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 action is in reply to the application filed on 1/02/2025.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 have been amended.
Claims 13-14 have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 1/02/2025 has been received and considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 recites “The closure element arrangement for a motor vehicle” and introduces a new embodiment; therefore, it is an independent claim. However, language such as “as claimed in claim 1” is indicative of dependent-type claims in the new “closure element arrangement for a motor vehicle” embodiment. Since claim 1 explicitly recites “A method” embodiment, it is considered a separate and distinct embodiment from the “Closure element arrangement.”
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 1-14 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation "the intended adjustment direction" in lines 15 and 12 respectively, emphasis added. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, as no “intended adjustment direction” has been previously claimed.
Claims 2-10 and 12-14 are similarly rejected for depending upon the previously rejected claims.
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, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schodel (DE 102017129151, hereinafter “Schodel,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation) in view of Schatz et al (US 20180238099, hereinafter “Schatz”).
Regarding Claim 1, Schodel teaches:
A method for operating a closure element arrangement of a motor vehicle, (Schodel ¶ 0003 lines 1-2 “The present case focuses on a method for controlling a motorized locking element arrangement of a motor vehicle,”)
the closure element arrangement comprising a closure element, (Schodel ¶ 0003 line 3“Such a locking element arrangement comprises a locking element,”)
a drive arrangement assigned to the closure element for displacing the closure element in an adjustment range, (Schodel ¶ 0003 lines 3-4 “a drive arrangement for motorized adjustment of the locking element,”)
and a control arrangement for actuating the drive arrangement, (Schodel ¶ 0003 lines 4-5 “a control arrangement for controlling the drive arrangement,”)
sensor values being detected by a sensor arrangement (Schodel ¶ 0003 line 5 “and a sensor arrangement,”)
in a detection zone (Schodel ¶ 0010 lines 1-3 “Specifically, it is proposed that for the predetermined operating event, the allowed range of an operating event variable is composed of sub-ranges according to a class rule, each defining an operating event class of the predetermined operating event,” teaching at least one detection zone in which event variables are detected by the sensor)
with respect to an operator action carried out by an operator (Schodel ¶ 0003 lines 5-6 “Based on the sensor measurements of the sensor arrangement, operating events such as operator gestures can be recorded,”)
outside the motor vehicle, (Schodel ¶ 0027 lines 1-7 “The predetermined operating event is preferably a gesture by an operator, performed using a limb of the operator. This includes, for example, hand, head, and foot movements, or similar actions. Here, and preferably, the predetermined operating event is a foot movement of a foot 8 of the operator, which is one of the in, Fig. 2 shown sensor measurements of the two sensor elements 6, 7,” the foot 8 of the operator shown in Fig. 1 to be outside of the vehicle)
PNG
media_image1.png
478
355
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the detected sensor values being checked by the control arrangement in a check routine for the presence of a valid operator action, and, if a valid operator action is present, (Schodel ¶ 0029 lines 1-4 “The proposal further stipulates that, by means of the control arrangement 4, the operator event monitoring routine is used to check whether the sensor measured values S of the sensor arrangement 5 correspond to one of the operator event classes and, depending on the check, the drive arrangement 3 is controlled,”)
the drive arrangement being caused by the control arrangement to displace the closure element (Schodel ¶ 0003 lines 5-7 “Based on the sensor measurements of the sensor arrangement, operating events such as operator gestures can be recorded, which trigger a motorized adjustment of the locking element,”)
in a displacement direction, […] (Schodel ¶ 0025 lines 1-4 “The locking element arrangement 1 is set up as proposed to detect a predetermined operating event by means of the sensor arrangement 5 and, upon detection of the operating event, to control the drive arrangement 3, in particular for the motorized opening and/or closing of the locking element 2,” teaching that that locking element will be driven in an opening and/or closing direction)
[…] wherein the check routine is modified by the control arrangement […] determined on the basis of the sensor values, […] (Schodel ¶ 0017 lines 1-6 “The further preferred embodiments according to claims 4 to 6 relate to the adaptation of the class specification in an adaptation routine, which is carried out depending on the occurrence distribution of the operator event classes. The basis for adapting the class rule is therefore the determination of the occurrence distribution of the operating event classes over a number of recorded operating events, which can be implemented with extremely little control engineering effort,” teaching the adaptation (modification) of the class rules of the operator events, part of the check routine previously specified)
Schodel does not teach:
[…] and a closure element position of the closure element being determined by the control arrangement, […]
[…] of the closure element position […]
[…] taking into account the intended adjustment direction.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Schatz teaches:
[…] and a closure element position of the closure element being determined by the control arrangement, wherein the check routine is modified by the control arrangement depending on a relation of the closure element position to an execution position of the detected operator action determined on the basis of the sensor values, taking into account the intended adjustment direction. (Schatz ¶ 0089 “Although not expressly illustrated, electric motor 724 can include Hall-effect sensors for monitoring a position and speed of vehicle door 712 during movement between its open and closed positions. For example, one or more Hall-effect sensors may be provided and positioned to send signals to electronic control module 752 that are indicative of rotational movement of electric motor 724 and indicative of the opening speed of vehicle door 46, e.g., based on counting signals from the Hall-effect sensor detecting a target on a motor output shaft.,” teaching the measurement of a door (closure element) position and ¶ 0098 lines 11-26 “In operation, the virtual handle assembly 900 measures the distance to the hand 901 and maintains the distance by operating the power-operated swing door actuation system 720 to move the closure member (e.g., swing door 46). […] If the hand 901 is moved away, a latch 801 can be released and the actuation system (e.g., power swing door actuator 800) drives the swing door 46 to maintain the distance to the hand 901 in both opening and closing directions. The virtual handle assembly 900 can also detect gestures that are made with the hand 901 (e.g., first or open hand),” teaching the modification of the control arrangement to open or close a power swing door based on a sensed intended direction, which is based on a relative position of the hand gesture to the door)
Schodel and Schatz are considered analogous because they both relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules of Schodel with the simple addition of Schatz’s measurement of door position and door actuation system control changing based on a relative position of a gesture to the door and the intended direction of the gesture. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by better preventing the door from hitting obstacles as presented in Schatz ¶ 0006, as well as improved responsiveness to the operator gestures, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Schodel and Schatz teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Schodel further teaches:
wherein an operator action model with characteristic values is assigned to the valid operator action, wherein it is checked by the control arrangement as part of the check routine whether the sensor values correspond to the characteristic values of the operator action model, (Schodel ¶ 0009 “It has been recognized that achieving a high level of detection reliability depends on optimally defining the boundaries of the permitted areas. Furthermore, it has been recognized, as proposed, that while it is important for good detection reliability to know which point within the permitted ranges the sensor measurements correspond to of the sensor arrangement, it is not important to determine this information as a discrete value. Against this background, it is proposed to assign several operator event classes to a predetermined operator event to be recorded, representing the normal operating execution of the operator event as well as permissible deviations in the execution of the operator event,” teaching ranges of permitted sensor measurements of the predetermined operator event, directly analogous to characteristic values of the normal operating execution)
and wherein the operator action model is generated and/or parameterized as a function of the relation […] to the execution position, […] (Schodel ¶ 0027 “The predetermined operating event is preferably a gesture by an operator, performed using a limb of the operator […] The sensor measurements are, preferably as indicated above, distance values relating to a distance between the operator's foot 8 and the relevant sensor element 6 , 7,” teaching sensor parameters of the operating event of the relative distance between the operator’s gesture (execution position) to the vehicle)
Schodel does not teach:
[…] of the closure element position […]
[…] taking into account the intended adjustment direction.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Schatz teaches:
[…] and wherein the operator action model is generated and/or parameterized as a function of the relation of the closure element position to the execution position, taking into account the intended adjustment direction. (Schatz ¶ 0089 and ¶ 0098 lines 11-26 teaching the modification of the control arrangement to open or close a power swing door based on a sensed intended direction, which is based on a relative position of the hand gesture to the door as described above)
Schodel and Schatz are considered analogous because they both relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules of Schodel with the simple addition of Schatz’s measurement of door position and door actuation system control changing based on a relative position of a gesture to the door and the intended direction of the gesture. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by better preventing the door from hitting obstacles as presented in Schatz ¶ 0006, as well as improved responsiveness to the operator gestures, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Schodel and Schatz teaches the elements of Claim 8 as described above. Schodel further teaches:
