DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 08/04/2026. Claims 1 - 18 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 17 - 18 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no new claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1 - 18 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
3. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 7 - 10, filed on 08/04/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
4. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the newly amended limitations as amended in claim 1. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Funayama and Nakashima did disclose these limitations as mapped in the final office action below.
Therefore, previous arguments that relate to the previous office action are now rendered moot.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 17 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160042580A1 (hereinafter, “Funayama”), and further in view of US20070132553A1 (hereinafter, “Nakashima”).
7. Regarding claims 1, 17 - 18, Funayama discloses a vehicle, comprising ([0022] Fig. 1): A vehicle control apparatus (1) is shown in figure 1 which is located inside of a vehicle. Therefore, Funayama comprises of a vehicle.
a position detector configured to detect where a vehicle key is located; and
[0025] Fig. 2) Funayama discloses “The transmitter 21 includes a transmission antenna to transmit a detection signal to an outside of a vehicle. For example, the detection signal transmitted from the transmitter 21 to the outside of the vehicle is received by the portable terminal 30”. The transmitter (21) constitutes as a position detector due to how the transmitter (21) is actively looking for a signal back from the portable terminal (30) (vehicle key). The portable terminal (30) is being interpreted as a vehicle key because the portable terminal (30) wirelessly communicates with the vehicle and provides an ID code used by he vehicle to identify an authorized portable terminal (30) just like a key fob would do. Therefore, this portable terminal is functionally a portable electronic key/token carried by a user.
a controller including processing circuitry, wherein [0022]
Funayama discloses a vehicle that has a smart entry ECU (10), a body ECU (12), and a back door ECU (11) which all contain processing circuitry.
the processing circuitry is configured to:
when a deferred closure request for closing a door of the vehicle is acquired, set a control state of the door to a deferred closure state upon determining that the vehicle key is located less than a specified distance away from the vehicle, subsequent to the control state being set to the deferred closure state ([0031], [0039], [0044] Fig. 3), Funayama discloses a reservation information step. This reservation information constitutes as a deferred closure request because it identifies a reservation for subsequently performing the door-closing operation, with the actual closing operation being performed only after a later distance condition is specified [0031], [0039]. Funayama further teaches a closing operation of a back door when the distance between the portable terminal (30) and the transmitter (21) is less than or equal to the predetermined distance “(f) a distance between the portable terminal 30 and the transmitter 21 is less than or equal to the predetermined distance r1” ([0044] Fig.3).
subsequent to the control state being sent to the deferred closure state, initiate a first control mode that includes closing the door of the vehicle if the position detector detects that the vehicle key is located the specified distance or greater away from the vehicle, and [0079] Funayama discloses “…the back door ECU 11 may cause the back door actuator 13 to perform the closing operation of the back door upon the distance between the portable terminal 30 and the transmitter 21 being greater than r2…”. The position detector here being the transmitter (21) due to how it detects the signal of the portable terminal (30) in order to gauge distance among each other. This closing operation of the back door when the distance between the transmitter (21) and the portable terminal (30) is greater than the distance r2 constitutes as a first control mode. Therefore, Funayama teaches to close the back door when detecting that the key has moved beyond the specified distance.
Funayama discloses subsequent to the control state being set to the deferred closure state,… Funayama discloses a reservation information step. This reservation information constitutes as a deferred closure request because it identifies a reservation for subsequently performing the door-closing operation, with the actual closing operation being performed only after a later distance condition is specified [0031], [0039]. However, Funayama does not teach closing of a door when a vehicle key is not detected for a predetermined specified period. This is where Nakashima is brought in as explained below.
Funayama does not appear to explicitly disclose …initiate a second control mode that differs from the first control mode and includes closing the door if the position detector does not detect where the vehicle key is located for a predetermined specified period.
However, Nakashima teaches …initiate a second control mode that differs from the first control mode and includes closing the door if the position detector does not detect where the vehicle key is located for a predetermined specified period [0047]. Nakashima teaches “When the first external code matching at step S13 is OK, before the second external code matching (step S14) is performed after the predetermined time, it is preferable to report to the user of the portable device 1 by lighting and/or blinking the indicator 6c1 that the vehicle door 13 will be automatically closed when he (or she) moves away from the vehicle 10”. The portable device (1) corresponds as an electronic key “…a portable device (electronic key)…”. As the portable device (1) moves away, a PHOSITA would know that as the distance between the portable device and the vehicle increases, the portable device (1) may eventually move outside the detection range of the vehicle’s communication system.
Funayama and Nakashima are analogous art because Funayama teaches a closing operation of a back door being reserved until a predetermined condition is met while Nakashima teaches a vehicle detecting for a portable device/key and closing its doors automatically when the portable device/key moves outside of range. Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the reserved information system of Funayama to close the doors automatically when the key isn’t located within a period of time, as taught by Nakashima, in order to provide a safety measure in a scenario where the user may have forgotten to close the vehicle doors for improved protection of the vehicle and safety of belongings as expressly taught in Nakazawa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Nakashima, to modify the teachings of Funayama to include the teachings of Nakashima to further enhance safety of the vehicle or prevent strangers from going inside of the vehicle by closing the doors of the vehicle when the key is no longer detected after a period of time.
8. Regarding claim 5, Funayama discloses further comprising: an acquisition device configured to acquire the deferred closure request and output the deferred closure request to the controller, wherein the controller is configured to acquire the deferred closure request from the acquisition device ([0031] Fig. 1). Funayama discloses a reservation information storage part (11a) which then outputs the reservation information to the back door ECU (11).
Claim(s) 6 & 14 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160042580A1 (hereinafter, “Funayama”), and further in view of US20070132553A1 (hereinafter, “Nakashima”), and further in view of US20220341249A1 (hereinafter, “Sugita”).
10. Regarding claim 6, Funayama does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the acquisition device includes a switch arranged in the vehicle and configured to be operated when the door is open to acquire the deferred closure request and output the deferred closure request to the controller.
However, Sugita in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the acquisition device includes a switch arranged in the vehicle and configured to be operated when the door is open to acquire the deferred closure request and output the deferred closure request to the controller ([0040] Fig. 4). Sugita teaches a door switch (20) that when pressed will send an operation signal to the ECU (18).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Funayama reference with the teachings of Sugita, to further include a switch on the door for ease of access due to having the door already open.
11. Regarding claim 14, Funayama does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle key includes a digital key.
However, Sugita in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the vehicle key includes a digital key [0064]. Sugita teaches that a digital key may also be stored in a storage unit such as a smartphone carried by the user.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Funayama reference with the teachings of Sugita, for further convenience and improved access control to the vehicle.
12. Regarding claim 15, Funayama discloses a communication system, comprising [0022]: Funayama discloses a communication apparatus (20).
the vehicle according to claim 1; and [0022] A vehicle is inherently taught by having a vehicle control apparatus (1).
a terminal configured to establish communication with the vehicle [0024],
Funayama teaches a portable terminal (30) which acts as a communication terminal to communicate with the transmitter (21) located on the vehicle.
Funayama does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the terminal includes a
digital key acting as the vehicle key.
However, Sugita teaches wherein the terminal includes a digital key acting as
the vehicle key [0064]. Sugita teaches the electronic key (16) may be a digital key as well.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Funayama reference with the teachings of Sugita, for further convenience and improved access control to the vehicle.
Claim(s) 2, 4 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160042580A1 (hereinafter, “Funayama”), and further in view of US20070132553A1 (hereinafter, “Nakashima”), and further in view of US20220056752A1 (hereinafter, “An”).
14. Regarding claim 2, the modified Funayama reference does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the door is closed at a slower speed in the second control mode than in the first control mode.
