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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/849,624 filled on 09/23/2024.
Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recite the limitation "partially overlapping" on lines 7 and 5 respectively, where the phrase “partially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In Fig. 9, discloses first detection range 16A is partially overlapped with second detection range 16B, but it is not clear whether the overlapping shown in the Fig,. 9 represent the real overlapping area that is practically implemented. Further clarification is required.
Claims 2 and 9 cite “a part of…detection range”, where the phrase “part” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention
Claims 2-8 and 10-13 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim(s).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “driving unit” in Claim 1; “first detector” in claims 1, 8-9 and 13; “second detector” in claims 1, 8-9 and 13; “measurement unit” in claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10 and 13; “setting unit” in claims 1-2, 3-4, 5-8 and 10-13; “control unit” in claim 1; “determination unit” in claims 8 and 13; have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the original specification, filed 09/23/2024, Para. [0046], the measurement unit 32, the determination unit 33, and the setting unit 34 may be implemented as a microcomputer and other electronic devices”. Therefore, the examiner interpreted the phrase “measurement unit”, “setting unit” and “determining unit” as generic computer. Specification, in para. [0031], discloses “the detectors 13A, 13B is an ultrasonic sensor”, and in para. [027], [0046], cites “The control unit 30 includes the storage unit 31, the measurement unit 32, the determination unit 33, and the setting unit 34, and is implemented by one or more microcomputers and other electronic devices”. Therefore, the control unit is interpreted as a generic computer.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokutome Tetsuo (JP2017/082390A, this reference is from IDS and the attached equivalent English translate of this document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Tokutome) in view of Tokudome et al. (US 2020/0340286A1, this reference is from IDS) (hereinafter Tokudome).
Claim 1. Tokutome teaches a door opening and closing apparatus (See Para. [0001], “door opening and closing device for use in a vehicle”) comprising:
a driving unit configured to open and to close a door with respect to a vehicle body (See Para. [0022], “The door opening and closing device 10 includes a door opening and closing drive unit 12 that can open and close the door 4”);
a first detector (See Figs. 5 and 17, first detection means 20A”) configured to detect a detection target that is present within a first detection range set around the door (See Para. [0010], “first detection means detects object”, and see Para. [0042], “detection ranges R1 of the distance measuring sensors 20A”. Additionally, see Para. [0022], “pair of distance measuring sensors 20A and 20B that serve as detection means”);
a second detector (See Figs. 5 and 17, “second detection means 20B”) disposed spaced apart from the first detector in a horizontal direction (See Figs. 5 and 17 that detectors are disposed spaced apart horizontal direction) and configured to detect the detection target that is present within a second detection range set around the door in a manner partially overlapping with the first detection range (See Para. [0010], “second detection means that detects object”, and see Fig. 5 and Para. [0042], detection range R2 of distance measuring sensor, and see Fig. 5, Para. [0008], discloses “overlapping ranges”);
a measurement unit (See Para. [0028], [0032], discloses “measurement unit 30d”) configured to measure a first distance from the first detector to the detection target based on a detection result of the first detector, and to measure a second distance from the second detector to the detection target based on a detection result of the second detector (See Para. [0032], discloses “measure first distance and second distance as claimed”);
Nevertheless, Tokutome fails to teach, repeatedly detect a detection target; a setting unit configured to set at least a part of one of the first detection range and the second detection range as a first zone in which a first phase of a setting movement of the detection target is to be detected, and to set a part of another one of the first detection range and the second detection range as a second zone in which a second phase of the setting movement is to be detected, based on the first distance and the second distance measured by the measurement unit; and
a control unit configured to cause the driving unit to open or to close the door upon determining that the detection target has performed the setting movement including a movement between the first zone and the second zone, based on a change in the first distance and a change in the second distance measured by the measurement unit.
However, Tokudome teaches, repeatedly detect a detection target (See Para. [0070], “repeatedly detect the detection target using the detectors 13A and 13B”); a setting unit (See Para. [0055], “setting unit 32”) configured to set at least a part of one of the first detection range (See Para. [0055], “he setting unit 32 sets the first detection range 16A as the detection section 22A”) and the second detection range as a first zone (See Para. [0055], “the setting unit 32 sets the second detection range 16B as the detection section 22B”) in which a first phase of a setting movement of the detection target is to be detected (See Para. [0055], “the detection targets detected by both the detectors 13A and 13B are the moving objects”), and to set a part of another one of the first detection range and the second detection range as a second zone in which a second phase of the setting movement is to be detected, based on the first distance and the second distance measured by the measurement unit (See Para. [0054]-[0055], “the setting unit 32 sets a part of the approach area 17 as a detection section configured to detect the operations Ma and Mb of the user. Specifically, the setting unit 32 sets a detection section depending on any of the first detection range 16A and the second detection range 16B where the moving object is present”, and Para. [0056], “the setting unit 32 performs setting so as to use the first boundary line 20A closer to the door 4). As a result, the control unit 28 determines the movement of the moving object between the start section 18 and the trigger section 19 based on the first boundary line 20A”); and
a control unit configured to cause the driving unit to open or to close the door upon determining that the detection target has performed the setting movement including a movement between the first zone and the second zone, based on a change in the first distance and a change in the second distance measured by the measurement unit (See Para. [0036], “the control unit 28 causes the drive unit 24 to drive for opening when the door 4 is in a closed state as illustrated in FIG. 3A or causes the drive unit 24 to drive for closing when the door 4 is in an open state as illustrated in FIG. 3B.”, and see Para. [0056], “the control unit 28 determines the movement of the moving object between the start section 18 and the trigger section 19 based on the first boundary line 20A. On the other hand, when the wall 6 does not exist as in FIG. 2D, the setting unit 32 performs setting so as to use the second boundary line 20B farther from the door 4. As a result, the control unit 28 determines the movement of the moving object based on the second boundary line 20B”, and Para. [0072], “the measurement unit 30 calculates the distances Da and Db to the detection target using a detection result returned earliest among the input detection results”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Tokutome with a setting unit and control unit as taught by Tokudome to set detection range and determines the movement of the moving object between two section [i.e., first zone and second zone) in order to improve opening and closing door of the vehicle.
Claim 9 is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 9 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if claim rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and written to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2, the closest prior art, Tokutome Tetsuo (JP2017/082390A) and Tokudome et al. (US 2020/0340286A1) fail to suggest, disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitations of “wherein the setting unit is:
enabled to set a first access mode and a second access mode in which the first zone and the second zone are set to different positions;
configured to, in the first access mode, set a part of the first detection range as the first zone, and to set a part of the second detection range as the second zone, and
configured to, in the second access mode, set a part of the second detection range as the first zone, and to set a part of the first detection range as the second zone” and in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-8 and 10-13 depends upon directly or indirectly ends on claim 2. Therefore, claims 2-8 and 10-13 would be allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657