wherein a recognition quality for the detected operator action is determined on the basis of the characteristic values of the set of characteristic values, wherein the operator action is classified as a valid operator action or rejected on the basis of the recognition quality, and wherein the determination of the recognition quality and/or at least one threshold value for the recognition quality is modified as a function of the relation […] to the execution position, […] (Schodel ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 “First of all, it is assumed that a predetermined operating event to be recorded is defined by allowed ranges in operating event variables, where the operating event variables are sensor measurements of the sensor arrangement or are derived from them. In the first case, for example, these are the maxima and minima of the distance values of a proximity sensor.,” teaching ranges of permitted sensor measurements of the predetermined operator event, ¶ 0010 lines 1-3 “Specifically, it is proposed that for the predetermined operating event, the allowed range of an operating event variable is composed of sub-ranges according to a class rule, each defining an operating event class of the predetermined operating even,” and ¶ 0013 “The proposed solution allows for a simple statistical analysis of which operator event classes have occurred most frequently for a predetermined operator event. Based on this, an adjustment can be made to the class rule and thus to the allowed range of the relevant operator event variables,” representing threshold values for recognition based on statistical likelihood of the recognized event, analogous to the claimed recognition quality)
Schodel does not teach:
[…] of the closure element position […]
[…] taking into account the intended adjustment direction.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Schatz teaches:
[…] and wherein the operator action model is generated and/or parameterized as a function of the relation of the closure element position to the execution position, taking into account the intended adjustment direction. (Schatz ¶ 0089 and ¶ 0098 lines 11-26 teaching the modification of the control arrangement to open or close a power swing door based on a sensed intended direction, which is based on a relative position of the hand gesture to the door as described above)
Schodel and Schatz are considered analogous because they both relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules of Schodel with the simple addition of Schatz’s measurement of door position and door actuation system control changing based on a relative position of a gesture to the door and the intended direction of the gesture. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by better preventing the door from hitting obstacles as presented in Schatz ¶ 0006, as well as improved responsiveness to the operator gestures, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 11, Schodel teaches:
A control arrangement for a closure element arrangement of a motor vehicle, (Schodel ¶ 0003 lines 1-2 “The present case focuses on a method for controlling a motorized locking element arrangement of a motor vehicle,”)
the control arrangement being coupled in the assembled state to a sensor arrangement (Schodel ¶ 0003 line 5 “and a sensor arrangement,”)
which detects sensor values in a detection zone (Schodel ¶ 0010 lines 1-3 “Specifically, it is proposed that for the predetermined operating event, the allowed range of an operating event variable is composed of sub-ranges according to a class rule, each defining an operating event class of the predetermined operating event,” teaching at least one detection zone in which event variables are detected by the sensor)
with respect to an operator action carried out by an operator (Schodel ¶ 0003 lines 5-6 “Based on the sensor measurements of the sensor arrangement, operating events such as operator gestures can be recorded,”)
outside the motor vehicle, (Schodel ¶ 0027 lines 1-7 “The predetermined operating event is preferably a gesture by an operator, performed using a limb of the operator. This includes, for example, hand, head, and foot movements, or similar actions. Here, and preferably, the predetermined operating event is a foot movement of a foot 8 of the operator, which is one of the in, Fig. 2 shown sensor measurements of the two sensor elements 6, 7,” the foot 8 of the operator shown in Fig. 1 to be outside of the vehicle)
the control arrangement checking the detected sensor values in a check routine for the presence of a valid operator action,
the control arrangement causing a drive arrangement of the closure element arrangement (Schodel ¶ 0003 lines 3-4 “a drive arrangement for motorized adjustment of the locking element,”)
to adjust a closure element of the motor vehicle (Schodel ¶ 0003 lines 5-7 “Based on the sensor measurements of the sensor arrangement, operating events such as operator gestures can be recorded, which trigger a motorized adjustment of the locking element,”)
in an adjustment direction (Schodel ¶ 0025 lines 1-4 “The locking element arrangement 1 is set up as proposed to detect a predetermined operating event by means of the sensor arrangement 5 and, upon detection of the operating event, to control the drive arrangement 3, in particular for the motorized opening and/or closing of the locking element 2,” teaching that that locking element will be driven in an opening and/or closing direction)
when a valid operator action is present, […] (Schodel ¶ 0029 lines 1-4 “The proposal further stipulates that, by means of the control arrangement 4, the operator event monitoring routine is used to check whether the sensor measured values S of the sensor arrangement 5 correspond to one of the operator event classes and, depending on the check, the drive arrangement 3 is controlled,”)
[…] wherein the control arrangement modifies the check routine depending on a relation […] to an execution position of the detected operator action determined on the basis of the sensor values, […] (Schodel ¶ 0017 lines 1-6 “The further preferred embodiments according to claims 4 to 6 relate to the adaptation of the class specification in an adaptation routine, which is carried out depending on the occurrence distribution of the operator event classes. The basis for adapting the class rule is therefore the determination of the occurrence distribution of the operating event classes over a number of recorded operating events, which can be implemented with extremely little control engineering effort,” teaching the adaptation (modification) of the class rules of the operator events, part of the check routine previously specified)
Schodel does not teach:
[…] and the control arrangement determining a closure element position of the closure element, […]
[…] of the closure element position […]
[…] taking into account the intended adjustment direction.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Schatz teaches:
[…] and the control arrangement determining a closure element position of the closure element, wherein the control arrangement modifies the check routine depending on a relation of the closure element position to an execution position of the detected operator action determined on the basis of the sensor values, taking into account the intended adjustment direction. (Schatz ¶ 0089 “Although not expressly illustrated, electric motor 724 can include Hall-effect sensors for monitoring a position and speed of vehicle door 712 during movement between its open and closed positions. For example, one or more Hall-effect sensors may be provided and positioned to send signals to electronic control module 752 that are indicative of rotational movement of electric motor 724 and indicative of the opening speed of vehicle door 46, e.g., based on counting signals from the Hall-effect sensor detecting a target on a motor output shaft.,” teaching the measurement of a door (closure element) position and ¶ 0098 lines 11-26 “In operation, the virtual handle assembly 900 measures the distance to the hand 901 and maintains the distance by operating the power-operated swing door actuation system 720 to move the closure member (e.g., swing door 46). […] If the hand 901 is moved away, a latch 801 can be released and the actuation system (e.g., power swing door actuator 800) drives the swing door 46 to maintain the distance to the hand 901 in both opening and closing directions. The virtual handle assembly 900 can also detect gestures that are made with the hand 901 (e.g., first or open hand),” teaching the modification of the control arrangement to open or close a power swing door based on a sensed intended direction, which is based on a relative position of the hand gesture to the door)
Schodel and Schatz are considered analogous because they both relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules of Schodel with the simple addition of Schatz’s measurement of door position and door actuation system control changing based on a relative position of a gesture to the door and the intended direction of the gesture. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by better preventing the door from hitting obstacles as presented in Schatz ¶ 0006, as well as improved responsiveness to the operator gestures, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Schodel and Schatz teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Schodel further teaches:
The closure element arrangement for a motor vehicle, the closure element arrangement being set up to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1. (Schodel ¶ 0003 lines 1-2 “The present case focuses on a method for controlling a motorized locking element arrangement of a motor vehicle,” teaches the motorized locking element arrangement in combination with the previously described elements)
Claim(s) 2-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schodel in view of Schatz and Yamauchi et al (US 20220205306, hereinafter “Yamauchi”).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Schodel and Schatz teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Schodel further teaches:
[…] and wherein the check routine is modified depending on […] the execution position.
(Schodel ¶ 0027 as described above)
Schodel does not teach:
wherein a collision risk is assigned to positions in the detection zone relative to the closure element position by the control arrangement,
taking into account the intended adjustment direction, […]
[…] the collision risk assigned to […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Yamauchi teaches:
wherein a collision risk is assigned to positions in the detection zone relative to the closure element position by the control arrangement, […] and wherein the check routine is modified depending on the collision risk assigned to the execution position. (Yamauchi ¶ 0011 lines 1-9 “it is configured so that the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body that is driven to open and close changes according to the distance between the user and the opening and closing body. Thus, when the user is present within the predetermined range with a possibility of contacting the opening and closing body, the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body is made slower, so that contact between the user and the opening and closing body can be suppressed,” teaching modification of the control decision of the automatic door based on relative position of the opening and closing body (closure element) to the user (execution position) as a function of risk reduction)
Schodel and Yamauchi are considered analogous because they both relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules of Schodel with the simple addition of Yamauchi’s risk-based control modification based on a relative position of a user to the door. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by suppressing contact between the user and the opening and closing element (Yamauchi ¶ 0011).
The combination of Schodel and Yamauchi does not teach:
[…] taking into account the intended adjustment direction, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Schatz teaches:
[…] taking into account the intended adjustment direction, […] (Schatz ¶ 0089 and ¶ 0098 lines 11-26 teaching the modification of the control arrangement to open or close a power swing door based on a sensed intended direction, which is based on a relative position of the hand gesture to the door as described above)
Schodel, Yamauchi, and Schatz are all considered analogous because they all relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules of Schodel and Yamauchi’s risk-based control modification based on a relative position of a user to the door with the additional incorporation of Schatz’s system control changing based on the intended direction of the gesture, including a similar relative position measurement. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by better preventing the door from hitting obstacles as presented in Schatz ¶ 0006, as well as improved responsiveness to the operator gestures, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Schodel, Schatz, and Yamauchi teaches the elements of Claim 2 as described above. Schodel does not teach:
wherein, starting from the closure element position, a greater risk of collision is assigned to positions close to the closure element position in the direction of displacement than to positions remote from the closure element position.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Yamauchi teaches:
wherein, starting from the closure element position, a greater risk of collision is assigned to positions close to the closure element position in the direction of displacement than to positions remote from the closure element position. (Yamauchi ¶ 0107-0108 “In the above embodiment, when the user and the back door 3 are close to each other, that is, when the user within the predetermined range performs the kick motion or operates the switch SW1 or SW2, the back door 3 is driven to open and close at the slow first speed. Therefore, contact between the user and the back door 3 is suppressed. On the other hand, when the user and the back door are far from each other, that is, when the user out of the predetermined range performs the kick motion, the back door 3 is driven to open and close at the fast second speed. Therefore, the time required for the opening and closing of the back door 3 decreases, reducing the stress applied to the user waiting for the opening and closing,” teaching greater risk mitigation at close ranges than at remote ranges)
Schodel and Yamauchi are considered analogous because they both relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules of Schodel with the simple addition of Yamauchi’s risk-based control modification based on a relative position of a user to the door. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by suppressing contact between the user and the opening and closing element (Yamauchi ¶ 0011).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Schodel, Schatz, and Yamauchi teaches the elements of Claim 2 as described above. Schodel does not teach:
wherein a danger zone located at the closure element position is defined by the control arrangement in the detection zone,
taking into account the intended adjustment direction,
and wherein positions within the danger zone are assigned a higher risk of collision than positions outside the danger zone.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Yamauchi teaches:
wherein a danger zone located at the closure element position is defined by the control arrangement in the detection zone, […] and wherein positions within the danger zone are assigned a higher risk of collision than positions outside the danger zone. (Yamauchi ¶ 0011 “it is configured so that the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body that is driven to open and close changes according to the distance between the user and the opening and closing body. Thus, when the user is present within the predetermined range with a possibility of contacting the opening and closing body, the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body is made slower, so that contact between the user and the opening and closing body can be suppressed. On the other hand, when the user is present out of the predetermined range with no possibility of contacting the opening and closing body, the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body is made faster, so that the time in which the user waits for opening and closing of the opening and closing body decreases and the stress the user feels can be reduced,” and ¶ 0107-0108 “In the above embodiment, when the user and the back door 3 are close to each other, that is, when the user within the predetermined range performs the kick motion or operates the switch SW1 or SW2, the back door 3 is driven to open and close at the slow first speed. Therefore, contact between the user and the back door 3 is suppressed. On the other hand, when the user and the back door are far from each other, that is, when the user out of the predetermined range performs the kick motion, the back door 3 is driven to open and close at the fast second speed. Therefore, the time required for the opening and closing of the back door 3 decreases, reducing the stress applied to the user waiting for the opening and closing,” teaching modification of the control decision of the automatic door based on relative position of the opening and closing body (closure element) to the user (execution position) as a function of risk reduction in a close predetermined range with a possibility of contacting the body (danger zone) and a far distance area)
Schodel and Yamauchi are considered analogous because they both relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules of Schodel with the simple addition of Yamauchi’s risk-based control modification based on a relative position of a user to the door including a close predetermined range. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by suppressing contact between the user and the opening and closing element (Yamauchi ¶ 0011).