However, An teaches wherein the door is closed at a slower speed in the second control mode than in the first control mode ([0044], [0054], [0068] Fig. 2). An teaches that when a user is located within a far section (206), the tailgate is closed at a fast speed. When the user is located within the middle section (204), the tailgate is closed at a medium speed. When the user is located within the near section, the tailgate is closed at a slow speed. Each section has a slower speed the closer in the person is to the vehicle (100). We can treat the middle section as a second control mode where the tailgate is closed at a closer speed in comparison to a far section (206) which we can consider as a first control mode.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Funayama reference with the teachings of An, to reduce and prevent trapping of any detected object between the vehicle door and the vehicle itself.
15. Regarding claim 4, the modified Funayama reference does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising:
a sound output device configured to output sound, wherein
the first control mode includes outputting sound from the sound output device when the door is closing,
the second control mode includes outputting sound from the sound output device when the door is closing, and
the sound output in the second control mode differs in type from the sound output in the first control mode.
However, An in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising:
a sound output device configured to output sound, wherein ([0061] Fig. 3A) Witek teaches a speaker (350) which will output a sound that can be differentiated.
the first control mode includes outputting sound from the sound output device when the door is closing, ([0061] Fig. 3A) A warning sound of a small volume is output through the speaker (350) during the closing of the power tail gate (102) if a user is detected in the far section (206). The far section (206) constitutes as a first control mode.
the second control mode includes outputting sound from the sound output device when the door is closing, and [0061] A warning sound of an intermediate volume is output through the speaker (350) during the closing of the power tail gate (102) if a user is detected in the middle section (204). The middle section (204) constitutes as a second control mode.
the sound output in the second control mode differs in type from the sound output in the first control mode [0061]. An teaches selecting different sounds based on the distance of the user (250) relative to the vehicle (100). The system provides a plurality of different sounds which may differ in volume. The far section (206) (first control mode) outputs a sound that is of a small volume. The middle section (204) (second control mode) outputs a sound that is of an intermediate volume. Therefore, since both sounds are of different volumes, both sounds outputted differ in type.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Funayama reference with the teachings of An, to notify the user by sound what control mode is currently active when in the process of the door closing.
16. Regarding claim 7, the modified Funayama reference does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the acquisition device includes a communication device configured to receive the deferred closure request from a terminal through wireless communication and output the received deferred closure request to the controller.
However, An in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the acquisition device includes a communication device configured to receive the deferred closure request from a terminal through wireless communication and output the received deferred closure request to the controller [0038]. An teaches that the smart key (106) (terminal) can be used to close the power tail gate (102). In order for the smart key (106) to interact with the vehicle (100) in regards to that closing request, the vehicle (100) will inherently need a communication device that is configured to receive closing requests from the smart key (106) through wireless communication to send to the controller (310) in order to grant that request.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Fnayama reference with the teachings of An, to have a user close a rear door of a vehicle without manually having to walk up to the vehicle and press a switch.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160042580A1 (hereinafter, “Funayama”), and further in view of US20070132553A1 (hereinafter, “Nakashima”), and further in view of US20220056752A1 (hereinafter, “An”), and further in view of US20220341249A1 (hereinafter, “Sugita”).
18. Regarding claim 16, Funayama discloses a communication system, comprising [0022]: Funayama discloses a communication apparatus (20).
the vehicle according to claim 7; and [0022] A vehicle is inherently taught by having a vehicle control apparatus (1).
a terminal configured to establish communication with the vehicle,
wherein the terminal is configured to transmit the deferred closure request
to the acquisition device. ([0028], [0040], [0064], [0068] – [0069] Fig. 4) Sugita teaches an electronic key (16) being a communication terminal that has an established communication with the vehicle (10) through the in-vehicle system (14) [0028], [0064]. A user presses a door switch (20) (acquisition device) when the user wants to close the back door (11A) (closure request) ([0040] Fig. 4). When the door switch (20) is pressed, an operation signal is sent to the ECU (18). The door switch (20) constitutes as an acquisition device because it is configured to receive a user input corresponding to a request to perform a door operation such as closing of the door. The ECU (18) will then receive this signal and command the CPU (18A) to receive a signal from the electronic key (16). The CPU (18A) will send a request signal multiple times to the electronic key (16) in the predetermined time intervals and once the CPU (18A) receives a signal back from the electronic key (16), the CPU (18A) will then move onto step S106 and drive the back door closed. The signal that is sent from the electronic key (16) to the CPU (18A) to allow for closure of the back door constitutes as a transmission of a deferred closure request.
Claim(s) 3 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160042580A1 (hereinafter, “Funayama”), and further in view of US20070132553A1 (hereinafter, “Nakashima”), and further in view of US20070236161A1 (hereinafter, “Pebre”).
20. Regarding claim 3, the modified Funayama reference does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising:
an entrapment sensing device configured to detect an object trapped by the door when the door is closing, wherein
the first control mode includes a control for detecting a trapped object with the entrapment sensing device,
the second control mode includes a control for detecting a trapped object with the entrapment sensing device, and
a trapped object is detected with a higher detection sensitivity in the second control mode than in the first control mode.
However, Pebre in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising:
an entrapment sensing device configured to detect an object trapped by the door when the door is closing, wherein [0012] – [0014] The entrapment sensing device corresponds to the anti-pinch control system (12) which monitors operating parameters of a vehicle power door (26c) or a power tailgate (26d) to detect an obstruction or object trapped.
the first control mode includes a control for detecting a trapped object with the entrapment sensing device [0014], [0021] – [0022], Pebre teaches a high pinch force parameter being applied to prevent an object getting trapped when the engine is on. This high pinch force parameter will be interpreted as a first control mode.
the second control mode includes a control for detecting a trapped object with the entrapment sensing device, and [0014] – [0015] Pebre teaches a low pinch force parameter being applied to prevent an object getting trapped that is applied when the vehicle (10) is stationary and when the engine is off. This low pinch force parameter will be interpreted as a second control mode.
a trapped object is detected with a higher detection sensitivity in the second control mode than in the first control mode [0014] – [0015], [0019], [0021]. Pebre teaches including a power door (26c) or power tailgate (26d) having an anti-pinch control system (12) that adjusts pinch force based on operating conditions. A low pinch force parameter is applied when the vehicle (10) is stationary and when the engine is off while a high pinch force parameter is applied when the engine is on [0014] – [0015]. Accordingly, because a low pinch force parameter is providing a higher level of safety, the low pinch force parameter constitutes as a second control mode with higher detection sensitivity due to a low pinch force offering higher protection.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Funayama reference with the teachings of Pebre, to provide more safety.
21. Regarding claim 8, the modified Funayama reference does not appear to explicitly teach the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to interrupt a closing action of the door if an interrupt request for interrupting the closing action of the door is acquired when the door is closing.
However, Pebre in the same field of endeavor, teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to interrupt a closing action of the door if an interrupt request for interrupting the closing action of the door is acquired when the door is closing [0012] – [0014]. Pebre teaches low pinch and high pinch parameters of a motor (24) during closing of a vehicle door. Upon detection of a pinch condition, the system stops or reverses the motor, thereby interrupting the closing action of the door. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the detection of the pinch condition constitutes as an interrupt signal or request to cease closing.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Funayama reference with the teachings of Pebre, to prevent pinching or further pinching from occurring.
Claim(s) 9 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160042580A1 (hereinafter, “Funayama”), and further in view of US20070132553A1 (hereinafter, “Nakashima”), and further in view of US20070236161A1 (hereinafter, “Pebre”), and further in view of US20220341249A1 (hereinafter, “Sugita”).
23. Regarding claim 9, the modified Funayama reference does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising:
an acquisition device configured to acquire and output the deferred closure request and the interrupt request to the controller,
wherein the controller is configured to acquire the deferred closure request and the interrupt request from the acquisition device.
However, Sugita teaches further comprising:
an acquisition device configured to acquire and output the deferred closure request and the interrupt request to the controller,
wherein the controller is configured to acquire the deferred closure request…from the acquisition device ([0040] Fig. 4). A user presses a door switch (20) (acquisition device) when the user wants to close the back door (11A) (closure request). When the door switch (20) is pressed, an operation signal is sent to the ECU (18). The door switch (20) constitutes as an acquisition device because it is configured to receive a user input corresponding to a request to perform a door operation such as closing of the door.
The modified Funyama reference does not appear to explicitly disclose …and the interrupt request…
However, Pebre teaches …and the interrupt request… [0012] – [0014] Pebre teaches low pinch and high pinch parameters of a motor (24) during closing of a vehicle door. Upon detection of a pinch condition, the system stops or reverses the motor, thereby interrupting the closing action of the door. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the detection of the pinch condition constitutes as an interrupt signal or request to cease closing.
Sugita and Pebre are analogous art to Funayama because Sugita teaches a user pressing a switch located on the rear door of a vehicle which sends a signal to the ECU to close the rear door while Pebre teaches an anti-pinch control system that when an object is detected between the closing door and the vehicle, will interrupt the closing of the vehicle door to prevent further pinching. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to combine Sugita and Pebre to improve safety by preventing injury or damage during the closing operation through detection of an obstruction and interruption of the closing action. This is a known safety mechanism in door actuation so therefore, it would’ve been obvious to combine Sugita and Pebre.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Pebre and Sugita, to modify the teachings of the combination of the modified Funayama reference to include the teachings of Pebre and Sugita to further enhance safety when a vehicle door is closing.
24. Regarding claim 10, Funayama does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the acquisition device includes a switch arranged in the vehicle and configured to be operated when the door is closing to acquire the interrupt request and output the interrupt request to the controller.
However, Sugita teaches wherein the acquisition device includes a switch arranged in the vehicle and configured to be operated when the door is closing… ([0040] Fig. 4) A user presses a door switch (20) (acquisition device) when the user wants to close the back door (11A) (closure request). When the door switch (20) is pressed, an operation signal is sent to the ECU (18). The door switch (20) constitutes as an acquisition device because it is configured to receive a user input corresponding to a request to perform a door operation such as closing of the door.
The modified Funayama reference does not appear to explicitly disclose …to acquire the interrupt request and output the interrupt request to the controller.
However, Pebre teaches …to acquire the interrupt request and output the interrupt request to the controller [0012] – [0014]. Pebre teaches low pinch and high pinch parameters of a motor (24) during closing of a vehicle door. Upon detection of a pinch condition, the system stops or reverses the motor, thereby interrupting the closing action of the door. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the detection of the pinch condition constitutes as an interrupt signal or request to cease closing in which a aperture controller (22) would receive and grant.
Sugita and Pebre are analogous art to Funayama because Sugita teaches a user pressing a switch located on the rear door of a vehicle which sends a signal to the ECU to close the rear door while Pebre teaches an anti-pinch control system that when an object is detected between the closing door and the vehicle, will interrupt the closing of the vehicle door to prevent further pinching. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to combine Sugita and Pebre to improve safety by preventing injury or damage during the closing operation through detection of an obstruction and interruption of the closing action. This is a known safety mechanism in door actuation so therefore, it would’ve been obvious to combine Sugita and Pebre.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Pebre and Sugita, to modify the teachings of the combination of the modified Funayama reference to include the teachings of Pebre and Sugita to further enhance safety when a vehicle door is closing.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160042580A1 (hereinafter, “Funayama”), and further in view of US20070132553A1 (hereinafter, “Nakashima”), and further in view of US20070236161A1 (hereinafter, “Pebre”), and further in view of US20220341249A1 (hereinafter, “Sugita”), and further in view of US20220056752A1 (hereinafter, “An”), and further in view of US20060066278A1 (hereinafter, “Kuan”).
26. Regarding claim 11, the modified Funayama reference does not explicitly teach wherein the acquisition device includes a communication device configured to receive the deferred closure request and the interrupt request from a terminal through wireless communication and output the received requests to the controller.
However, An teaches wherein the acquisition device includes a communication device configured to receive the deferred closure request… from a terminal through wireless communication and output the received requests to the controller [0038]. An teaches that the smart key (106) (terminal) can be used to close the power tail gate (102). In order for the smart key (106) to interact with the vehicle (100) in regards to that closing request, the vehicle (100) will inherently need a communication device that is configured to receive closing requests from the smart key (106) through wireless communication to send to the controller (310) in order to grant that request.
The modified Funayama reference does not explicitly teach …and the interrupt request…
However, Kuan teaches …and the interrupt request… [0018] – [0019] Kuan teaches multiple presses of button (32) on a remote signaling device (25) (terminal) to perform different operations of a liftgate (12) wirelessly. A third press of the button (32) will begin closure of the liftgate (12) and the next press will again initiate an opening of the liftgate (12). After a third press of the button (32) during the closing of the liftgate (12), a fourth press of the button (32) can interrupt the closing of the liftgate (12) before it fully closes to initiate an opening of the liftgate (12). Therefore, this fourth press constitutes as an interruption of a closing of a liftgate (12).
An and Kuan are analogous art to Funayama because An teaches a smart key that can be used to close the power tail gate which would require a communication device in the vehicle to receive this request of a closing of the power tail gate to relay to the controller while Kuan teaches that a fourth press of a button on a remote signaling device can interrupt the closing of a liftgate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have the motivation to combine An and Kuan to have he same wireless smart key be used to initiate a closing of the tailgate also be used to interrupt or stop the closing operation of a tailgate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of An and Kuan, to modify the teachings of the modified Funayama reference to include the teachings of An and Kuan to have quicker access to initiating either of those operations.
Claim(s) 12 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160042580A1 (hereinafter, “Funayama”), and further in view of US20070132553A1 (hereinafter, “Nakashima”), and further in view of US20210214991A1 (hereinafter, “Cruz”).
28. Regarding claim 12, the modified Funayama reference does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to interrupt a closing action of the door if the vehicle key is located within a range of a distance from the vehicle that is less than the specified distance when the door is closing.
However, Cruz teaches wherein the controller is configured to interrupt a closing action of the door if the vehicle key is located within a range of a distance from the vehicle that is less than the specified distance when the door is closing [0042]. Cruz teaches whether the keyfob (63) remains within the zone (77) (specified distance) when a door closing operation is initiated. If the user (75) remains within the zone (77), the liftgate (81) will be inhibited (interrupted) from closing. Therefore, Cruz teaches controlling a door closing operation based on whether the keyfob (63) is within a zone (77) (specified distance) of the vehicle which includes interrupting the closing action when the keyfob (63) is within that zone (77).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Funayama reference with the teachings of Cruz, to further prevent a person who has a key with them from getting pinched by the rear door and the vehicle.
29. Regarding claim 13, the modified Funayama reference does not explicitly teach further comprising:
an entrapment sensing device configured to detect an object trapped by the door when the door is closing,
wherein the controller is configured to interrupt a closing action of the door if the entrapment sensing device detects a trapped object when the door is closing.
However, Cruz in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising:
an entrapment sensing device configured to detect an object trapped by the door when the door is closing,
wherein the controller is configured to interrupt a closing action of the door if the entrapment sensing device detects a trapped object when the door is closing [0041] - [0042], Cruz teaches whether the keyfob (63) remains within the zone (77) (specified distance) when a door closing operation is initiated. If the user (75) remains within the zone (77), the user (75) will get trapped (trapped object), the liftgate (81) will be inhibited (interrupted) from closing. Therefore, Cruz teaches controlling a door closing operation based on whether the keyfob (63) is within a zone (77) (specified distance) of the vehicle which includes interrupting the closing action when the keyfob (63) is within that zone (77). Cruz also teaches a sensor (61) that constitutes as the entrapment sensing device since the sensor (61) is what is being used to detect whether the user (75) is within the zone (77) or not [0041].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Funayama reference with the teachings of Cruz, to further prevent a person from getting pinched by the liftgate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
