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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 01/02/25. Claims 1 - 18 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-028601, filed on 02/28/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2025 & 07/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 – 6, 14, 15 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220341249A1 (hereinafter, “Sugita”), and further in view of US20220275677A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”), and further in view of US20210076203A1 (hereinafter, “Sakamoto”).
7. Regarding claims 1, 17 - 18, Sugita teaches a vehicle, comprising (Fig. 1): A vehicle (10) is shown in figure 1.
a position detector configured to detect where a vehicle key is located; and
[0041] Sugita teaches an electronic control unit (ECU) (18) that determines if the electronic key (16) is in a cabin-external region (11C) by comparing ID information included in the response signal received from the antenna (22) to the ID information (18B-2). Therefore, the ECU constitutes as a position detector of the electronic key (16).
a controller including processing circuitry, wherein [0029] Sugita teaches a
vehicle (10) that has an ECU (18) which contains processing circuitry.
the processing circuitry is configured to initiate a first control mode that includes closing a door of the vehicle if a deferred closure request for closing the door is acquired and the vehicle key is located a specified distance or greater away from the vehicle, and ([0040] – [0042] Fig. 4 – 5) Sugita teaches a user presses a door switch (20) to initiate a closing of the back door (11A) (closure request). Before that request is granted, the request to initiate a closing of the back door (11A) is sent to the antenna (22) which then relays the request signal to the ECU (18) for the ECU (18) to confirm if the electronic key (16) is in a cabin-external region (11C) (specified distance). If the electronic key (16) (vehicle key) is within this predetermined region, then that request is granted. This entire sequence can be considered as a first control mode.
8. Sugita does not explicitly teach the processing circuitry is configured to initiate a second control mode that differs from the first control mode and includes closing the door if the deferred closure request is acquired and the position detector does not detect where the vehicle key is located for a predetermined specified period.
However, Lee teaches the processing circuitry is configured to initiate a second control mode that differs from the first control mode and includes closing the door if the deferred closure request is acquired… [0084] Lee teaches a closing button of a tailgate which would’ve been obvious for a person to press to initiate a closing request of the tailgate.
Sugita does not explicitly teach …and the position detector does not detect where the vehicle key is located for a predetermined specified period.
However, Sakamoto teaches …and the position detector does not detect where the vehicle key is located for a predetermined specified period ([0076] Fig. 4 & 14). The determination device (F4) determines whether or not the smart key (2) is present in any of the exterior areas of the vehicle. These exterior areas being the locking areas (Lx) shown in figure 4 [Col. 12 Lines 4 – 8]. To determine if a smart key (2) is present, Sakamoto transmits response request signals to detect a smart key (2) and determines whether the smart key (2) is present based on whether a response signal is received. When no response signal is received, the system repeats the detection process a predetermined amount of times to confirm absence of the smart key (2). This defines an absence determined required time period (predetermined specified period) which is shown in figure 14. This sequence of events of Sakamoto combined with Sugita and the primary reference, constitutes as a second control mode.
Lee and Sakamoto are analogous art to Sugita because Lee teaches a closing button on a tailgate of a vehicle to close the tailgate while Sakamoto teaches a determination device that determines if a smart key is present or not externally from the vehicle. One of ordinary skill would in the art would have the motivation to combine Lee and Sakamoto to improve operational reliability and safety of the tailgate of the tailgate closing by ensuring that closing occurs only after confirming, over a predetermined period of time, that a smart key is not present externally of the vehicle, thereby reducing unintended or unsafe actuation.
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 Lee and Sakamoto, to modify the teachings of Sugita to include the teachings of Lee and Sakamoto to close the rear door of the vehicle in case the user forgets and leaves the rear door open.
9. Regarding claim 5, Sugita teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, 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 ([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.
10. Regarding claim 6, Sugita teaches the vehicle according to claim 5, 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) when pressed will send an operation signal to the ECU (18).
11. Regarding claim 14, Sugita teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, 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.
