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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 8-11, and 13 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein.
Claims 3-7 are withdrawn by the examiner as being drawn to the non-elected species.
Claim 12 is cancelled.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the non-final rejection dated 2 February 2026.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 from the prior office action are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 1 April 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections from the prior office action, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the English translation of CN 112227863 A (Zhang et al., hereinafter, Zhang) does not disclose “calculate the position of the opening and closing body based on a current value of a current measured in response to the detection of the ripple of the current” including that “Zhang does not teach using [the] measured current value as the foundation for calculation the position of the window”. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant appears to agree that Zhang calculates the window’s position using the number of the ripple pulses. Applicant has not argued how this differs from Applicant’s invention. Applicant’s invention appears to also be using the count number to calculate the position: in paragraph [0015] of Applicant’s specification, “The comparator 37 compares the signal input from the BPF 36 with the reference voltage, and outputs a ripple detection signal representing detection of the ripple to the processing unit 50”; in paragraph [0020] of Applicant’s specification: “the opening and closing body position detection unit 51 counts the ripple detection signal input from the ripple detection unit 35 and detects the position of the opening and closing body 3 based on the count number. In this way, the opening and closing body position detection unit 51 acquires the ripple count value (count number) corresponding to the rotation amount of the motor 6 as information on the position of the opening and closing body 3”. The examiner found no equations or other disclosures from Applicant, directed to the elected species, that are using current in a different way to calculate the position. Therefore, in view of the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “calculate the position of the opening and closing body based on a current value of the current measured in response to the detection of the ripple of the current”, certainly includes calculating position based on the pulse count, when the pulse count is based on circuitry analyzing voltage, resistance, and current, which is how the examiner interpreted this limitation and the reason there were no rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the prior office action for lack of written description (in Zhang, the circuitry including resistors and a voltage comparator results in a square wave that is used to determine the pulse number for calculating the position, examiner does not find this to be different from Applicant’s invention with respect to the limitation being discussed).
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., “strictly limiting the current measurements specifically to the rising duration or falling duration of a ripple detection signal, as recited in Claim 13”) 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).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 13 recites “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the position of the opening and the closing body based on the current value of the current measured during a rising duration or a falling duration of a ripple detection signal”. Examiner did not find support for this limitation in the original disclosure. There appears to be support an alternate limitation of “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the [[position]] load of the opening and the closing body based on the current value of the current measured during a rising duration or a falling duration of a ripple detection signal”. However, there does not appear to be support for calculating the position as claimed. Paragraph [0020] of the specification discloses “the opening and closing body position detection unit 51 counts the ripple detection signal input from the ripple detection unit 35 and detects the position of the opening and closing body 3 based on the count number”. Paragraph [0059] of the specification discloses “In solution 1, the opening and closing body position detection unit 51 acquires the motor current during the rising duration of the ripple detection signal from the current detection unit 30, and the load calculation unit 52 calculates the calculated load based on the motor current during the rising duration of the ripple detection signal”. The application appears to be describing a sub-system called “body position detection unit 51” acquiring the current to calculate the load, not to calculate the position. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-2, 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 included with the prior office action (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 position of the opening and closing body based on a current value of the current measured in response to the detection of the ripple of the current (see at least page 3: 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), 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 2, Zhang discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Zhang discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the load based on the current value of the current measured at a time of the detection of the ripple (see at least pages 3-4 and equation 10: MCU collects and processes the current when each ripple pulse arrives and calculates force; real-time obtaining the pulse number and period of the current ripple by the 15 pin of the MCU).
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, Zhang discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the position of the opening and the closing body based on the current value of the current measured during a rising duration or a falling duration of a ripple detection signal (see at least page 3: 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).
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 11 is 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)”).
It 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, to combine the teachings of Masuzawa and Zhang with the motivation of reducing errors in pinch determination by using a dynamic threshold for pinch (see at least Masuzawa [0004]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights