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 Objections
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 line 2 and claim 8 line 1 read "a device", but there is already antecedent basis for the device and therefore should read "the device" to improve continuity and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“Coupled to” as used in at least claim 7 is being interpreted as meaning “dependent on” or “comprising” in light of at least paragraphs 0019 and 0037 of the specification wherein the release criterion, which is stated to be coupled to a time measurement in claim 7, is recited as being/corresponding to the time measurement.
“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, 4, 8, 11-12, 14, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Herrmann et al. US 8508159 B2 (hereinafter Herrmann).
Regarding claim 1, Herrmann teaches a device for acting on a motor vehicle adjustable element (Figure 1 vehicle door 10), the device comprising:
an arresting device (column 3 lines 10-19 discloses a coupling device used in fixing the vehicle door) and a drive device (column 2 lines 10-16 discloses a drive device used in controlling movement speed of a vehicle door), and at least one sensor (column 2 lines 53-60 discloses various sensors), and
a control unit (column 2 lines 7-16 discloses a control unit for controlling operation of the coupling device and drive device) which acts on the arresting device and the drive device on the basis of signals from the at least one sensor (see Figures 3-4 detailing flowcharts for coupling and motor, i.e. drive, control responsive to sensed door speed, voltage, and time),
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 acting on both the arresting device and the drive device at a same time (see Figures 3-4 wherein coupling and motor control occur simultaneously based on sensor results).
Regarding claim 4, Herrmann teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Herrmann further teaches that the at least one sensor includes a displacement sensor that detects displacement of the motor vehicle adjustable element (column 2 lines 53-60 discloses a position sensor for detecting position of the door).
Regarding claim 8, Herrmann teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Herrmann further teaches that the at least one sensor includes a displacement sensor (column 2 lines 53-60 discloses a position sensor for detecting position and speed of the door) 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 acted on for opening (Figure 3 details power assisted door opening followed by fixing the door; examiner understands this can occur when door is fully closed and any other situation wherein door is desired to be opened), detecting the reaching of a target position by the motor vehicle adjustable element by the displacement sensor (column 7 lines 48-53 discloses that a door is determined to be at a standstill when the angular speed falls below a pre-defined value; examiner understands the standstill state as equivalent to a target state) and/or the external force sensors and
then additionally activating the arresting device when the target position is reached (column 7 lines 54-58 discloses a door is fixed by non-energizing the coupling unit while maintaining a coupling state after standstill state is reached).
Regarding claim 11 and 17, Herrmann teaches all of claims 1 and 8 as detailed above. Herrmann 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 (column 3 lines 10-19 discloses a coupling device is in a non-energized holding state when used in fixing the vehicle door).
Regarding claim 12, Herrmann teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Herrmann further teaches that the arresting device and the drive device are separately positioned from each other (Figure 2 shows the coupling device 21 and drive device 2 as separate).
Regarding claim 14, Herrmann teaches all of claim 4 as detailed above. Herrmann further 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).
Regarding claim 19, Herrmann teaches all of claim 8 as detailed above. Herrmann further 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).
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 Herrmann as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Arun et al. GB 2551210 (hereinafter Arun).
Regarding claim 2, Herrmann teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Herrmann does not explicitly teach that the at least one sensor includes an external force sensor which detects an external force acting on the motor vehicle adjustable element. Although Herrmann may implicitly teach this through at least column 4 lines 49-63 wherein a force applied to a door is detected indicating some sensor must exist to sense this interaction, for completeness of record, Arun will be utilized to teach this limitation explicitly.
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 Herrmann to incorporate the teachings of Arun such that the sensors of Herrmann 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, Herrmann teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Herrmann further teaches, when the motor vehicle adjustable element is open and the arresting device is acted on, detecting a user interaction by detecting an external force on the motor vehicle adjustable element (column 4 lines 49-63 discloses holding of a door is released when a manual force is applied).
Herrmann does not explicitly 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 is acted on, detecting a user interaction by the external force sensor detecting an external force on the motor vehicle adjustable element, and additionally acting on 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 acting on the drive device when the control unit determines that the external force exceeds a threshold (abstract discloses switching 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 Herrmann to incorporate the teachings of Arun such that the holding release of Herrmann 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 Herrmann reference teaches all of claim 5 as detailed above. Herrmann 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 (column 3 lines 10-19 discloses a coupling device is in a non-energized holding state when used in fixing the vehicle door).
Regarding claim 18, Herrmann teaches all of claim 8 as detailed above.
Herrmann 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 Herrmann to incorporate the teachings of Arun such that power assistance of Hermann 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) 3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Priest et al. US 5346272 (hereinafter Priest).
Regarding claim 3, Herrmann teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Herrmann does not explicitly teach that the at least one sensor includes a time sensor. While this may implicitly be taught in at least column 7 lines 48-53 wherein an angular speed is determined to be below a threshold for a predetermined time indicating the existence of some clock mechanism in order to track the passage of the predetermined time period, Priest will be utilized to teach this limitation explicitly for completeness of record.
Priest teaches that the at least one sensor includes a time sensor (column 5 lines 10-37 discloses measuring a predetermined period of time, 500 milliseconds, by utilizing a specific circuit design; examiner considers this equivalent to a "time sensor" since it clocks 500 milliseconds).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Herrmann to incorporate the teachings of Priest such that the sensors of Herrmann can also include the specific circuit used to clock 500 milliseconds of Priest. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a time delay before activating door holding as taught by Priest (Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Herrmann teaches all of claim 8 as detailed above.
Herrmann does not explicitly teach that the at least one sensor further includes a time sensor, and 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 at least one sensor further includes a time sensor (column 5 lines 10-37 discloses measuring a predetermined period of time, 500 milliseconds, by utilizing a specific circuit design; examiner considers this equivalent to a "time sensor" since it clocks 500 milliseconds), and 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 Herrmann to incorporate the teachings of Priest such that the holding method of Herrmann 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 Herrmann reference teaches all of claim 9 as detailed above. Herrmann further teaches that, when the arresting device is activated and the holding criterion is met, the drive device is deactivated (Figure 3 108-109 and column 7 lines 54-58 disclose that after entering a fixing state due to satisfaction of a fixing condition, the coupling device is held in a non-energized state while applied motor voltage is 0).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann 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 Herrmann reference teaches all of claim 5 as detailed above. Herrmann further teaches checking a release criterion (column 4 lines 49-63 discloses holding of a door is released when a manual force is applied; Figure 3 108 discloses conditions for reactivating fixing of a door; examiner considers these equivalent to release conditions as they determine when the door is checked or not).
Hermann does not teach releasing the arresting device while the drive device is acted on at the same time.
Uebel teaches releasing the arresting device while the drive device is acted on 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 Herrmann to incorporate the teachings of Uebel such that the holding method of Herrmann 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).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann as modified by Arun and Uebel as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Priest.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Herrmann reference teaches all of claim 6 as detailed above.
Herrmann does not explicitly teach that the at least one sensor includes a time sensor, and the release criterion is coupled to a time measurement by the time sensor and when the release criterion is not fulfilled, the arresting device is acted on again.
Priest teaches that the at least one sensor includes a time sensor (column 5 lines 10-37 discloses measuring a predetermined period of time, 500 milliseconds, by utilizing a specific circuit design; examiner considers this equivalent to a "time sensor" since it clocks 500 milliseconds), and the release criterion is coupled to a time measurement by the time sensor (abstract discloses releasing a door if the door has moved a predetermined distance since activating a brake to fix the door) and
when the release criterion is not fulfilled, the arresting device is acted on again (Abstract discloses that a holding force is only applied to a door when a door has remained open for a predetermined period of time; examiner considers this equivalent to "not fulfilling" the release condition as the condition of having the door move during a predetermined distance becomes unsatisfied if the door stops and remains stationary for the predefined period of time).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. US 20030025337 A1 (hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 13, Herrmann teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Herrmann does not teach that the arresting device includes a moveable hook that engages with the motor vehicle adjustable element.
Suzuki 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).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Herrmann to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki such that the door holding mechanism of Herrmann can further include the hook based mechanism of Suzuki. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide functional redundancy such that, if one system fails in holding the door, the other system can still hold the door.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann as modified by Arun, Uebel, and Priest 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 Herrmann reference teaches all of claim 7 as detailed above.
Herrmann 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 Herrmann to incorporate the teachings of Dietewich such that power assistance of Hermann 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.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bendel et al. US-20150240548-A1 discloses an automatic door responsive to sensors.
Organek et al. US-20060219497-A1 discloses an infinitely variable door check.
Oxley et al. US-20180179788-A1 discloses an automatic door check for a vehicle with a further device for closing the door automatically.
"You can open and close the Mercedes EQS' doors with your voice" by Daniel Golson discloses an automatic door responsive to voice commands.
Conclusion
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 5:00 am - 3:30 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