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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed February 3, 2026.
Drawings
The drawing correction of February 3, 2026 has been approved.
However, the drawings are still objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) since the lines, numbers, and letters are not sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined as to give the drawings satisfactory reproduction characteristics. See the examples below.
PNG
media_image1.png
1188
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
904
1058
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. Note that the abstract fails to mention holding the door in the partially open position when the power actuator is in the powered mode and the controller that controls the power actuator in response to the slope of the surface upon which the vehicle rests.
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).
The disclosure is objected to because “at the partially open position in response to the position of the door 12 being different than the partially open position” on lines 12-13 of paragraph 89 is confusing. It is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How can the movement of the door be stopped at the partially open position in response to the door being in a different position than the partially opened position? In other words, how can the movement of the door from a position be stopped in response to the movement of the door from the position?
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “a power actuator operable in . . . a not powered mode” on lines 4-5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the operator can be operable in a not powered mode. In other words, how can a power actuator be operable when no power is supplied thereto in the not powered mode?
Claim 1 is objected to because “a hold open position” on line 13 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the hold open position is different from the partially open position. It appears that the applicant is referring to the same position between the open and closed positions of the door.
Claim 6 is objected to because “stop movement of the door at the partially open position in response to the position of the door being different than the partially open position” brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How can the movement from the partially open position be stopped when the position of the door is different than the partially open position? In other words, how can the movement of the door from the partially open position be stopped when the door has to move from the partially open position, i.e., the position different than the partially open position.
Claim 8 is objected to because “controlling the power actuator in a non-powered hold open mode” on line 14 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the power actuator can be controlled in a non-powered mode. In other words, how can the power actuator be controlled when no power is supplied thereto in the non-powered mode?
Claim 8 is objected to because “a hold open position” on line 15 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the hold open position set forth above or is attempting to set forth another hold open position in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 9 is objected to because “a pivot axis” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the pivot axis set forth above or is attempting to set forth another pivot axis in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 9 is objected to because “a door” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another door in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 9 is objected to because “a partially open position” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the partially open position set forth above or is attempting to set forth another partially open position in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 9 is objected to because “a power actuator” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the power actuator set forth above or is attempting to set forth another power actuator in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 9 is objected to because “a not powered mode” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the non-powered mode set forth above or is attempting to set forth another powered mode in addition to the one set forth above.
On line 7 of claim 9, it is suggested the applicant change “electrical” to --the electrical-- to avoid confusion.
Claim 13 is objected to because “movement of the door” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the movement of the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another movement in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 13 is objected to because “to stop movement of the door at the partially open position in response to the position of the door being different than the partially open position” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How can the movement from the partially open position be stopped when the position of the door is different than the partially open position? In other words, how can the movement of the door from the partially open position be stopped when the door has to move from the partially open position, i.e., the position different than the partially open position.
Claim 14 is objected to because “a surface” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the surface set forth above or is attempting to set forth another surface in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 16 is objected to because “a partially open position” on lines 3-4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the hold open position set forth in claim 15 is different from the partially open position set forth in claim 16. It appears that the applicant is referring to the same position between the open and closed positions of the door.
Claim 18 is objected to because “internal friction” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the internal friction set forth above or is attempting to set forth additional internal friction in addition to the internal friction set forth above.
Claim 18 is objected to because “back drive forces” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the back drive forces set forth above or is attempting to set forth additional back drive forces in addition to the ones set forth above.
Claim 20 is objected to because “to stop movement of the door at the partially open position in response to the position of the door being different than the partially open position” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How can the movement from the partially open position be stopped when the position of the door is different than the partially open position? In other words, how can the movement of the door from the partially open position be stopped when the door has to move from the partially open position, i.e., the position different than the partially open 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 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 (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 hold open position as set forth on lines 17-19 of column 8, and
controlling 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 a hold 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 hold open position.
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 a pivot axis 44 of a door 12, i.e., vertical as set forth on lines 45-48 of column 8, to ensure the door 12 remains at a partially open position between an open position and a closed position whereat the door 12 does not move towards the open position nor the closed position under an effect of gravity in response to a power actuator 22 configured to move the door being in a not powered 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 since 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 24-26 of column 7.
With respect to claim 13, Cumbo further discloses the step of controlling the power actuator 22 to stop movement of the door 12 at 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 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 hold open position and a non-powered hold open mode, as set forth on lines 41-49 of column 7, wherein with the electric motor 26 controlling the motion of the door 12 in the hold 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), 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 hold open position. It should be noted that when power to the electric motor 26 is turned off, 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 a 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 internal friction and back drive forces opposing 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 the electric motor 26 is configured to stop movement of the door 12 at 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster et al. (US 2018/0080271) in view of Cumbo (10801245). Oster et al. discloses a system for a vehicle 50 (fig. 1), comprising:
a door 52 (fig. 1) of the vehicle 50 moveable between an open position and a closed position; and
a power actuator 10 (fig. 1) operable in one of a powered mode, as set forth on lines 1-2 of paragraph 35, in which electrical power is applied thereto and a not powered mode, as set forth in paragraph 20, in which the electrical power is not applied thereto, the power actuator 10 configured to move the door 52 to a partially open position between the open position and the closed position, as set forth on lines 19-20 of paragraph 34, in the powered mode and not move the door in the not powered mode as set forth in paragraph 20 and lines 6-11 of paragraph 37;
wherein with the door 52 in a hold open position, at least one of an electric motor or a drive mechanism 20 (fig. 3) or a geartrain assembly of the power actuator 10 is configured to provide internal friction and back drive forces opposing movement of the door 52 without application of the electrical power to the power actuator 10 to prevent the door 52 from moving away from the hold open position as set forth in paragraph 20 and lines 6-11 of paragraph 37.
Oster et al. is silent concerning the door of the vehicle moveable about a pivot axis between an open position and a closed position.
However, Cumbo discloses a door 12 (fig. 1) of the vehicle 10 (fig. 1) moveable about a pivot axis 44 (fig. 3A) between an open position and a closed position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the door of Oster et al. with a pivot axis, as taught by Cumbo, with a reasonable expectation of success to enable the door of the vehicle to easily pivot between opened and closed positions.
With respect to claim 5, Oster et al., as modified above, discloses at least one closure member feedback sensor 16 (see lines 1-5 of paragraph 36 of Oster et al.) configured to determine at least one of a position and a speed of the door 52 and a controller 24 configured to monitor the position of the door 52 while the power actuator is in the not powered mode.
With respect to claim 6, Oster et al., as modified above, discloses that the controller 24 is further configured to control the power actuator 10 to stop movement of the door 52 at the partially open position in response to the position of the door being different than the partially open position as set forth on lines 6-11 of paragraph 37.
With respect to claim 7, Oster et al., as modified above, discloses that the controller 24 is further configured to hold the door 52 using the power actuator 10 which includes the drive mechanism 20 in the partially open position in response to an inclination of a surface on which the vehicle is disposed being greater than a predetermined inclination threshold as set forth on lines 13-18 of paragraph 34.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster et al. in view of Cumbo as applied to claims 1 and 5-7 above. Oster et al. discloses a vehicle 50, but does not disclose that the vehicle has a global vertical axis.
However, Cumbo discloses that the vehicle 10 extends vertically along a global vertical axis (labeled below) and the pivot axis 44 of the door 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 power actuator being in the not powered mode and the vehicle being on a surface being substantially level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Oster et al., as modified above, with a global vertical axis, as taught by Cumbo, with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure that the door can be easily opened and closed when the vehicle is on a horizontal surface.
With respect to claim 3, Oster et al., as modified above, discloses that 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.
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_image3.png
1660
1114
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Cumbo and Elie et al. each fail to disclose both a powered hold open mode and a non-powered hold open mode. This is not found to be persuasive because at least Cumbo discloses both a powered hold open mode and a non-powered hold open mode.
Cumbo discloses a powered hold open mode on lines 17-19 of column 8 which agrees with the applicant’s comment that “Cumbo clearly indicates that in the hold open mode, the motor is powered”.
Cumbo also discloses a non-powered hold open mode. See lines 41-49 of column 7 which recite turning off power to the motor 26 when an obstacle is detected. When the motor 26 is turned off, the inherent frictional forces of the gears 38, 39, the epicyclic gear train 34 and the motor 26 all prevent the door 12 from moving from the open position at which the door is in when the object is detected. Also see lines 4-6 of column 8 which set forth that the door 12 is held in a desired position when the power to the motor 26 is turned off.
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 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