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 .
Claim Interpretation
“Time sensor” as used in at least claim 3 is being interpreted as being a clock or other hardware component capable of clocking, i.e. “sensing”, time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8, 11-13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. US 20030025337 A1 (hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a device for acting on a motor vehicle adjustable element (Figure 1 door 1), the device comprising:
an arresting device (Abstract "A hook mechanism holds the door in an open condition") and a drive device (Abstract "electric driving device is adapted to move the door in the closing direction"), and at least one sensor (¶ 0034 "position sensor" and "timer"), and
a control unit (¶ 0033 discloses a controller controls the door mechanisms) which activates the arresting device (¶ 0038 discloses activating the hooking mechanism based on position sensor signals or time elapsed) and the drive device on the basis of signals from the at least one sensor (¶ 0044 discloses terminating sliding mechanism motor control based on position sensor signals),
wherein the control unit controls the arresting device and the drive device in dependence on signals from the at least one sensor with a time overlap of activating both the arresting device and the drive device at a same time (Figure 7 for example shows a situation wherein a door is hooked prior to stopping a door sliding operation, showing overlap in activation of hooking and during door sliding)
wherein the arresting device and the drive device are functionally separate (Abstract discloses hook mechanism and electric driving device as separate; see also Figure 1 sliding motor 91 and hooking motor 81) such that when the arresting device is separated from the motor vehicle adjustable element, the drive device is activated to engage and act on the motor vehicle adjustable element (Abstract discloses an example of unhooking the door and using the electric driving device to close the door) and when the arresting device is activated to engage and hold the motor vehicle adjustable element, the drive device is then deactivated (¶ 0044 discloses an example of terminating sliding mechanism motor control when the door is in a condition to be held by the hooking mechanism).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Suzuki further teaches that the at least one sensor includes a time sensor (¶ 0034 "timer").
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Suzuki further teaches that the at least one sensor includes a displacement sensor that detects displacement of the motor vehicle adjustable element (¶ 0032 "position sensor for detecting rotation number of the electric motor"; see also at least ¶ 0038 which determines door position based on the position sensor).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Suzuki further teaches that the at least one sensor includes a displacement sensor (¶ 0032 "position sensor for detecting rotation number of the electric motor"; see also at least ¶ 0038 which determines door position based on the position sensor) and/or an external force sensor, the method comprising the steps of:
when the motor vehicle adjustable element is closed and the drive device is activated for opening the motor vehicle adjustable element (Figures 6-7 discloses a door opening operation), detecting the reaching of a target position by the motor vehicle adjustable element by the displacement sensor (Figure 7 S27 discloses determining if a door has reached a predetermined position) and/or the external force sensors and
then additionally activating the arresting device when the target position is reached to engage the motor vehicle adjustable element (Figure 7 S27-S28 discloses hooking a door when the predetermined door position has been reached).
Regarding claim 11 and 17, Suzuki teaches all of claims 1 and 8 as detailed above. Suzuki further teaches that the arresting device is configured such that during fixing the motor vehicle adjustable element by the arresting device, the arresting device is currentless in that no electrical energy is consumed by the arresting device (Abstract discloses that the hooking mechanism is driven by a motor to result in a release state; see Figures 4 and 7 for examples where the release motor has to be stopped to result in a release condition; examiner understands this means that releasing the hook requires current and the hooked position requires no current).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Suzuki further teaches that the arresting device and the drive device are separately positioned from each other (Figure 1 show the sliding mechanism 9, and the hook mechanism 5 and releasing actuator 8 as separately positioned).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Suzuki further teaches that the arresting device includes a moveable hook that engages with the motor vehicle adjustable element (Abstract discloses a hook used to hold a vehicle door open, movable between hooked and unhooked positions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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.
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) 2, 5, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Arun et al. GB 2551210 (hereinafter Arun).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Suzuki does not teach that the at least one sensor includes an external force sensor which detects an external force acting on the motor vehicle adjustable element.
Arun teaches that the at least one sensor includes an external force sensor which detects an external force acting on the motor vehicle adjustable element (Abstract discloses a torque sensor detects torque applied to the member; see also at least page 5 lines 26-27).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Arun such that the sensors of Suzuki can also include the torque sensor of Arun. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to effectively detect user interaction as taught by Arun (Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Suzuki does not teach that the at least one sensor includes an external force sensor, the method comprising the steps of: when the motor vehicle adjustable element is open and the arresting device engages the motor vehicle adjustable element, detecting a user interaction by the external force sensor detecting an external force on the motor vehicle adjustable element, and additionally activating the arresting device and the drive device when the control unit determines that the external force exceeds a threshold.
Arun teaches that the at least one sensor includes an external force sensor (abstract discloses a torque sensor), the method comprising the steps of:
when the motor vehicle adjustable element is open and the arresting device is acted on, detecting a user interaction by the external force sensor detecting an external force on the motor vehicle adjustable element (abstract discloses detecting a force applied to a door in closing or opening direction when an actuator holds the door; a closing direction implies the method can be performed on an open door), and
additionally activating the arresting device and the drive device when the control unit determines that the external force exceeds a threshold (Abstract discloses switching from a holding mode to a power assist mode when an applied torque is above a threshold value).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Arun such that the holding release and subsequent sliding control of Suzuki can be trigged by utilizing the torque sensor of Arun wherein when the applied torque is above a threshold, power assisted door closing can be performed as taught by Arun. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to advantageously allow resistance to movement when small forces are applied while still reacting to larger forces indicative of a user as disclosed in Arun (page 2 lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Suzuki reference teaches all of claim 5 as detailed above. Suzuki further teaches that the arresting device is configured such that during fixing the motor vehicle adjustable element by the arresting device, the arresting device is currentless in that no electrical energy is consumed by the arresting device (Abstract that the hooking mechanism is driven by a motor to result in a release state; see Figures 4 and 7 for examples where the motor has to be stopped to result in a release condition; examiner understands this means that releasing the hook requires current and the hooked position requires no current).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki teaches all of claim 8 as detailed above.
Suzuki does not teach that the target position is detected by the external force sensor based on a decreasing external force acting on the motor vehicle adjustable element.
Arun teaches that the target position is detected by the external force sensor (abstract discloses a torque sensor detects torque applied to the member; see also at least page 5 lines 26-27) based on a decreasing external force acting on the motor vehicle adjustable element (page 13 lines 32 to page 14 line 2 discloses stopping power assistance when user ceases to apply a torque to the door).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Arun such that power assistance of Suzuki can further be stopped when a user ceases to apply a force as taught by Arun. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent undesired overextension or under-extension of the door.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as modified by Arun as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Uebel et al. US 10538951 B2 (hereinafter Uebel).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Suzuki reference teaches all of claim 5 as detailed above. Suzuki further teaches separating the arresting device from the motor vehicle adjustable element (Abstract discloses using a release actuator to release the hook from the door) and checking a release criterion (Figure 4 S10 and S9 discloses determining if a door position has fallen below an open range or if a predetermined time period has passed wherein if both situations are no, hooking device release is maintained).
Suzuki does not teach releasing the arresting device while the drive device is activated at the same time.
Uebel teaches releasing the arresting device while the drive device is activated at the same time (column 2 lines 22-42 disclose releasing a hold on a vehicle after having operated a driving device of the door for a short period of time).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Uebel such that the holding method of Suzuki can further activate partial door movement for a short period before releasing the door for full movement as taught by Uebel. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to avoid an abrupt change between holding position and release position as taught by Uebel (column 2 lines 22-42).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Suzuki reference teaches all of claim 6 as detailed above. Suzuki further teaches that the at least one sensor includes a time sensor (¶ 0034 "timer"), and the release criterion corresponds to a time measurement by the time sensor and when the release criterion is not fulfilled, the arresting device is activated again to engage the motor vehicle adjustable element (Figure 4 S10 and S11 discloses determining if a predetermined time period has passed wherein if the time period has passed, release of the hook is stopped; see also ¶ 0038).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Priest et al. US 5346272 (hereinafter Priest).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki teaches all of claim 8 as detailed above. Suzuki further teaches that the at least one sensor further includes a time sensor (¶ 0034 "timer")
Suzuki does not teach that the arresting device is only activated when a holding criterion is met which is linked to a time measurement by the time sensor in that the holding criterion is satisfied when the motor vehicle adjustable element maintains a certain position for a predetermined period of time.
Priest teaches that the arresting device is only activated when a holding criterion is met which is linked to a time measurement by the time sensor in that the holding criterion is satisfied when the motor vehicle adjustable element maintains a certain position for a predetermined period of time (Abstract discloses that a holding force is only applied to a door when a door has remained in an open position for a predetermined period of time).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Priest such that the holding method of Suzuki can further only be activated when a door has maintained a position for a set period of time measured by a circuit as taught by Priest. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent undesired door checking to improve user experience.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Suzuki reference teaches all of claim 9 as detailed above. Suzuki further teaches that, when the arresting device is activated and the holding criterion is met, the drive device is deactivated (Figure 7 S28-S30 discloses that, following hooking, the sliding motor is stopped in reaction to a position criteria being met).
Claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claims 4 and 8 above, and further in view of Herrmann et al. US 8508159 B2 (hereinafter Herrmann).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki teaches all of claim 4 as detailed above.
Suzuki does not teach that the displacement sensor is an open angle sensor that measures an angle of displacement of the motor vehicle adjustable element.
Herrmann teaches that the displacement sensor is an open angle sensor that measures an angle of displacement of the motor vehicle adjustable element (column 2 lines 53-60 discloses a position sensor for detecting position of the door; at least Figure 3 102 and Figure 4 202 wherein door angle is detected indicate that the position sensor is an angle sensor).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Herrmann. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the angle sensor of Herrmann for the position sensor of Suzuki. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of determining a door’s position/displacement renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki teaches all of claim 8 as detailed above.
Suzuki does not teach that reaching the target position is detected by the displacement sensor detecting that the motor vehicle adjustable element is moving at a speed below a threshold value for a defined period of time.
Herrmann teaches that reaching the target position is detected by the displacement sensor detecting that the motor vehicle adjustable element is moving at a speed below a threshold value for a defined period of time (column 7 lines 48-53 disclose that a door is determined to be at a standstill when the angular speed falls below a pre-defined value for a predetermined time; examiner understands the standstill state as equivalent to a target state).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Herrmann such that the predetermined position of Suzuki is detected when the door speed is below a set speed as taught by Herrmann. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for greater customizability of the set location by allowing the user to stop the door for a predetermined time at a desired position and prevent motor damage when the door is forcibly stopped or slowed by the environment.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as modified by Arun, and Uebel as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Dietewich et al. WO 2020011307 A1 (hereinafter Dietewich; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Suzuki reference teaches all of claim 7 as detailed above.
Suzuki does not teach that the release criterion comprises detecting the user interaction for a predetermined period of time.
Dietewich teaches that the release criterion comprises detecting the user interaction for a predetermined period of time (translated page 5 paragraphs 1-3 disclose providing assistance to manual operation which is detected when a user applies a force for a predetermined period of time; examiner understands that said assistance would release checking done to counteract, for example, wind detailed in at least translated page 7 paragraphs 8-9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Dietewich such that power assistance of Suzuki can further be performed when a user has applied a force for a predetermined period of time as taught by Dietewich. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent faulty actuation of the door caused by environmental forces such as strong wind.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 4/8/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 1/27/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed 4/8/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Suzuki (see above).
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 Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights