DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
“the self-learning control unit evaluating values of the at least one sensor, wherein the control unit evaluates…” in claim 10.
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.
Regarding the limitations “a self-learning control unit that evaluates…” and “…the control unit evaluates…” the specification fails to disclose a structure for a control unit, please see the 35 USC 112 claim rejection section below.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to disclosure structure corresponding to the claim limitation “the self-learning control unit evaluating values of the at least one sensor, wherein the control unit evaluates…” in claim 10, and therefore, does not comply with the written description requirement.
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 and 10 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the motor vehicle door or motor vehicle flap comprising a drive for a leaf of the motor vehicle door or motor vehicle flap that can be moved relative to a motor vehicle body”. It is unclear whether “moved relative to a motor vehicle body” is modifying the drive or the leaf of the motor vehicle door. For the sake of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the leaf is the object that can be moved relative to the vehicle body. Additionally, regarding the term “the motor vehicle door or motor vehicle flap comprising a drive for a leaf…” the purpose of the drive for the leaf in the claim is unclear. For the sake of examination the limitation is being interpreted as “a drive for moving a leaf”. Claim 10 recites similar limitations and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the self-learning control unit evaluating values of the at least one sensor, wherein the control unit evaluates…” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 20130169408 A1) in view of Ette (US 20200198581 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Endo teaches:
A method for controlling a motor vehicle door or a motor vehicle flap,
the motor vehicle door or motor vehicle flap comprising a drive for a leaf of the motor vehicle door or motor vehicle flap that can be moved relative to a motor vehicle body, at least one sensor, and a
(Endo – [0016] “The door control apparatus (A) includes a control unit 9, a communication unit 10 which is controlled and operated by the control unit 9, an authentication unit 1 and an ignition monitoring unit 11 which monitors the state of an ignition switch (operation unit 7). Furthermore, the door control apparatus (A) includes a detection unit 5, a driving motor 6 as an electric power source for rotationally driving the back door 3 and an angular sensor 12 for detecting a rotation angle of the back door 3, whose input and output are respectively controlled and monitored by the control unit 9.”
Examiner’s note: As described in para. [0002] of the specification, a leaf is a part of the door or tailgate that moves relative to the vehicle body, therefore the back door 3 that rotates relative to the vehicle corresponds to the leaf of the motor vehicle door. Additionally, the door control apparatus (A) corresponds to the control unit.)
the method comprising the steps of:
with the at least one sensor detecting individual or a plurality of static and/or dynamic parameters of the leaf,
(Endo – [0016] “Furthermore, the door control apparatus (A) includes a detection unit 5, a driving motor 6 as an electric power source for rotationally driving the back door 3 and an angular sensor 12 for detecting a rotation angle of the back door 3, whose input and output are respectively controlled and monitored by the control unit 9.”)
with the
(Endo – [0016] “Furthermore, the door control apparatus (A) includes a detection unit 5, a driving motor 6 as an electric power source for rotationally driving the back door 3 and an angular sensor 12 for detecting a rotation angle of the back door 3, whose input and output are respectively controlled and monitored by the control unit 9.” [0017] “When the authentication unit receives the response signal within a predetermined time, the authentication unit 1 compares the ID information contained in the response signal with the registered ID information stored in a storage unit (not shown) and outputs an authentication validation signal when it is verified that the ID information and the registered ID information are matched to each other.”
Examiner’s note: where the authentication unit 1 and control unit 9 are both included in the door control apparatus (A), which corresponds to the control unit.)
with the control unit operating the drive in accordance with the user identification.
(Endo – [0032] “According to embodiments, a door control apparatus (A) may include an authentication unit 1 configured to authenticate an ID information outputted from a mobile device 2 carried by a user, a detection unit 5 configured to detect an object 4 around a door 3 to close an opening of a vehicle, and a control unit 9 configured to perform an opening operation of the door 3 at least when both a first condition and a second condition are satisfied. The first condition is defined as a condition in which the authentication unit 1 authenticates the ID information and the second condition is defined as a condition in which the detection unit 5 detects that the object 4 is located in a predetermined determination area (R) adjacent to the door 3 continuously in excess of a predetermined time and then the object 4 is separated from the determination area (R).”)
Endo does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Ette teaches:
a self-learning control unit,
(Ette – [0028] “The learning system is an electronic processing system that includes one or more processing units.” [0030] “In example embodiments, the learning system is programmed with and executes machine-learning algorithms to analyze the movement data. In example embodiments, the learning system comprises one or more neural networks. The neural network can be an artificial neural network.”
Examiner’s note: where the learning system corresponds to the self-learning control unit.)
with the self-learning control unit evaluating values of the at least one sensor, wherein the control unit
(Ette – [0020] “The recognition of an authorized vehicle user involves one or more sensors that sense movement of the vehicle user and that output sensor signals embodying movement data, which is data that represents or corresponds to movement of a person. The movement data is input to a learning system, which generates a movement profile. The movement profile provides a movement signature of the vehicle user that can be used to recognize the user. After a movement profile is generated, the learning system can process the movement data and determine whether the vehicle user is an authorized vehicle user.”)
Endo and Ette are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of identifying users to control a vehicle door. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Endo and Ette to include a self-learning control unit that identifies the user in order to enable faster processing and more accurate authentication of vehicle users (Ette, para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 5,
The combination of Endo and Ette teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Endo further teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor includes a rotation angle sensor, the method further comprising detecting the dynamic parameters of the leaf with the rotation angle sensor.
(Endo – [0025] “As rotation of the back door 3 is started, a rotation angle of the back door 3 is measured by an angular sensor 12 and detection of an obstacle 4 is performed by the ultrasonic sensor 5 fixed to the back door 3 until the rotation angle reaches a predetermined angle (Step S14).”)
Regarding claim 9,
The combination of Endo and Ette teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Ette further teaches:
wherein the control unit carries out the user identification as a function of time-dependent values of the at least one sensor.
(Ette – [0026] “In operation S2, the movement data from the sensors are subdivided into short time sequences, which are then input to the learning system for processing. The learning system processes the movement data to learn one or multiple movement profiles or patterns of movement of the vehicle user in the context of the vehicle. Each movement profile provides a signature that identifies a vehicle user.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Endo and Ette to include a self-learning control unit that identifies the user in order to enable faster processing and more accurate authentication of vehicle users (Ette, para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 14,
The combination of Endo and Ette teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Ette further teaches:
further comprising the control unit, based on the values of the at least one sensor, generating a movement profile associated with a user for performing the user identification.
(Ette – [0026] “In operation S2, the movement data from the sensors are subdivided into short time sequences, which are then input to the learning system for processing. The learning system processes the movement data to learn one or multiple movement profiles or patterns of movement of the vehicle user in the context of the vehicle. Each movement profile provides a signature that identifies a vehicle user. In example embodiments, each vehicle user can have multiple movement profiles. Examples of such movement profiles include the vehicle user's movement after parking and leaving the vehicle, and the vehicle user's movement toward the vehicle upon returning to the vehicle.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Endo and Ette to include a self-learning control unit that identifies the user in order to enable faster processing and more accurate authentication of vehicle users (Ette, para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 15,
The combination of Endo and Ette teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Ette further teaches:
further comprising the control unit generating a plurality of movement profiles, each of the plurality of movement profiles corresponding to a different user, and distinguishing between different users to perform the user identification.
(Ette – [0026] “In operation S2, the movement data from the sensors are subdivided into short time sequences, which are then input to the learning system for processing. The learning system processes the movement data to learn one or multiple movement profiles or patterns of movement of the vehicle user in the context of the vehicle. Each movement profile provides a signature that identifies a vehicle user. In example embodiments, each vehicle user can have multiple movement profiles.” [0032] “If the movement data matches the movement profile assigned to a vehicle user, operation S4 determines that the sensor identification circuit is being carried by an authorized vehicle user.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Endo and Ette to include a self-learning control unit that identifies the user in order to enable faster processing and more accurate authentication of vehicle users (Ette, para. [0054]).
Claims 2-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 20130169408 A1) in view of Ette (US 20200198581 A1) and in further view of Herrmann et al. (US 20180023330 A1).
Regarding claim 2,
The combination of Endo and Ette teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Endo and Ette does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Herrmann teaches:
wherein the control unit evaluates the dynamic parameters of the leaf for the purpose of the user identification.
(Herrmann – [0048] “The electronic sensor device 4 now can be configured to actuate the door drive 2 in different ways for a transitional adjusting movement in dependence on a signal or measured value or several signals or measured values of the sensor devices 31, 32 and 33. The control device 4 for example can vary the actuation of the door drive 2 in dependence on the vehicle inclination, the adjustment direction S or O desired on the part of the user, the current adjustment position of the vehicle door 11 and/or the height of the actuating force applied on the part of a user. This variation in particular includes a variation of the duration of the activation of a drive motor of the door drive and/or the variation of a speed of the drive motor.”)
Herrmann is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling a vehicle door. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Endo and Ette with Herrmann to include monitoring dynamic parameters, including movement curves, of the vehicle door associated with a user in order to improve the impression of a fluent transition to the free adjustability of the vehicle door for the user (Herrmann, para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 3,
The combination of Endo and Ette teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Endo and Ette does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Herrmann teaches:
wherein the control unit derives the dynamic parameters of the leaf from a movement curve of the leaf associated with a user for the user identification.
(Herrmann – [0061] “At a method step A1, the vehicle door 11 initially is immovable in an at least partly open adjustment position in which the door opening 12 is at least partly cleared. When in this phase an operating event is sensorily detected, by which a user signals that he wants to further manually open or again close the vehicle door 11, an actuation of the door drive 2 with a stored desired profile curve is effected in a succeeding method step A2. The vehicle door 11 thereby is motorically put into a transitional adjusting movement in the desired adjustment direction S or O, possibly in dependence on the vehicle inclination and/or the height of an actuating force applied on the part of the user and for a comparatively short period, for example less than 500 ms, in particular for 50 ms to 300 ms.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Endo and Ette with Herrmann to include monitoring dynamic parameters, including movement curves, of the vehicle door associated with a user in order to improve the impression of a fluent transition to the free adjustability of the vehicle door for the user (Herrmann, para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 10,
The combination of Endo and Ette teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Endo further teaches:
A device for controlling a motor vehicle door or motor vehicle flap that is configured to perform the method according to claim 1,
the device comprising:
a drive for a leaf of the motor vehicle door or motor vehicle flap that is moved relative to a motor vehicle body,
at least one sensor for detecting individual or a plurality of static and/or dynamic parameters of the leaf, and
(Endo – [0016] “The door control apparatus (A) includes a control unit 9, a communication unit 10 which is controlled and operated by the control unit 9, an authentication unit 1 and an ignition monitoring unit 11 which monitors the state of an ignition switch (operation unit 7). Furthermore, the door control apparatus (A) includes a detection unit 5, a driving motor 6 as an electric power source for rotationally driving the back door 3 and an angular sensor 12 for detecting a rotation angle of the back door 3, whose input and output are respectively controlled and monitored by the control unit 9.”)
Ette further teaches:
a self-learning control unit that evaluates values of the sensor,
(Ette – [0020] “The recognition of an authorized vehicle user involves one or more sensors that sense movement of the vehicle user and that output sensor signals embodying movement data, which is data that represents or corresponds to movement of a person. The movement data is input to a learning system, which generates a movement profile. The movement profile provides a movement signature of the vehicle user that can be used to recognize the user. After a movement profile is generated, the learning system can process the movement data and determine whether the vehicle user is an authorized vehicle user.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Endo and Ette to include a self-learning control unit that identifies the user in order to enable faster processing and more accurate authentication of vehicle users (Ette, para. [0054]).
The combination of Endo and Ette does not teach the following limitation, however, Herrmann teaches:
wherein the control unit evaluates the static and/or dynamic parameters of the leaf for the purpose of a user identification.
(Herrmann – [0048] “The electronic sensor device 4 now can be configured to actuate the door drive 2 in different ways for a transitional adjusting movement in dependence on a signal or measured value or several signals or measured values of the sensor devices 31, 32 and 33. The control device 4 for example can vary the actuation of the door drive 2 in dependence on the vehicle inclination, the adjustment direction S or O desired on the part of the user, the current adjustment position of the vehicle door 11 and/or the height of the actuating force applied on the part of a user. This variation in particular includes a variation of the duration of the activation of a drive motor of the door drive and/or the variation of a speed of the drive motor.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Endo and Ette with Herrmann to include monitoring dynamic parameters, including movement curves, of the vehicle door associated with a user in order to improve the impression of a fluent transition to the free adjustability of the vehicle door for the user (Herrmann, para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 11,
The combination of Endo, Ette, and Herrmann teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Endo further teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor includes at least of one of a rotation angle sensor and a current sensor.
(Endo –[0025] “As rotation of the back door 3 is started, a rotation angle of the back door 3 is measured by an angular sensor 12 and detection of an obstacle 4 is performed by the ultrasonic sensor 5 fixed to the back door 3 until the rotation angle reaches a predetermined angle (Step S14).”)
Regarding claim 12,
The combination of Endo, Ette, and Herrmann teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Herrmann further teaches:
wherein the movement curve of the leaf includes at least one of a path-time curve, a speed-time curve, and an acceleration-time curve.
(Herrmann – [0020] “In this connection it can also be provided that different desired profile curves for the driving device are stored in the electronic control device to specify different profiles of the adjustment speed, wherein the different desired profile curves are automatically selected by the electronic control device in dependence on the vehicle inclination, the adjustment direction, the adjustment position and/or the height of the actuating force.” [0046] “The door drive 2 in principle can be regulated or controlled. Furthermore, at least one desired profile curve can be stored in the electronic control device 4, by which the course of an adjustment speed v of the vehicle doors 11 is specified, when the vehicle door 11 is to be adjusted in response to an operating event, before a manual adjustment is permitted.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Endo and Ette with Herrmann to include monitoring dynamic parameters, including movement curves, of the vehicle door associated with a user in order to improve the impression of a fluent transition to the free adjustability of the vehicle door for the user (Herrmann, para. [0055]).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 20130169408 A1) in view of Ette (US 20200198581 A1) and in further view of Herthan et al. (US 20210396064 A1).
Regarding claim 4,
The combination of Endo and Ette teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Endo and Ette does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Herthan teaches:
wherein the control unit evaluate static parameters of the leaf including mass and/or its friction of the leaf.
(Herthan – [0064] “The system friction, i.e. the friction which must be overcome for an adjustment of the flap 4, is designed so that at least in the normal state, the flap 4 is held by means of the adhesive system friction in at least a deenergized intermediate position, such as in all positions. In at least another embodiment, however, it is the case that the sliding system friction which occurs after overcoming the adhesive system friction is insufficient for holding the flap 4, in particular compared to the weight force of the flap 4.”)
Herthan is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling a vehicle door. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Endo and Ette with Herthan in order to include measuring the weight and friction of the door to control the state of the vehicle door in order to prevent undesirable adjustment movement in the pivotable flaps of a vehicle (Herthan, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Endo and Ette teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Endo and Ette does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Herthan teaches:
wherein the control unit specifies different operating states including at least one of a normal operation, a load operation or an overload operation as a function of values of the sensor.
(Herthan – [0064] “The system friction, i.e. the friction which must be overcome for an adjustment of the flap 4, is designed so that at least in the normal state, the flap 4 is held by means of the adhesive system friction in at least a deenergized intermediate position, such as in all positions. In at least another embodiment, however, it is the case that the sliding system friction which occurs after overcoming the adhesive system friction is insufficient for holding the flap 4, in particular compared to the weight force of the flap 4.” [0065] “The normal state is defined here and preferably such that the motor vehicle 2 is located in an inclined position, which corresponds to a road gradient within +/−40%, preferably +/−30%. Outside the normal state, i.e. with an exceptionally steep slope, it may be that holding the flap 4 in any position is carried out purely by control means, since the adhesive friction may not be sufficient for holding the flap 4.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Endo and Ette with Herthan in order to include measuring the weight and friction of the door to control the state of the vehicle door in order to prevent undesirable adjustment movement in the pivotable flaps of a vehicle (Herthan, para. [0003]).
Claims 6-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 20130169408 A1) in view of Ette (US 20200198581 A1) and in further view of Cheringal et al. (US 12215531 B1).
Regarding claim 6,
The combination of Endo and Ette teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Endo and Ette does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Cheringal teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor includes a current sensor positioned on the drive, the method further comprising for detecting the static parameters of the leaf with the current sensor.
(Cheringal – [Col. 2 lines 4-10] “An expected current needed for an electric motor to operate the door can be determined based on the condition(s) associated with the vehicle. The motor may then be actuated to open or close the door, and an actual current used by the motor to operate the door can be measured (e.g., by a current sensor) during operation of the door.”)
Cheringal is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling a vehicle door. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Endo and Ette with Cheringal to include monitoring the current used by the door in order to improve the safety and performance of a door operating system by improving the speed, accuracy, and consistency with which a door operating system is able to detect an obstruction over a wide range of operating conditions (Cheringal, [Col. 2 lines 40-45]).
Regarding claim 7,
The combination of Endo and Ette teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Endo and Ette does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Cheringal teaches:
wherein the control unit recalibrates the drive as a function of values of the sensor for acting on the leaf based on the user identification.
(Cheringal – [Col 16 lines 19-38] “The expected currents for a motor for a given position of the door along its path can be obtained from the graph or a look-up table corresponding to the current set of conditions. In certain examples, an expected current can be determined in real time via the use of a position sensor for a corresponding door. For example, an expected current to close or open a door can change over time due to degradation or wear of components (e.g., a power supply, a track, or an electric motor). A position sensor (e.g., a camera, encoder, etc.) can be used to record a required current to more a door. This can be accomplished via a calibration routine. A calibration routine can be initiated at a time or location where no obstructions with a door are expected (e.g., at initial startup and/or before, during, or after charging).”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Endo and Ette with Cheringal to include monitoring the current used by the door in order to improve the safety and performance of a door operating system by improving the speed, accuracy, and consistency with which a door operating system is able to detect an obstruction over a wide range of operating conditions (Cheringal, [Col. 2 lines 40-45]).
Regarding claim 13,
The combination of Endo and Ette teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Endo and Ette does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Cheringal teaches:
further comprising calibrating the control unit by repeating routines of the static and/or dynamic parameters.
(Cheringal – [Col 16 lines 19-38] “For example, an expected current to close or open a door can change over time due to degradation or wear of components (e.g., a power supply, a track, or an electric motor). A position sensor (e.g., a camera, encoder, etc.) can be used to record a required current to more a door. This can be accomplished via a calibration routine. A calibration routine can be initiated at a time or location where no obstructions with a door are expected (e.g., at initial startup and/or before, during, or after charging). The expected currents recorded in real time can be associated with an environmental (e.g., temperature, humidity, etc.) or other characteristic as disclosed herein. Through these techniques, an expected current can be updated over time to close, open, or otherwise change the position of a door.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Endo and Ette with Cheringal to include monitoring the current used by the door in order to improve the safety and performance of a door operating system by improving the speed, accuracy, and consistency with which a door operating system is able to detect an obstruction over a wide range of operating conditions (Cheringal, [Col. 2 lines 40-45]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Motoki et al. (US 20180163454 A1) discloses a vehicle door opening and closing control device may include an authentication unit configured to authenticate whether or not a portable device carried by a user is an authorized portable device according to identification information transmitted from the portable device carried by the user.
Hass et al. (US 20210065489 A1) discloses once a door system has the user device information (e.g., user device identifier, user information, or the like), the authentication action, and/or detected that the user wants to access the door, the controller of the door system may access stored information (e.g., stored locally within the door system memory, stored in a centralized database on a server located apart from the door system, or the like).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, JAMES LEE can be reached at (571)-270-5965. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights