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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 July 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8-11, and 13-15 are being examined herein.
Claims 3-7 remain withdrawn for being drawn to non-elected species.
Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the final rejection dated 20 April 2026.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) from the prior office action is withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Applicant's arguments, filed 16 July 2026, regarding the prior art of record from the prior office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “restricting the load calculation to a current value measured strictly during a rising or falling duration of the ripple detection signal to stabilize the load calculation”; “stabilizing the load via the phase-restricted current measurement”, “noise-reduced load calculation”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the current measured during a rising duration or a falling duration of a ripple detection signal” is much broader than Applicant argues.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art of record allegedly does not recognize the problem of jagged load calculations caused by phase-timing variations in current ripple measurements, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 5 September 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because “during a rising duration or a falling duration of a ripple detection signal” should be “during [[a]]the rising duration or [[a]]the falling duration of [[a]]the ripple detection signal”.
While Claims 3-5 are currently withdrawn / directed to non-elected species, the Examiner notes that “during a rising duration and a falling duration of a ripple detection signal” in each of Claims 3-5 should be “during [[a]]the rising duration and [[a]]the falling duration of [[a]]the ripple detection signal”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 solely recites a limitation which is already recited in Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 13 fails to further limit Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang. Note: the page numbers referenced in the mapping below refer specifically to the page numbers of the Non Patent Literature file dated 2 February 2026 (pages 1-10 of 22 are the English translation), the equations and figures referenced refer to the original published document appended after the English translation (pages 11-22 of 22 are the original published document).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses An opening and closing control device configured to control an opening and closing operation of an opening and closing body by a motor (see at least pages 2-3: a device connected a motor to lift a window is described), comprising:
processing circuitry (see at least figure 1) configured to:
measure a current value of a current flowing through the motor (see at least page 2: current detecting circuit measures current through the motor M);
detect a ripple of the current (see at least page 2: current ripple collecting circuit);
calculate a load in the opening and closing operation of the opening and closing body based on the current value of the current (see at least pages 3-4 and equation 10: MCU collects and processes the current when each ripple pulse arrives and calculates force);
calculate a position of the opening and closing body based on the ripple of the current (see at least page 3: pulse number relates to the position); and
determine that an object is pinched by the opening and closing body based on the position of the opening and closing body and the load (see at least page 3, equation 2, and figure 2: a position between L1 and L2 is the anti-clamping area, when in the area the force is assessed to determine if the anti-clamping function should be started),
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the load based on a current value of the current measured during a rising duration or a falling duration of a ripple detection signal (see at least pages 3-4 and equation 10: MCU collects and processes the current when each ripple pulse arrives; real-time obtaining the pulse number and period of the current ripple by the 15 pin of the MCU; determining the ripple pulse requires determining changes between rising / falling / peak in the current; current value can include at least the most recent period which includes rising and falling, therefore, this is met under the broadest reasonable interpretation), and
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to reversely rotate the motor when the pinch is detected (see at least page 4: the rotating direction of the motor is changed if the clamping force exceeds the threshold).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Zhang discloses wherein the processing circuitry comprises:
a bandpass filter configured to pass a frequency component of the ripple of the current (see at least pages 5-6: band-pass filter comprises a resistor R6, a capacitor C3, a resistor R7, and a capacitor C4; allows frequency in a defined range to pass through); and
a comparator configured to compare a reference potential with a signal passed through the bandpass filter (see at least pages 5-6: the second operational amplifier U2 is a voltage comparator; the current ripple signal is input for voltage comparison to obtain the square wave signal).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang discloses all the limitations of Claim 8. Furthermore, Zhang discloses wherein the comparator is configured to output a pulse signal when the signal passed through the bandpass filter is larger than the reference potential (see at least page 6: the current ripple signal is input to the second operational amplifier U2 for voltage comparison to obtain the square wave digital signal input to the MCU of the timer input capture pin).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Zhang discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured such that each time the ripple of the current is detected, the current value of the current is measured, and the load is calculated (see at least pages 3-4: MCU collects and processes the current when each ripple pulse arrives and then force is calculated).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, the limitation of Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (see also rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) above) and therefore, Claim 13 is rejection for the same reasons as Claim 1.
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.
Claims 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0205300 (Masuzawa and Endo, hereinafter, Masuzawa).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
calculate a weighted average result of the calculated load as a reference value; and
set a pinch threshold to determine a permissible range of an excess amount of the load with respect to the reference value,
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that an object is pinched by the opening and closing body when the excess amount of the load with respect to the reference value is larger than the pinch threshold.
Masuzawa, in the same field of pinch detection, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
calculate a weighted average result of the calculated load as a reference value (see at least [0043], [0088], and FIG. 3: “The reference value calculating unit 53 calculates a result of the weighted average of the calculated load F(n) calculated by the load calculating unit 52 as a reference value B(n). For example, every time a new calculated load F(n) is calculated in the load calculating unit 52, the reference value calculating unit 53 calculates a result of the weighted average of the new calculated load F(n) and a past (recent) reference value B(n−1) (hereinafter referred to as the “first weighted average”) as a new reference value B(n).”); and
set a pinch threshold to determine a permissible range of an excess amount of the load with respect to the reference value (see at least [0090] and FIG. 3: “Next, in step S307, the pinch threshold setting unit 55 sets the pinch threshold value Fth that defines the allowable range of the difference “F(n)−B(n)” between the calculated load F(n) calculated in step S304 and the reference value B(n) calculated in step S305”),
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that an object is pinched by the opening and closing body when the excess amount of the load with respect to the reference value is larger than the pinch threshold (see at least [0091]-[0093] and FIG. 3: “Next, in step S308, the pinch determining unit 56 determines whether an object is pinched by the window 3, based on the difference “F(n)−B(n)” between the calculated load F(n) calculated in step S304 and the reference value B(n) calculated in step S305, and the pinch threshold value Fth set in step S307.”; “In step S310, if it is determined in step S308 that an object is pinched by the window 3 because the above described difference “F(n)−B(n)” is greater than the pinch threshold value Fth (YES in step S309)”).
Combining the teachings of Masuzawa (both the pinch determinations based on load calculations and that pinch determinations are completed based on loads detected at a predetermined timing duration, see Masuzawa [0036]) with Zhang would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, as the combination applies a known technique (i.e., the technique of Masuzawa) to improve pinch determination in a similar device (i.e., the device of Zhang) in the same way with the motivation of reducing errors in pinch determination (see at least Masuzawa [0044] and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
determine whether a pattern of change of the load corresponds to a predetermined pattern of monotonic increase based on a series of a plurality of calculated loads; and
determine that the object is pinched by the opening and closing body when a first condition where a difference between the load and a reference value is larger than a pinch threshold is satisfied, and a second condition where the pattern of change of the load corresponds to the predetermined pattern of monotonic increase is satisfied. Masuzawa, in the same field of pinch detection, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine whether a pattern of change of the load corresponds to a predetermined pattern of monotonic increase based on a series of a plurality of calculated loads; and determine that the object is pinched by the opening and closing body when a first condition where a difference between the load and a reference value is larger than a pinch threshold is satisfied, and a second condition where the pattern of change of the load corresponds to the predetermined pattern of monotonic increase is satisfied (see at least [0077]: “For example, each time the new calculated load F(n) is calculated in the load calculating unit 52, the pinch determining unit 56 determines whether a pattern of change of the calculated load F matches a predetermined pattern of monotonic increase based on a series of calculated loads F including the new calculated load F(n). If a first condition in which the difference “F(n)−B(n)” between the calculated load F(n) and the reference value B(n) is greater than the pinch threshold value Fth and a second condition in which the pattern of change of the calculated load F matches the pattern of monotonic increase are satisfied, the pinch determining unit 56 determines that the pinch occurs”).
Combining Zhang and Masuzawa is obvious for the same reasons provided for Claim 11 / see rejection for Claim 11 for motivation to combine and details on the combination.
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
calculate a weighted average result of the load as a reference value; and
stop updating the reference value when a difference between a newly calculated load and a past reference value is equal to or greater than a difference threshold, and a change amount of the load per a predetermined time is equal to or greater than a change amount threshold.
Masuzawa, in the same field of pinch detection, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: calculate a weighted average result of the load as a reference value (see at least [0043]: “The reference value calculating unit 53 calculates a result of the weighted average of the calculated load F(n) calculated by the load calculating unit 52 as a reference value B(n)”); and stop updating the reference value when a difference between a newly calculated load and a past reference value is equal to or greater than a difference threshold, and a change amount of the load per a predetermined time is equal to or greater than a change amount threshold (see at least [0055]: “If a difference “|F(n)−B(n−1)|” between the new calculated load F(n) and the past reference value B(n−1) is greater than a difference threshold value ΔFB and the change amount “|F(n)−F(n−p2)|” of the calculated load F per predetermined time duration p2 is greater than a change threshold value ΔFp2, the reference value calculating unit 53 sets the new reference value B(n) to the past reference value B(n−1). That is, when the difference between the calculated load F and the reference value B suddenly increases while the calculated load F changes rapidly, the reference value calculating unit 53 rapidly increases the difference between the calculated load F and the reference value B by stopping the updating of the reference value B”).
Combining Zhang and Masuzawa is obvious for the same reasons provided for Claim 11 / see rejection for Claim 11 for motivation to combine and details on the combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights