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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The request filed on July 23, 2026 for a Request for Continuing Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 is acceptable and an RCE has been established. Any previous finality is hereby withdrawn and a new action on the merits follows. Any newly-submitted claims have been added. An action on the RCE follows.
Drawings
The drawing corrections of February 3, 2026 and July 23, 2026 have been approved.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “at” on line 7 is grammatically awkward. An element is “in” position rather than “at” position.
Appropriate correction is required.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because “at” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically awkward. An element is “in” position rather than “at” position.
Claim 6 is objected to because “at” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically awkward. An element is “in” position rather than “at” position.
Claim 8 is objected to because “a system” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what comprises the “system”. Does the “system” include only the door or does the “system” include the door and the power actuator? Clarification is requested.
Claim 8 is objected to because “movable about a pivot axis” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question. Although it is presumed that the door is movable about a pivot axis, the language in question appears to be stating that the vehicle is movable about a pivot axis.
Claim 9 is objected to because “at” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically awkward. An element is “in” position rather than “at” position.
Claim 9 is objected to because “non-powered hold open mode” on line 7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the non-powered hold open mode set forth above or is attempting to set forth another non-powered hold open mode in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 13 is objected to because “at” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically awkward. An element is “in” position rather than “at” position.
Claim 20 is objected to because “at” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically awkward. An element is “in” position rather than “at” position.
Appropriate correction is 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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cumbo (US 10801245). Cumbo discloses system for a vehicle 10, comprising:
a door 12 of the vehicle moveable about a pivot axis 44 (fig. 3A) between an open position and a closed position; and
a power actuator 22 having a powered mode, as set forth on lines 63-64 of column 7, in which electrical power is applied thereto and a not powered mode, as set forth on lines 41-49 of column 7, in which the electrical power is not applied thereto, the power actuator 22 configured to move the door to a partially open position between the open position and the closed position in the powered mode and not move the door in the not powered mode;
wherein with the door 12 in the partially open position, at least one of an electric motor 26 (fig. 2) or a drive mechanism 38, 39 (fig. 2) or a geartrain assembly 34 (fig. 2) of the power actuator is configured to provide internal friction and back drive forces opposing movement of the door 12 without application of the electrical power to the power actuator, as set forth on lines 4-9 of column 8, to prevent the door 12 from moving away from the partially open position without employing a mechanical brake. Note that the electric motor, when in the not powered mode, first resists the motion of the door 12 without the use of a mechanical brake.
With respect to claim 2, wherein the vehicle 10 extends vertically along a global vertical axis (labeled below) and the pivot axis 44 of the door 12 is parallel to the global vertical axis as shown below, wherein the pivot axis 44 is selected to ensure the door 12 remains at the partially open position whereat the door 12 does not move towards the open position nor the closed position under an effect of gravity in response to the power actuator 22 being in the not powered mode and the vehicle being on a surface being substantially level.
With respect to claim 3, the global vertical axis (labeled below) is normal to the surface on which the vehicle 50 is disposed at least when the vehicle is on a horizontal surface.
With respect to claim 5, at least one closure member feedback sensor (not shown, but comprising the Hall-effect sensors set forth on lines 24-27 of column 7) configured to determine at least one of a position and a speed of the door 12 and a controller 40 configured to monitor the position of the door 12 while the power actuator 22 is in the not powered mode.
With respect to claim 6, while the door 12 is at the partially open position, the controller 40 is further configured to control the power actuator 22 to stop any movement of the door 12 from the partially open position in response to the position of the door 12 being different than the partially open position as set forth on lines 17-19 of column 8.
Claims 8-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cumbo (US 10801245). Cumbo discloses a method of operating a system for a vehicle 10 (fig. 1), comprising:
controlling a power actuator 22 (fig. 2) operable in a powered mode, as set forth on lines 63-64 of column 7, in which electrical power is applied thereto to move a door 12 (fig. 1) of the vehicle 10 movable about a pivot axis 44 between an open position and a closed position (Fig. 3A),
controlling the power actuator 22 in a powered hold open mode in which the electrical power is applied to the power actuator 22 to hold the door 12 in a partially open position between the open position and the closed position as set forth on lines 17-19 of column 8, and
setting the power actuator 22 in a non-powered hold open mode in which the electrical power is not applied to the power actuator 22 to hold the door in the partially open position as set forth on lines 41-49 of column 7 (note that the spur gears 38, 39, the epicyclic gear train 34 and the electric motor 26 will provide sufficient forces to hold the door in an open position when the power to the motor is no longer applied thereto at least when the vehicle is disposed on a horizontal surface or a surface with a slight angle), wherein with the power actuator 22 in the non-powered hold open mode, at least one of an electric motor 26 (fig. 2) or a drive mechanism 38, 39 (fig. 2) or a geartrain assembly 34 (fig. 2) of the power actuator provides internal friction and back drive forces opposing movement of the door to prevent the door from moving away from the partially open position without employing a mechanical brake.
With respect to claim 9, Cumbo further discloses that the vehicle extends vertically along a global vertical axis (labeled below) and the pivot axis 44 (also labeled below) of the door 12 is parallel to the global vertical axis, the method further including the step of selecting the pivot axis 44 of the door 12, i.e., vertical as set forth on lines 45-48 of column 8, to ensure the door 12 remains at the partially open position whereat the door 12 does not move towards the open position nor the closed position under an effect of gravity in response to the power actuator 22 being in non-powered hold open mode in which electrical power is not applied thereto and the vehicle being on a surface being substantially level. Note that the door 12 of Cumbo will not rotate about its pivot axis 44 when the vehicle10 is on a planar surface at least because the pivot axis 44 of the door 12 is vertical.
With respect to claim 10, Cumbo further discloses that the global vertical axis is normal to the surface on which the vehicle 10 is disposed at least when the vehicle is on a horizontal surface.
With respect to claim 12, Cumbo further discloses the step of monitoring a position of the door 12 while the power actuator 22 is in the not powered non-powered hold open mode using at least one closure member feedback sensor comprising the Hall-effect sensors set forth on lines 24-27 of column 7.
With respect to claim 13, Cumbo further discloses the step of while the door is at the partially open position, controlling the power actuator 22 to stop any movement of the door 12 from the partially open position as set forth on lines 17-19 of column 8.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cumbo (US 10801245). Cumbo discloses a power actuator 20 (figs. 1 and 2) for controlling motion of a door 12 of a vehicle 10, the door 12 moveable between an open position and a closed position, the power actuator 20 comprising:
a drive mechanism 22 (fig. 2) operatively coupled to one of the door 12 and a vehicle body 14 of the vehicle 10 for imparting a motion to the door 12 about a pivot axis 44 (fig. 3A) ;
a geartrain assembly 34, 38, 39 (fig. 2) operatively coupled to the drive mechanism 22; and
an electric motor 26 operatively coupled to the geartrain assembly 34, 38, 39 (fig. 2), wherein the electric motor 26 is configured to control the motion of the door 12 in one of a powered mode, as set forth on lines 63-64 of column 7, in which electrical power is applied thereto and a powered hold open mode, as set forth on lines 17-19 of column 8, in which the electrical power is applied to the electric motor 26 to hold the door 12 in a partially open position between the open position and the closed position and a non-powered hold open mode, as set forth on lines 4-9 of column 8, wherein with the electric motor 26 controlling the motion of the door 12 in the partially open position (note that the spur gears 38, 39, the epicyclic gear train 34 and the electric motor 26 will provide sufficient forces to hold the door 12 in an open position when the power to the motor 26 is no longer applied thereto at least when the vehicle 10 is disposed on a horizontal surface or a surface with a slight angle and the motor first hold the door in the partially open position), at least one of the electric motor 26 or the drive mechanism 22 or the geartrain assembly 34, 38, 39 provides internal friction and back drive forces opposing movement of the door 12 to prevent the door from moving away from the partially open position without employing a mechanical brake. It should be noted that when power to the electric motor 26 is turned off, the motor 26 will first resist movement of the door and the internal friction of the spur gears 38, 39, the epicyclic gear train 34 along with the back drive forces of the motor 26 will prevent the door from moving from the hold open position at least when the vehicle 10 is on a horizontal surface or a surface with a slight angle.
With respect to claim 16, Cumbo further discloses that the vehicle 10 extends vertically along a global vertical axis (labeled below) and the pivot axis 44 (also labeled below) of the door 12 is parallel to the global vertical axis, wherein the pivot axis 44 is selected to ensure the door 12 remains at the partially open position whereat the door 12 does not move towards the open position nor the closed position under an effect of gravity in response to the electric motor 26 being in the non-powered hold open mode and the vehicle 10 being on a surface being substantially level. Note that the door 12 of Cumbo will not rotate about its pivot axis 44 when the vehicle10 is on a planar surface since the pivot axis 44 of the door 12 is vertical.
With respect to claim 17, Cumbo further discloses that the global vertical axis is normal to the surface on which the vehicle 10 is disposed at least when the surface is horizontal.
With respect to claim 18, Cumbo further discloses that at least one of the electric motor 26 or the drive mechanism 22 or the geartrain assembly 34, 38, 39 is configured to provide the internal friction and the back drive forces opposing the movement of the door 12 in the non-powered hold open mode at least when the vehicle 10 is disposed on a horizontal surface.
With respect to claim 19, Cumbo further discloses that the electric motor 26 is coupled to a controller 40 (fig. 2) in communication with at least one closure member feedback sensor (not shown, but comprising the Hall-effect sensors as set forth on lines 24-26 of column 7) configured to determine at least one of a position and a speed of the door 12 and the electric motor 26 is controlled by the controller 40 using the at least one of the position and the speed of the door in the non-powered hold open mode as set forth on lines 24-27 of column 7.
With respect to claim 20, Cumbo further discloses that while the door is at the partially open position, the electric motor 26 is configured to stop any movement of the door 12 at the partially open position as set forth on lines 17-19 of column 8.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cumbo as applied to claims 1-3, 5 and 6 above, and further in view of Elie et al. (US 2017/0030134). Cumbo discloses that the controller 40 is configured to hold the door 12 using the power actuator 22 in the partially open position as set forth on lines 17-19 of column 8, but is silent concerning to using a predetermined inclination threshold of a surface on which the vehicle is disposed.
However, Elie et al. discloses holding a door 14 using a power actuator 22 in the partially open position in response to an inclination of a surface on which the vehicle 10 is disposed being greater than a predetermined inclination threshold, i.e., zero degrees, as set forth on lines 12-17 of paragraph 75.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to hold the door of Cumbo in response to an inclination of a surface on which the vehicle is disposed being greater than a predetermined inclination threshold, as taught by Elie et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to enable the controller to provide only the necessary amount of energy to the actuator 22 to hold the door at a desired open position.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cumbo as applied to claims 8-10, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Elie et al. (US 2017/0030134). Cumbo discloses the step of holding the door 12 using the power actuator 20 in the partially open position as set forth on lines 17-19 of column 8, but is silent concerning to using a predetermined inclination threshold of a surface on which the vehicle is disposed.
However, Elie et al. discloses the step of holding a door 14 using a power actuator 22 in the partially open position in response to an inclination of a surface on which the vehicle 10 is disposed being greater than a predetermined inclination threshold, i.e., zero degrees, as set forth on lines 12-17 of paragraph 75.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Cumbo with the step of utilizing the inclination of the surface on which the vehicle is disposed being greater than a predetermined inclination threshold, as taught by Elie et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to enable the controller to provide only the necessary amount of energy to the actuator 22 to hold the door at a desired open position.
PNG
media_image1.png
1660
1114
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Cumbo discloses the use of a mechanical brake to hold the door of Cumbo in a partially open position. Accordingly, the claims are patentable over the teachings of Cumbo since Cumbo discloses the use of a mechanical brake to hold the door in the partially open position. This is not found to be persuasive.
It should first be pointed out that the applicant has failed to adequately define a “mechanical brake”. The applicant states that the “power actuator 22 is configured to provide internal friction and back drive forces (e.g., from at least one of the electric motor 36 or the drive mechanism 42, 45, 47, 49 or the geartrain assembly 34, 38) opposing movement of the door 12 in the not powered mode” as set forth on lines 15-19 of paragraph 88. The internal friction of the motor, the drive mechanism and the geartrain assembly provide mechanical braking forces to resist the movement of the door from the partially open position. How is this not a mechanical brake? How do the applicant’s braking elements differ from a mechanical brake? It appears that the applicant’s braking system is different from the electromechanical brake of Cumbo, however, the applicant’s braking system is nonetheless a mechanical brake.
Even if the applicant were to sufficiently define the term “mechanical brake” so as to distinguish the function of the applicant’s invention over that of Cumbo, Cumbo still discloses only using the electric motor 26 to hold the door in the partially open position. See lines 4-9 of column 8, wherein Cumbo states “[o]nce the vehicle door 12 is positioned at the desired location, motor 26 is turned off . . . electric motor will first resist the user’s motion (thereby replicating a door check function)”. Since the door check function of the motor occurs independently of the electromechanical brake, Cumbo discloses using the power actuator 22 in a non-powered state to hold the door in the partially open position without a mechanical brake.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS NOT MADE FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights