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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on March 23, 2026.
Claims 1-12 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-12 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0175301) in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0298835).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 102
The Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed on March 23, 2026, appear to be primarily directed to the amended claim language. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because amendments shift the scope of claims and necessitate a new ground of rejection, which is made in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0298835).
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “determine whether the opening and closing reservation of the opening and closing body being performed” which is followed by “in response to an opening and closing reservation.”
The Examiner suggests amending these to recite “determine whether [[the]] an opening and closing reservation of the opening and closing body being performed” and “in response to [[an]] the opening and closing reservation.”
Claims 8 and 9 recite similar informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0175301) in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0298835).
Regarding claim 1, Song discloses a control device for a moving object that includes an opening and closing body, the control device comprising:
a control unit (Song Fig. 1 controller 140) configured to perform automated movement control for moving the moving object to a target movement position that is a parking position (Song ¶ 47 discloses that the “controller 140 may control ... traveling of the vehicle 100,” such that “the controller 140 may ... control the travelling device 170 so that the vehicle 100 returns to a location where the vehicle 100 was parked,” see ¶ 53) or an exit position from a start position that is a position of the moving object,
wherein, the control unit is configured to determine whether the opening and closing reservation of the opening and closing body is performed or not in the automated movement control, (Song in at least ¶ 20 discloses “when an opening signal for the tailgate is received while the vehicle is parked, determining a distance to an obstacle located at a rear of the vehicle based on an output of the object detection sensor, when the distance is greater than or equal to a predetermined dangerous distance, controlling the opening and closing device to open the tailgate” and receiving a closing signal “after the tailgate is opened,” see ¶ 21, thereby determining that the opening and closing reservation of the opening and closing body has been performed.)
in response to an opening and closing reservation of the opening and closing body being performed, move the moving object from the start position, stop the moving object at an opening and closing position different from the target movement position after the automated movement control is started, (Song ¶ 21 discloses “the opening attempt,” such as a “manual opening attempt of a vehicle trunk by the user,” can be “detected by dedicated electronics or sensors and transferred to the control unit. The control unit evaluates (verifies) the user command and eventually stops the vehicle (cancels the autonomous parking or driving operation)”)
perform opening and closing of the opening and closing body, and (Song ¶ 92 discloses that “the vehicle 100 may open the tailgate 165 (823),” also see Fig. 8A)
resume movement of the moving object toward the target movement position after the opening and closing are completed, and (Song ¶ 93 discloses that “when the determined distance d is less than the set dangerous distance d.sub.r (Yes in operation 805), the vehicle 100 may output a warning message warning of a movement of the vehicle 100 (807). When a set period of time elapses (Yes in operation 809), the vehicle 100 may move in a reverse direction [i.e., resume movement] of a parking path (813),” also see Fig. 8A and 8B. Also see at least ¶ 26, “controlling the travelling device so that the vehicle resumes moving in the reverse direction of the parking path, when a movement resumption command is received from a user after the vehicle is stopped,” which is further described in at least ¶ 96)
Song does not expressly disclose:
in response to an opening and closing reservation of the opening and closing body being not performed, move the moving object from the start position to the target movement position.
However, Suzuki discloses:
in response to an opening and closing reservation of the opening and closing body being not performed, move the moving object from the start position to the target movement position. (Suzuki ¶ 70 discloses that “When the vehicle V1 makes a stop at a position at which at least part of the vehicle V1 belongs to the target parking space, it is highly possible to fall into a state that cannot be handled, such as a state in which it is not possible to enter the parking space, get on the vehicle V1, or access an opening part such as a door or a trunk of the vehicle V1 when the vehicle V1 is stopped,” such that a “second route is calculated when the possibility of the occurrence of such a state that cannot be handled is high,” in which the “the vehicle V1 is moved along the second route RT2 for the vehicle V1 to leave from the target parking space P” to an “evacuation space,” see ¶ 76. Also see Fig. 6B).
Song discloses determining that a distance from a vehicle tailgate to an obstacle is less than a predetermined dangerous distance, and controlling the vehicle to move in a reverse direction, and opening the tailgate after the vehicle moves by the predetermined movement distance (see Song in at least ¶ 20). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the dangerous distance of Song to expressly disclose that the opening and closing is not performed, as disclosed by Suzuki, and to have modified the reverse direction of Song to instead be moving from the start position to the target movement position, as disclosed by Suzuki, with reasonable expectation of success, to ensure safety (Suzuki ¶ 68), and so as to be able to ensure the longest predetermined distance (a clearance having the widest width, the widest clearance) (Suzuki ¶ 64), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 2, Song in combination with Suzuki discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein:
the opening and closing position is a position midway along a route to the target movement position. (Song ¶ 72 dislcoses that “the vehicle 100 moves by a predetermined movement distance ... in a reverse direction of a parking path, and after the vehicle 100 moves by the predetermined movement distance [i.e., a position midway], control the opening and closing device 160 to open the tailgate 165,” also see Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 3, Song in combination with Suzuki discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein:
the opening and closing position is set based on a detection result of an obstacle around the moving object. (Song ¶ 51 discloses “when receiving the tailgate opening signal ... the controller 140 may determine a distance to a rear obstacle based on an output of the object detection sensor no, and when the distance to the rear obstacle is greater than or equal to a dangerous distance, control the opening and closing device 160 to open the tailgate.”)
Regarding claim 4, Song in combination with Suzuki discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein:
in response to the moving object being stopped at the opening and closing position, the control unit performs notification to prompt a user of the moving object to open and close the opening and closing body. (Song ¶ 60 discloses that when “the obstacle exists on the movement path of the vehicle 100, the user interface 150 may output the warning message under control of the controller 140,” such that “when the distance d to the rear obstacle O.sub.1 is greater than or equal to the dangerous distance d.sub.r, and so no risk of collision between the tailgate 165 and the rear obstacle 01 is determined, the vehicle wo may control the opening and closing device 160 to immediately open the tailgate 165,” see ¶ 71)
Regarding claim 5, Song in combination with Suzuki discloses the control device according to claim 4, wherein:
in response to an instruction to open and close the opening and closing body being received from a user of the moving object after the notification, the control unit causes the opening and closing body to open and close. (Song ¶ 47 discloses a controller 140 and an inputter 120, wherein the inputter 120 that may “receive a user input, and the communicator 130 may perform [i.e., after receiving an instruction] communication with a smart key (key fob) and a user terminal (smartphone),” such that “the inputter 120 may receive a command for opening and closing the tailgate from a user,” see ¶ 49, wherein the control is performed after the notification, see Fig. 8A and 8B.)
Regarding claim 6, Song in combination with Suzuki discloses the control device according claim 1, wherein:
the moving object includes a plurality of the opening and closing bodies, and (Song in at least Fig. 2 depicts a vehicle with doors and a tail gate, wherein the tail gate is an opening and closing body as depicted in at least Fig. 3. One having ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that a passenger door of a vehicle is an opening and closing body.)
the control unit performs the opening and closing on an opening and closing body for which the opening and closing reservation is performed among the plurality of opening and closing bodies. (Song in at least ¶ 47 discloses that “The controller 140 may control opening and closing of a tailgate” and “automatically moves the vehicle 100 according to the tailgate opening signal and the tailgate closing signal,” see ¶ 59)
Regarding claim 7, Song in combination with Suzuki discloses the control device according to claims 1, wherein:
the movement control and reception of the opening and closing reservation are performed based on an input operation on an information terminal carried by a user of the moving object. (Song in at least ¶ 50 discloses that “the communicator 130 may communicate with a smart key or a user terminal through wireless communication, and receive a tailgate opening signal or a tailgate closing signal from the smart key or the user terminal, such that “When receiving a movement resumption command from the user after the vehicle 100 is stopped, the vehicle 100 may control the travelling device 170 so that the vehicle 100 resumes the movement in the reverse direction of the parking path,” see ¶ 79)
Regarding claim 8, Song in combination with Suzuki discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. Song further discloses causing a processor to perform the limitations of claim 1 (Song in at least ¶ 56).
Regarding claim 9, Song in combination with Suzuki discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. Song further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a control program causing a processor to perform the limitations of claim 1 (Song in at least ¶¶ 56 and 103).
Regarding claim 10, Song in combination with Suzuki discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein:
in a case where the opening and closing reservation is made and the opening and closing of the opening and closing body are performed, the control unit is configured to delete the opening and closing reservation. (Song ¶ 97 discloses “returning to a parking location after closing a tailgate in a control method of the vehicle wo according to an embodiment” and “when the vehicle wo returns to the parking location of the vehicle 100 (Yes in operation 913), the vehicle 100 may end [i.e., delete] operations,” see ¶ 101).
Regarding claim 11, Song in combination with Suzuki discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein:
the moving object includes a plurality of the opening and closing bodies, (Song in at least Fig. 3 depicts the opening and closing body to be the tailgate; one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a vehicle further includes passenger doors, as depicted, which are a plurality of opening and closing bodies) and the control unit is configured to perform the opening and closing of the opening and closing body for the opening and closing body for which a user performed the opening and closing reservation among the plurality of the opening and closing bodies. (Song in at least ¶¶ 49-51 discloses that “the inputter 120 may receive a command for opening and closing the tailgate from a user” such that “when receiving the tailgate opening signal while the vehicle wo is parked, the controller 140 may determine a distance to a rear obstacle” and “control the opening and closing device 160 to open the tailgate.”)
Regarding claim 12, Song in combination with Suzuki discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein:
the control unit is configured to set the opening and closing position based on the position of a user. (Song ¶ 49 discloses that “inputter 120 may receive a command for opening and closing the tailgate from a user. For example, the inputter 120 may include a button provided on a driver's seat side of the vehicle 100, a button provided on the tailgate,” indicating the location of the user to actuate the button (e.g., the user is in or around the driver’s seat side of the vehicle to initiate the command for the opening and closing). Also see Fig. 3.)
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 STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights