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 .
Claims 1-5 are presented for examination.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for priority based upon Japanese Patent Application JP2024-020177 filed on February 14, 2024 is duly noted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 18, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakata [JP2023150030A].
With regard to claim 1, Nakata meets the limitations of:
a control device applied to a vehicle that includes a speaker and a movable component [a sound being emitted when the back door of a vehicle is within range of an obstacle it can strike if it were to be opened (paragraph 0040)]
the control device is able to execute a specifying process that causes the movable component to operate along with outputting music from the speaker [a sound being emitted when the back door of a vehicle is within range of an obstacle it can strike if it were to be opened (paragraph 0040)]
an obstacle detecting process that detects an obstacle present in a periphery of the vehicle [in-vehicle sonar being used for detecting obstacles where an increase of the frequency of the audible alert denotes a close obstacle (paragraph 0040)]
when an obstacle is detected within a detection range corresponding to a movable range of the movable component in the obstacle detecting process, the specifying process causes music to be output from the speaker without operating the movable component [a sound being emitted when the back door of a vehicle is within range of an obstacle it can strike if it were to be opened (paragraph 0040) meaning the sound is emitted without the door being opened]
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata [JP2023150030A] in view of Kong et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0355733]
With regard to claim 2, Nakata meets the limitations of:
the vehicle includes a first movable component [a back door of a vehicle that is within range of an obstacle it can strike if it were to be opened (paragraph 0040)]
when an obstacle is detected within a detection range corresponding to a movable range of the first movable component [a sound being emitted when the back door of a vehicle is within range of an obstacle it can strike if it were to be opened (paragraph 0040)]
the specifying process causes music to be output from the speaker [a sound being emitted when the back door of a vehicle is within range of an obstacle it can strike if it were to be opened (paragraph 0040)]
However, Nakata fails to disclose of a second movable component as the movable component, an obstacle is not detected within a detection range corresponding to a movable range of the second movable component in the obstacle detecting process, and the second movable component is to be operated without operating the first movable component. In the field of opening systems for vehicles, Kong et al. teaches:
a second movable component as the movable component [a vehicle with multiple doors (figure 400)]
an obstacle is not detected within a detection range corresponding to a movable range of the second movable component in the obstacle detecting process [a collision with a door determined to not happen when the door is opened (paragraph 0057 and figure 3, item s122)]
the second movable component is to be operated without operating the first movable component [a collision with a door determined to happen when the door is opened (paragraph 0056 and figure 3, item s123) where the door would collide with an obstacle while other doors on the vehicle would not collide with the detected obstacle as the other doors are not within range of the obstacle thereby allowing them to be opened without any damage (paragraphs 0046. 0047, and 0048 as well as figure 2, items 400 and “structure”)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Nakata and Kong et al. to create an create an obstacle detection system where a vehicle’s system alerts the driver of an obstacle that will collide with a door when one of the vehicle’s door is opened while permitting the other doors of the vehicle to be opened as no alert is issued for the doors in order to alert the driver of a potential door collision wherein the motivation to combine is to create a collision avoidance device (Nakata, paragraph 0001).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata [JP2023150030A] in view of Roberts [U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0275514]
With regard to claim 3, Nakata fails to disclose of a specifying process further controlling a blinking of a light of the vehicle. In the field of object detection systems, Roberts teaches:
a specifying process further controlling a blinking of a light of the vehicle [an alarm in the form of a light operating when an obstacle is detected near a vehicle (paragraph 0009)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Nakata and Roberts to create an obstacle detection system where a vehicle’s system operates a light when an obstacle is detected near a vehicle in order to visually alert the driver of the detected obstacle wherein the motivation to combine is to create a collision avoidance device (Nakata, paragraph 0001).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata [JP2023150030A] in view of Hsu et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0313247]
With regard to claim 4, Nakata meets the limitation of:
the obstacle detecting process is executed when the specifying process starts [a sound being emitted when the back door of a vehicle is within range of an obstacle it can strike if it were to be opened (paragraph 0040)]
the obstacle detecting process determines whether or not the obstacle is present within [a sound being emitted when the back door of a vehicle is within range of an obstacle it can strike if it were to be opened (paragraph 0040)]
a detection range corresponding to a movable range of the movable component operated in the specifying process [a sound being emitted when the back door of a vehicle is within range of an obstacle it can strike if it were to be opened (paragraph 0040)]
However, Nakata fails to disclose of each of the movable components and the specifying process causes the movable component for which determination is made that an obstacle is present within the detection range to not operate when the specifying process starts and the specifying process causes the movable component for which determination is made that an obstacle is not present within the detection range to operate when the specifying process starts. In the field of vehicle systems, Hsu et al. teaches:
each of the movable components [a vehicle having multiple doors that can be opened (figure 4)
the specifying process causes the movable component for which determination is made that an obstacle is present within the detection range to not operate when the specifying process starts and the specifying process causes the movable component for which determination is made that an obstacle is not present within the detection range to operate when the specifying process starts [a vehicle system preventing the opening of a door to prevent the collision between the door and an approaching object (paragraph 0012) thereby inferring the door is only locked and restricted from being opened when an object is approaching to prevent the door from being opened and the door is unlocked and allowed to be opened when no object is approaching]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Nakata and Hsu et al. an obstacle detection system where a vehicle’s system alerts the driver of an obstacle that will collide with a door when one of the vehicle’s door is opened and locks the door that will collide with an obstacle to prevent it from being opened while allowing other doors to open when no objects have been detected near those doors in order to prevent a door from being damaged wherein the motivation to combine is to create a collision avoidance device (Nakata, paragraph 0001).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata [JP2023150030A] in view of Kong et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0355733], and in further view of Hsu et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0313247]
With regard to claim 5, Nakata meets the limitation of:
an obstacle being present within the detection range [a sound being emitted when the back door of a vehicle is within range of an obstacle it can strike if it were to be opened (paragraph 0040)]
However, Nakata fails to disclose of an operation of the movable component stopping and displayed on a display. In the field of opening systems for vehicles, Kong et al. teaches:
displayed on a display [a camera capturing the image of a surface and a display displaying the image of the captured surface (paragraph 0036)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Nakata and Kong et al. to create an create an obstacle detection system where a vehicle’s system alerts the driver of an obstacle that will collide with a door when one of the vehicle’s doors is opened and displaying a picture of the of the detected obstacle on a vehicle display in order to provide the driver with an image of the detected obstacle. However, the combination of Nakata and Kong et al. fails to disclose of an operation of the movable component stopping. In the field of vehicle systems, Hsu et al. teaches:
an operation of the movable component stopping [a vehicle system preventing the opening of a door to prevent the collision between the door and an approaching object (paragraph 0012) thereby inferring the door is only locked and restricted from being opened when an object is approaching to prevent the door from being opened and the door is unlocked and allowed to be opened when no object is approaching]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Nakata, Kong et al., and Hsu et al. to create an create an obstacle detection system where a vehicle’s system alerts the driver of an obstacle that will collide with a door when one of the vehicle’s doors is opened and locking the door to prevent the door from opening when the obstacle has been detected while displaying a picture of the of the detected obstacle on a vehicle display in order to prevent the door from being damaged wherein the motivation to combine is to create a collision avoidance device (Nakata, paragraph 0001).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 7,432,799 to Tsuboi discloses a driving support apparatus and driving support method.
U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0118997 to Paus discloses the notification of hazards to a driver of a vehicle.
U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0322215 to Tsang et al. discloses a door opening clearance detection system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMESHANAND MAHASE whose telephone number is (571) 270-7223. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00AM - 5:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAMESHANAND MAHASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689