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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in the graph of FIG. 5, the different lines and points in the figure are indistinguishable, and Examiner cannot with any certainty determine which line on the graph corresponds to which line in the legend. Further, most of the text in the legend is blurred and unclear, almost to the point of being unreadable. See 37 CFR 1.84(I) ("Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction") and 37 CFR 1.84(o) (“Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing.” They should contain as few words as possible” (emphasis added)). The examiner notes that this FIG. 5 provides support for all independent claims, and some of the dependent claims, and is perhaps most instrumental in providing understanding of the claimed invention. Moreover, the lack of clarity in FIG. 5 makes paragraphs [0049]-[0052] of the specification difficult to follow.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 recites “to maintain the door in the hold positon” in the second limitation (emphasis added). It appears that “positon” is a typo.
Claims 9 similarly recites “to maintain the door in the hold positon” in the second limitation (emphasis added). It appears that “positon” is a typo.
Claims 15 similarly recites “to maintain the door in the hold positon” in the second limitation (emphasis added). It appears that “positon” is a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 9, and 14-20 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the holding force" in the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 2, 9, 14, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Examiner cannot with reasonable certainty determine from the claim, specification, or prior art what the holding force being “substantially the same to move the door in either one of the opening direction and the closing direction” means to one of ordinary skill in the art. Although paragraph [0056] of the specification suggests that 10 Nm and 9.5 Nm, or alternatively 10.5 Nm and 10 Nm, are not the “same” force, it does not clarify if e.g. 10.5 Nm and 10 Nm are “substantially the same” force. The Examiner is not otherwise aware of a typical tolerance in the art, whether based on torque (e.g. ±0.5 Nm), or percentage difference (e.g. ±2%), or the difference in force to close the door being below a human-perceptive level (whatever that is), or below some threshold difference in speed, or any other conceivable metric or limit. Therefore, the claims are indefinite because Examiner cannot reasonably determine the bounds of “substantially the same” force.
For purposes of examination, Examiner will treat the holding force as being merely the “same” in both directions.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 15-20 are likewise rejected based at least on their dependence from rejected claims 1 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20250034927 by Kawanobe (hereinafter “Kawanobe”), further in view of US5804937 by Sasajima et al. (hereinafter “Sasajima”).
Regarding claim 1, Kawanobe teaches A power closure system for a vehicle comprising: a door; a power actuator for moving the door see for example paragraphs [0032]-[0035], describing a motor in a door of a vehicle for assisting in opening and closing the door.
wherein the power actuator is adapted to output a holding force to hold the door at a hold position between a closed position and an open position; see for example paragraphs [0050]-[0052], where the door is held open by the motor using a holding force. See also paragraphs [0076]-[0077] and Fig. 13, where the system holds the door open at a position between closed and fully open.
and the power actuator configured to output the holding force such that a force applied to the door by a user to overcome the holding force is substantially the same to move the door in either one of an opening direction and a closing direction. See for example paragraph [0054], where the system outputs two-phase current equal in magnitude but generating force in opposite directions in order to hold the door in the holding position. Then in paragraphs [0055]-[0056], the system lets the holding force (either direction) be overcome by a user exceeding the holding force, reading on such that a force applied to the door by a user to overcome the holding force is substantially the same to move the door in either one of an opening direction and a closing direction. Note that even in a case where the holding force varies with position, as described in paragraphs [0078]-[0081] or Fig. 14 for example, the holding force would still read on substantially the same to move the door in either one of an opening direction and a closing direction because the required force, though varying, is of equal magnitude in both directions (i.e. the force is equal at a+½ α and a-½ α).
Kawanobe does not explicitly teach that the motor is for moving the door between closed and open positions. Instead, Kawanobe teaches a system that assists a user in moving a door, but does not move the door independently.
However, Sasajima teaches that the motor is for moving the door between closed and open positions. See for example column 10, lines 25-32, where the system automatically fully opens or closes the door when a human stops depressing the door know (i.e. stops pushing the door, see column 9 lines 34-43).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the holding force system of Kawanobe with the automatic assist system of Sasajima with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to automatically complete an opening or shutting of the vehicle door without any assistance from the user, making entry and exit of the vehicle easier.
Independent claim 14 has similar limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding independent claim 8, Kawanobe teaches A power closure system for a vehicle comprising: a door; a power actuator for moving the door between closed and open positions, see for example paragraphs [0032]-[0035], describing a motor in a door of a vehicle for assisting in opening and closing the door.
the power actuator operated using a predetermined door system model; and wherein the operation of the power actuator using the predetermined door system model is adapted based on an actual monitored behavior of the door during a manual movement of the door by a user. In addition to paragraphs [0054]-[0056] above, see also paragraphs [0078]-[0081] or Fig. 14 for example, where the system models how long to maintain a varying-in-magnitude holding force based on the position of the door, i.e. the holding force continues for as long as the door is at position a±α, so that the door has a predetermined door system model (i.e. a door controller system) which is used to operate the door. The door system maintains the forces based on the feedback from acceleration and position sensors (see paragraphs [0048]-[0049] and Fig. 9), so that the door automatically corrects for its force output to achieve the force described in Fig. 14, reading on wherein the operation of the power actuator using the predetermined door system model is adapted based on an actual monitored behavior of the door during a manual movement of the door by a user.
Kawanobe does not explicitly teach that the motor is for moving the door between closed and open positions. Instead, Kawanobe teaches a system that assists a user in moving a door, but does not move the door independently.
However, Sasajima teaches that the motor is for moving the door between closed and open positions. See for example column 10, lines 25-32, where the system automatically fully opens or closes the door when a human stops depressing the door know (i.e. stops pushing the door, see column 9 lines 34-43).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the holding force system of Kawanobe with the automatic assist system of Sasajima with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to automatically complete an opening or shutting of the vehicle door without any assistance from the user, making entry and exit of the vehicle easier.
Regarding claim 2, Kawanobe teaches further including at least one controller coupled to the power actuator, the at least one controller having a memory device storing a predetermined door system model, and the at least one controller is configured to: calculate a holding current to be applied to the power actuator to maintain the door in the hold positon using the predetermined door system model; and adjust the holding current to a balanced holding current to provide the holding force such that the force applied to the door by the user to overcome the holding force is substantially the same to move the door in either one of the opening direction and the closing direction. In addition to paragraphs [0054]-[0056] above, see also paragraphs [0078]-[0081] or Fig. 14 for example, where the system models how long to maintain a varying-in-magnitude holding force based on the position of the door, i.e. the holding force continues for as long as the door is at position a±α, so that the door has a predetermined door system model (i.e. a door controller system) which is used to calculate a holding current to be applied to the power actuator to maintain the door in the hold positon using the predetermined door system model. The door system maintains the forces based on the feedback from acceleration and position sensors (see paragraphs [0048]-[0049] and Fig. 9), so that the door automatically corrects for its force output to achieve the force described in Fig. 14, reading on adjust the holding current to a balanced holding current to provide the holding force such that the force applied to the door by the user to overcome the holding force is substantially the same to move the door in either one of the opening direction and the closing direction.
Claims 9 and 15 have has similar limitations to claim 2 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, Kawanobe teaches wherein the door includes a plurality of doors and the system further includes at least one controller and a plurality of position sensors each disposed on one of the plurality of doors and coupled to the at least one controller and configured to detect a position of the one of the plurality of doors associated therewith, wherein the power actuator includes an electric motor, and the at least one controller is configured to: detect no motion of the one of the plurality of doors at a steady state using at least one of the plurality of position sensors; monitor an electrical current of the electric motor during the steady state; and detect motion of the one of the plurality of doors. See for example paragraphs [0032]-[0035], describing a motor in each side door of a four-door vehicle for assisting in opening and closing the door. See also paragraphs [0048]-[0049] and Fig. 9, where the door system maintains the forces based on the feedback from acceleration and position sensors. See also paragraphs [0078]-[0081] or Fig. 14 for example, where the system models how long to maintain a varying-in-magnitude holding force based on the position of the door, i.e. the holding force continues for as long as the door is at position a±α, for example.
Claims 10 and 16 have has similar limitations to claim 2 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Kawanobe teaches wherein the at least one controller is further configured to: store the electrical current of the electric motor at a position of the one of the plurality of doors at a moment the one of the plurality of doors is detected to move in the opening direction; store the electrical current of the electric motor at another position of the one of the plurality of doors at another moment the one of the plurality of doors is detected to move in the closing direction; see paragraphs [0078]-[0081] or Fig. 14 for example, where the system generates a predetermined (store[d]) holding torque based on the position of the door as the user moves it, where the holding force is predetermined by varying predictably (e.g. Fig. 14) and of a magnitude set by e.g. manufacturer settings (see [0077]). As described in paragraphs [0053]-[0057], the force applied by the motor is based on the current used to energized the motor, and thus the system store[s] the current applied to generate the varying torque according to the direction and degree of movement, reading on at a moment the one of the plurality of doors is detected to move in the opening/closing direction.
and use the electrical current of the electric motor at the position of the one of the plurality of doors at the moment the one of the plurality of doors is detected to move in the opening direction and the electrical current of the electric motor at the another position of the one of the plurality of doors at the another moment the one of the plurality of doors is detected to move in the closing direction, calculate a mid holding current at positions of the one of the plurality of doors between the electrical current of the electric motor at the position of the one of the plurality of doors at the moment the one of the plurality of doors is detected to move in the opening direction and the electrical current of the electric motor at the another position of the one of the plurality of doors at the another moment the one of the plurality of doors is detected to move in the closing direction. The system uses the stored current (a predetermined (store[d]) holding torque based on the position of the door as the user moves it) to generate a holding torque at, for example, position “a” in Fig. 14. The current/torque at exactly position “a” of Fig. 14 is a “mid” current because it creates a torque according to a flat line, i.e. the output current generated is identical across the flat torque surrounding “a” and calculate[d] by the system controller operating according to predetermined torque curves.
Claims 11 and 17 have similar limitations to claim 4 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Kawanobe teaches wherein the at least one controller is further configured to: adjust the holding current to a balanced holding current equal to the mid holding current; and use the balanced holding current to control the electric motor of the power actuator to hold the one of the plurality of doors. See again paragraphs [0078]-[0081], Fig. 14, and [0053]-[0057] for example, where the system generates force according to a predetermined curve, correlating to the current supplied to the motor.
Claims 12 and 18 have similar limitations to claim 5 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6, Kawanobe teaches wherein the holding force of the power actuator is adapted over time based on an actual monitored behavior of the door moving out of the holding position. In addition to paragraphs [0054]-[0056] above, see also paragraphs [0078]-[0081] or Fig. 14 for example, where the system varies the holding force based on the position of the door, which is based on the sensed position and acceleration of the doors (paragraphs [0048]-[0049] and Fig. 9).
Claims 13 and 19 have similar limitations to claim 6 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 7, Kawanobe teaches wherein the at least one controller is configured to adjust the holding current in a powered assist mode and not in an automatic mode. See for example paragraphs [0035] and [0066], where the motor provides an assistive force when the user has moved the door outside the predetermined position.
Claim 20 has similar limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20220098916 by Eguchi teaching a door drive adjustment system that is dependent on direction.
WO2020252601 by Herman et al. teaching a door closure system based on a door model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights