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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 28, 30, 32, 72”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "74" and "76" have both been used to designate interface. The disclosure makes no distinction between 74 and 76 and simply uses both reference numerals together as 74, 76 to refer to the user interface (unlike environmental sensor 80, 81 which is later distinguished as temperature sensor 80 and rain sensor 81). Each structure should have only one reference numeral.
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 2A shows 303 as the closed angle of the door and 305 as the open angle. This contradicts paragraph [0057] stating 303 is open and 305 is closed.
Figure 5 includes extraneous marking to the right of box 22, appears to be RV). The same issue occurs in figure 5A.
Figure 7 includes reference numeral 72’ to indicate the architecture, the same numeral as in figure 5A, however figures 5A and 7 show different architectures. From paragraph [0060] it appears figure 7 should be 72”.
Figure 8 includes double reference numerals (e.g. 20,2700) for everything except torque model 2708, torque calculator 2720, and door presenter 2717. Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(4) each structure should have only one reference numeral or character. It appears applicant is trying to show a different embodiment. For different embodiments different reference numerals are used where the structures are different (for example if controller 50 and controller 2702 are different then figure 8 should have just 2702) while the same reference numeral may be used to indicate the same structures (for example if the door 12 is the same in both embodiments but with a different controller then both are 12).
Figures 12-15 are not in keeping with the standards set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.84. The figures are all small, hand drawn with blurry lines that are not solid clean black, do not reproduce well, and include reference numerals that are difficult to read (presumably reference numeral 10 in figure 15 looks like 60 and figure 13 appears to be indicated as Fib 13). See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l) in particular for the standards for acceptable lines, numerals, and letters.
Figure 16 appears to be indicated as Fig 1b.
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:
Paragraph [0057] discussing the compass 300 is in the middle of the description of figure 5 (paragraph [0056] memory device 92 etc., later in paragraph [0057] force command 82, paragraph [0058] environmental sensor 80, 81 etc.), however, the compass is only shown in figure 2 and the compass rose in figure 2A. Such an arrangement is confusing, the description of the compass should be separated from the description of figure 5 and it should be indicated in what figure it is shown. The problem is also compounded by the computing unit only being shown in figure 2 and not in any of the more detailed control diagrams.
Paragraph [0057] line 3 recites computing unit 100 instead of 110.
Paragraph [0057] recites “Using a position device such as compass 300 provides a manner to determine the door position that is independent of an absolute position device associated with the powered actuator and a manner to determine door position in the event of power loss while the door is open which causes the power systems loose the detected position of the door angle using the absolute position device.” (emphasis added). The italicized portion is unclear as it does not appear that the power system would be what would lose the detected position but rather whatever powered device that was detecting the position would lose the position when the power fails.
Paragraph [0062] refers to both actuator 22, 2705 and torque moment 2705. It is unclear if the torque moment or the actuator is reference numeral 2705. Examiner notes 22, 2705 is shown in a single shared box in figure 8 and in keeping with the rest of the figure that implies that the actuator is 22, 2705 (see above drawing objection for double reference numerals) and the torque moment is not shown.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 14 line 1 recites “control system for power closure actuation system” instead of “control system for a power closure member actuation system”. 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 3-11 and 17 is 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 lines 2-5 recite “the controller is configured to control movement of the closure member by the actuator to compensate for variable gravitational forces on the closure member during movement of the closure member, the variable gravitational forces used to control the movement being predetermined”. It is unclear how the varying forces are both being compensated for by the controller to control the movement and themselves used to control the movement. The term “compensate” requires counteraction, so the forces aren’t controlling the movement but instead are used to set up the control of the movement to counteract the force. The phrase “used to control” implies direct control, i.e. the forces are what is controlling the movement. There is only limited disclosure of the variable forces in paragraphs [0065]-[0070] and paragraphs [0068] and [0069] simply use the same confusing language without linking the compensation for the forces and the control by the forces together in any way. It appears from paragraph [0070] that the controller mathematically adjusts the force on the closure over the course of movement based on the position, which could be what is meant by the forces used to control being based on position and the steady state in claim 3, however that is still unrelated to the compensation or the control of the movement.
Dependent claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 11 line 2 recites “the single closure member accelerometer is disposed on the closure member”. This seems to contradict claim 9, from which claim 11 depends, which requires the accelerometer to be on the vehicle (vehicle being vehicle body per claim 16 and what is shown in figure 15 as best is possible, see above drawing objection). Claim will be interpreted broadly as accelerometer is on vehicle body.
Claim 17 lines 2-3 recite “the accelerometer signal to the controller is indicative of an inclination of the vehicle body”. Claim 14, from which claim 17 depends via claim 16, previously recites the signal as indicating the inclination of the closure member. It is unclear if the limitation of claim 17 is clarifying that the inclination of the closure is indicated by the inclination of the vehicle or is redefining the signal indicates both the inclination of the closure member and the inclination of the vehicle. Examiner notes paragraphs [0012] and [0059] recite the inclination sensor indicating the inclination of the closure while paragraphs [0049, [0055], and [0065] recite the sensor indicating the inclination of the vehicle. There does not appear to be any connection between the separate descriptions so it is unclear if the signal indicates only one value (the inclination of the vehicle being the inclination of the closure) or two. For purposes of examination the claims will be interpreted as the signal indicating the inclination of the closure by indicating the inclination of the vehicle (i.e. one value).
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.
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/252601 to Herman (hereinafter Herman).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the control system is shown in Herman in figures 1-71 with
a controller (50) configured to control an actuator (22) coupled to the closure member (12, see also paragraph [0111] system can be for 17 or 19) and the vehicle body (14) configured to move the closure member (12) relative to the vehicle body (14);
a closure member accelerometer (86) configured to output an accelerometer signal to the controller indicative of an inclination of the closure member (paragraph [0125] inclination of vehicle, see above 112, paragraph [0135] inclination of closure member);
wherein the controller (50) is adapted to compensate for a change in the inclination of the closure member (12) during controlling the actuator (22) to move the closure member using the accelerometer signal acquired during a steady state of the closure member.
While Herman does not explicitly say the signal is taken at a steady state, examiner maintains that the signal is acquired during a steady (i.e. not moving) state of the closure as evidenced by paragraph [0125] in response to signal adjusting the motion or force command, paragraph [0126] performing check before generating commands, and paragraph [0131] result of inclination sensor signal is actuator movement of door as if on level surface.
If applicant disagrees examiner notes that the timing of the signal would be a routine optimization and thus obvious to try.
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 control system of Herman with a signal taken at a steady/not moving state of the closure because a steady state signal provides the benefit of a reference value to indicate the base state of the vehicle (in keeping with the teachings of paragraph [0131]) and allows for the motion of the door (i.e. force or motion command) to be adjust prior to movement thereby eliminating any jarring movements (swinging due to incline) and improving the user experience.
Regarding claim 12 and 13, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus.
Regarding claim 16, the accelerometer (86) can be positioned on body control module (52) per paragraph [0125], which is shown in figure 45 as being on the vehicle not the closure in Herman.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the accelerometer (86) is on the vehicle (see claim 16) and the signal is indicative of an inclination of the vehicle body (see paragraph [0125]) in Herman.
Regarding claim 18, the closure member includes a plurality of members (12, 17, and 19 as noted with claim 14) and the actuation system (20) includes multiple systems (one per closure) and the controller (50) includes a plurality of controllers (one per system) and all the controllers (5) are adapted to use the signal from the accelerometer (86) in Herman.
Regarding claim 19, as detailed with claim 16 the accelerometer (86) is part of the singular body control module (52) in Herman.
Regarding claim 20, the controller (50) is configured to determine a change in inclination of the closure member (12) using the steady state signal (see claim 14) of the accelerometer (86) and a position (via feedback sensor 64) of the closure member (12) during moving in Herman.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman in view of US PG Pub 2016/0187368 to Modi (hereinafter Modi).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the power closure actuation system is shown in Herman in figures 1-71 with
an actuator (22) coupled to the closure member (12, see also paragraph [0111] system can be for 17 or 19) and the vehicle body (14) configured to move the closure member (12) relative to the vehicle body (14);
at least one closure member accelerometer (86) configured to determine a steady state gravitational force (via inclination of vehicle) on the closure member according to an orientation (inclination) of the vehicle; and
a controller (50) in communication with the actuator (22) and the at least one closure member accelerometer (86), the controller configured to determine a position (via feedback sensor 64) of the closure member (12).
While Herman does not explicitly say the accelerometer measures at a steady state, examiner maintains that the inclination signal is acquired during a steady (i.e. not moving) state of the closure as evidenced by paragraph [0125] in response to signal adjusting the motion or force command, paragraph [0126] performing check before generating commands, and paragraph [0131] result of inclination sensor signal is actuator movement of door as if on level surface.
If applicant disagrees examiner notes that the timing of the signal would be a routine optimization and thus obvious to try.
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 control system of Herman with a signal taken at a steady/not moving state of the closure because a steady state signal provides the benefit of a reference value to indicate the base state of the vehicle (in keeping with the teachings of paragraph [0131]) and allows for the motion of the door (i.e. force or motion command) to be adjust prior to movement thereby eliminating any jarring movements (swinging due to incline) and improving the user experience.
However, the position sensor of Herman is not a compass.
A compass is shown in Modi in figures 1A-2B where a door (unnumbered, shown with positions 92, 93, 94, and 95 in figure 2A) includes a compass (61b) for measuring the position of the door (see also paragraph [0028]).
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 control system of Herman with the compass position sensor of Modi because compass position sensors were known position sensors in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed (i.e. adding the compass position sensor in addition to the feedback sensor to allow for redundancy in position sensing in case of failure to the feedback sensor) using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the controller (50) is configured to control movement of the closure member (12) by the actuator (22) to compensate for variable gravitational forces (adjustment of motion 62 or force 88 command) and the compensation is predetermined (via inclination of vehicle and adjustment to compensate as if on level) according to a position (given command sequence) and the steady state (from accelerometer 86) in Herman.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the controller (50) is configured to determine the steady state before the closure (12) is moved by the actuator (see claim 1) in Herman.
Regarding claim 5, the predetermined position (i.e. not moving) is the closed position (see claim 1) in Herman.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the system (20) includes a feedback sensor (64) determining a speed and position of the closure (12) in Herman.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the position of the closure (12) includes a plurality of positions (i.e. positions over the course of movement) and the forces are for each position (i.e. compensation is for the entire course of movement, so at each position), and the values are predetermined in Herman.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the accelerometer (86) can be positioned on body control module (52) per paragraph [0125], which is shown in figure 45 as being on the vehicle not the closure, the closure member includes a plurality of members (12, 17, and 19 as noted with claim 14) and the actuation system (20) includes multiple systems (one per closure) and the controller (50) includes a plurality of controllers (one per system) and all the controllers (5) are configured to control closure movement to compensate for variable gravitational forces in Herman.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the accelerometer (86) can be positioned on body control module (52) per paragraph [0125], which is shown in figure 45 as being on the vehicle not the closure, the closure member includes a plurality of members (12, 17, and 19 as noted with claim 14) and the actuation system (20) includes multiple systems (one per closure) and the controller (50) includes a plurality of controllers (one per system) and all the controllers (5) are configured to control closure movement to compensate for variable gravitational forces in Herman.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, the controller (50) communicates with the body control module (52) and thereby the accelerometer (see claim 9 single accelerometer) via bus (78) in Herman.
Regarding claim 11, the accelerometer (86) is on the vehicle (see claim 9) in Herman.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619