12. Regarding claim 15, Sugita teaches a communication system, comprising ([0039] Fig. 2): Sugita teaches a communication unit in the electronic key (16) that wireless communicates with the in-vehicle system (14). The vehicle (10) would inherently require a communication system in order for the vehicle (10) to interact with the electronic key and receive a request or response signal. This is also shown in figure 2.
the vehicle according to claim 1; and [0028] – [0029] A vehicle (10) is taught in order for the electronic key (16) to wireless communicate with.
a terminal configured to establish communication with the vehicle [0028], [0064], 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).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 7 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220341249A1 (hereinafter, “Sugita”), and further in view of US20220275677A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”), and further in view of US20210076203A1 (hereinafter, “Sakamoto”), and further in view of US20220056752A1 (hereinafter, “An”).
14. Regarding claim 2, the modified Sugita reference does not explicitly teach the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the door is closed at a slower speed in the second control mode than in the first control mode.
However, An teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, 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 Sugita 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 Sugita reference does not explicitly teach the vehicle according to claim 1, 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 the vehicle according to claim 1, 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 Sugita 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, Sugita does not explicitly teach the vehicle according to claim 5, 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 the vehicle according to claim 5, 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 Sugita 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.
17. Regarding claim 16, Sugita teaches a communication system, comprising ([0039] Fig. 2): Sugita teaches a communication unit in the electronic key (16) that wireless communicates with the in-vehicle system (14). The vehicle (10) would inherently require a communication system in order for the vehicle (10) to interact with the electronic key and receive a request or response signal. This is also shown in figure 2.
the vehicle according to claim 7; and [0028] – [0029] A vehicle (10) is taught in order for the electronic key (16) to wireless communicate with.
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 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220341249A1 (hereinafter, “Sugita”), and further in view of US20220275677A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”), and further in view of US20210076203A1 (hereinafter, “Sakamoto”), and further in view of US20070236161A1 (hereinafter, “Pebre”).
19. Regarding claim 3, the modified Sugita reference does not explicitly teach the vehicle according to claim 1, 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 the vehicle according to claim 1, 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 Sugita reference with the teachings of Pebre, to provide more safety.
20. Regarding claim 8, the modified Sugita reference does not 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 Sugita reference with the teachings of Pebre, to prevent pinching or further pinching from occurring.
21. Regarding claim 9, Sugita teaches the vehicle according to claim 8, 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 Sugita reference does not explicitly teach …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 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, to modify the teachings of the combination of the modified Sugita reference to include the teachings of Pebre to further enhance safety when a vehicle door is closing.
22. Regarding claim 10, Sugita teaches the vehicle according to claim 9, 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 Sugita reference does not explicitly teach …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 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, to modify the teachings of the combination of the modified Sugita reference to include the teachings of Pebre 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 US20220341249A1 (hereinafter, “Sugita”), and further in view of US20220275677A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”), and further in view of US20210076203A1 (hereinafter, “Sakamoto”), and further in view of US20070236161A1 (hereinafter, “Pebre”), and further in view of US20220056752A1 (hereinafter, “An”), and further in view of US20060066278A1 (hereinafter, “Kuan”).
24. Regarding claim 11, the modified Sugita reference does not explicitly teach the vehicle according to claim 9, 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 the vehicle according to claim 9, 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 Sugita 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 Sugita 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 Sugita 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 US20220341249A1 (hereinafter, “Sugita”), and further in view of US20220275677A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”), and further in view of US20210076203A1 (hereinafter, “Sakamoto”), and further in view of US20210214991A1 (hereinafter, “Cruz”).
26. Regarding claim 12, the modified Sugita reference does not explicitly teach the vehicle according to claim 1, 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 the vehicle according to claim 1, 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 Sugita 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.
27. Regarding claim 13, the modified Sugita reference does not explicitly teach the vehicle according to claim 1, 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 the vehicle according to claim 1, 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 Sugita reference with the teachings of Cruz, to further prevent a person from getting pinched by the liftgate.
Conclusion
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.
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, 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.
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.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights