190145147).
Claim 1.
Kidokoro teaches:
a motor configured to drive, in an opening and closing direction, an opening and closing body that is supported by a vehicle body and allowed to be opened and closed
(Kidokoro – Abstract) “An electric drive motor drives a door to move in an open/close direction.”
a controller configured to control the motor
(Kidokoro – [0015]) “the controller 1 of the invention comprises a control unit 2 that controls a door drive motor 3 installed in a vehicle body.”
a pulse encoder configured to output a pulse signal
(Kidokoro – Abstract) “A pulse encoder outputs a series of pulses. Each pulse has a pulse duration sized to correspond to a rotation speed of the motor.”
detect a rotational speed of the motor or an opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body according to pulse detection based on the pulse signal output from the pulse encoder
(Kidokoro – Abstract) “A pulse encoder outputs a series of pulses. Each pulse has a pulse duration sized to correspond to a rotation speed of the motor.”
detect a pinching state of the opening and closing body when the rotational speed of the motor or the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body is equal to or less than a threshold value during advance angle control on the motor
(Kidokoro – Abstract) “A door jamming detecting device for detecting a jamming of the door is configured to carry out calculating a total duration time (Tn) of a given number (n) of the series pulses outputted from the pulse encoder; detecting a given condition wherein the total duration time (Tn) is greater than a threshold value (Ts)”
[Examiner’s Note: As the size of the door opening is known, the total duration time here corresponds to an opening and closing speed of the door.]
Kidokoro does not explicitly teach adjusting an advance angle; however, Takenaka et al. teaches:
adjust an advance angle of the motor
(Takenaka – Abstract) “an advance angle value set portion configured to set an advance angle value, the advance angle value being for advancing a phase of the motor control signal when an assist opening and closing operation is performed.”
advance angle control
(Takenaka – Abstract) “an advance angle value set portion configured to set an advance angle value, the advance angle value being for advancing a phase of the motor control signal when an assist opening and closing operation is performed.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the slide door of Kidokoro with the advance angle value set portion of Takenaka et al. Both Kidokoro and Takenaka are directed towards slide doors for vehicles; thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the advance angle value set portion could be added to the slide door of Kidokoro with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow the moving speed of the door to change based on the operation force applied by a user (Takenaka – [0042]).
Claim 2.
The combination of Kidokoro and Takenaka et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Kidokoro further teaches:
wherein the controller detects the pinching state of the opening and closing body when the rotational speed of the motor or the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body is equal to or less than the threshold value during normal control on the motor in which the advance angle control is not performed
(Kidokoro – Abstract) “A door jamming detecting device for detecting a jamming of the door is configured to carry out calculating a total duration time (Tn) of a given number (n) of the series pulses outputted from the pulse encoder; detecting a given condition wherein the total duration time (Tn) is greater than a threshold value (Ts)”
[Examiner’s Note: Kidokoro teaches detecting a jam without reference to an advance angle value; as the same threshold is used with respect to the advance angle control in claim 1 and the normal control in claim 2, Kidokoro’s teaching of a constant threshold remains true in both situations.]
Kidokoro does not explicitly teach adjusting an advance angle; however, Takenaka et al. teaches:
advance angle control
(Takenaka – Abstract) “an advance angle value set portion configured to set an advance angle value, the advance angle value being for advancing a phase of the motor control signal when an assist opening and closing operation is performed.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kidokoro and Takenaka et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuwano et al. (JP 2004180480).
Claim 7.
The combination of Kidokoro and Takenaka et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Neither Kidokoro nor Takenaka et al. explicitly teaches controlling an advance angle based on a change in load; however, Kuwano et al. teaches:
wherein in an opening and closing operation region where a load on the opening and closing body is prone to vary, the controller performs the advance angle control with reducing the advance angle or performs normal control on the motor in which the advance angle control is not performed, as compared with an opening and closing operation region where the load on the opening and closing body is hard to vary
(Kuwano – Page 7) “the advance angle γ is controlled in accordance with changes in the load torque T”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the door motor of Kidokoro with the stepping motor drive device of Kuwano et al. Both Kidokoro and Kuwano et al. teach the use of electric motors; thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Kuwano et al. could be added to the motor of Kidokoro with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent a loss of synchronism in the motor (Kuwano – Page 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kidokoro, Takenaka et al., and Kuwano et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (DE 19828393).
Claim 8.
The combination of Kidokoro, Takenaka et al., and Kuwano et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Kidokoro further teaches:
wherein the opening and closing body is a slide door
(Kidokoro – Abstract) “An electric drive motor drives a door to move in an open/close direction.”
None of the aforementioned reference explicitly teaches a varying load at a latch engaging region; however, Kato et al. teaches:
the opening and closing operation region where the load on the opening and closing body is prone to vary includes a deceleration region before the opening and closing body reaches a half door position and a latch engaging region before the opening and closing body reaches a full-open position
(Kato – [0045]) “the door speed is reduced with a constant gradient a2 until the door reaches the fully open position.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the slide door of Kidokoro with the actuation device of Kato et al. Both Kidokoro and Kato et al. are directed toward controlling the operation of slide doors; thus the two references can be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to more precisely control the closing speed of a door (Kato – [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3: Neither Kidokoro nor Takenaka et al. explicitly teaches detecting an inclination angle of the vehicle body. Kawanobe et al. (US 6178699) teaches determining an inclination angle of a vehicle body based on movement of a slide door; however, Kawanobe et al. fails to teach changing an advance angle based on the determined inclination angle. Sturm (US 20220268080) teaches controlling the operation of a sliding door based on an inclination angle of a vehicle; however, Sturm merely teaches preventing the automatic operation of the door above a threshold inclination (Sturm – [0009]), rather than changing an advance angle of a door motor based on the inclination angle.
Irisawa (US 20250300581) would teach controlling an advance angle based on a sliding door being in an inclined state (Irisawa – [0070]); however, Irisawa has an effectively filed date of 03/22/2024, post-dating the effective filing date of the present application, and therefore does not constitute prior art.
Regarding claims 4-6: Claims 4-6 are dependent on potentially allowable claim 3 and would thus be allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669