The combination of Schodel and Yamauchi does not teach:
[…] taking into account the intended adjustment direction, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Schatz teaches:
[…] taking into account the intended adjustment direction, […] (Schatz ¶ 0089 and ¶ 0098 lines 11-26 teaching the modification of the control arrangement to open or close a power swing door based on a sensed intended direction, which is based on a relative position of the hand gesture to the door as described above)
Schodel, Yamauchi, and Schatz are all considered analogous because they all relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules of Schodel and Yamauchi’s risk-based control modification based on a relative position of a user to the door including a close predetermined range with the additional incorporation of Schatz’s system control changing based on the intended direction of the gesture, including a similar relative position measurement. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by better preventing the door from hitting obstacles as presented in Schatz ¶ 0006, as well as improved responsiveness to the operator gestures, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Schodel, Schatz, and Yamauchi teaches the elements of Claim 4 as described above. Schodel does not teach:
wherein the adjustment range is divided into the danger zone
and a distance zone,
and wherein positions within the danger zone are assigned a higher risk of collision than positions in the distance zone.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Yamauchi teaches:
wherein the adjustment range is divided into the danger zone and a distance zone, and wherein positions within the danger zone are assigned a higher risk of collision than positions in the distance zone. (Yamauchi ¶ 0011 “it is configured so that the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body that is driven to open and close changes according to the distance between the user and the opening and closing body. Thus, when the user is present within the predetermined range with a possibility of contacting the opening and closing body, the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body is made slower, so that contact between the user and the opening and closing body can be suppressed. On the other hand, when the user is present out of the predetermined range with no possibility of contacting the opening and closing body, the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body is made faster, so that the time in which the user waits for opening and closing of the opening and closing body decreases and the stress the user feels can be reduced,” and ¶ 0107-0108 “In the above embodiment, when the user and the back door 3 are close to each other, that is, when the user within the predetermined range performs the kick motion or operates the switch SW1 or SW2, the back door 3 is driven to open and close at the slow first speed. Therefore, contact between the user and the back door 3 is suppressed. On the other hand, when the user and the back door are far from each other, that is, when the user out of the predetermined range performs the kick motion, the back door 3 is driven to open and close at the fast second speed. Therefore, the time required for the opening and closing of the back door 3 decreases, reducing the stress applied to the user waiting for the opening and closing,” teaching modification of the control decision of the automatic door based on relative position of the opening and closing body (closure element) to the user (execution position) as a function of risk reduction in a close predetermined range with a possibility of contacting the body (danger zone) and a far distance area (distance zone))
Schodel and Yamauchi are considered analogous because they both relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules of Schodel with the simple addition of Yamauchi’s risk-based control modification based on a relative position of a user to the door including a close predetermined range and a far distance range. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by suppressing contact between the user and the opening and closing element (Yamauchi ¶ 0011).
The combination of Schodel and Yamauchi does not teach:
[…] taking into account the intended adjustment direction, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Schatz teaches:
[…] taking into account the intended adjustment direction, […] (Schatz ¶ 0089 and ¶ 0098 lines 11-26 teaching the modification of the control arrangement to open or close a power swing door based on a sensed intended direction, which is based on a relative position of the hand gesture to the door as described above)
Schodel, Yamauchi, and Schatz are all considered analogous because they all relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules of Schodel and Yamauchi’s risk-based control modification based on a relative position of a user to the door including a close predetermined range and a far distance range with the additional incorporation of Schatz’s system control changing based on the intended direction of the gesture, including a similar relative position measurement. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by better preventing the door from hitting obstacles as presented in Schatz ¶ 0006, as well as improved responsiveness to the operator gestures, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Schodel, Schatz, and Yamauchi teaches the elements of Claim 2 as described above. Schodel does not teach:
wherein a far range is defined in the detection zone, and wherein positions within the far range are assigned a lower risk of collision than positions outside the far range.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Yamauchi teaches:
wherein a far range is defined in the detection zone, and wherein positions within the far range are assigned a lower risk of collision than positions outside the far range. (Yamauchi ¶ 0011 “it is configured so that the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body that is driven to open and close changes according to the distance between the user and the opening and closing body. Thus, when the user is present within the predetermined range with a possibility of contacting the opening and closing body, the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body is made slower, so that contact between the user and the opening and closing body can be suppressed. On the other hand, when the user is present out of the predetermined range with no possibility of contacting the opening and closing body, the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body is made faster, so that the time in which the user waits for opening and closing of the opening and closing body decreases and the stress the user feels can be reduced,” and ¶ 0107-0108 “In the above embodiment, when the user and the back door 3 are close to each other, that is, when the user within the predetermined range performs the kick motion or operates the switch SW1 or SW2, the back door 3 is driven to open and close at the slow first speed. Therefore, contact between the user and the back door 3 is suppressed. On the other hand, when the user and the back door are far from each other, that is, when the user out of the predetermined range performs the kick motion, the back door 3 is driven to open and close at the fast second speed. Therefore, the time required for the opening and closing of the back door 3 decreases, reducing the stress applied to the user waiting for the opening and closing,” teaching modification of the control decision of the automatic door based on relative position of the opening and closing body (closure element) to the user (execution position) as a function of risk reduction in a close predetermined range with a possibility of contacting the body (danger zone) and a far distance area)
Schodel and Yamauchi are considered analogous because they both relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules of Schodel with the simple addition of Yamauchi’s risk-based control modification based on a relative position of a user to the door including a close predetermined range. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by suppressing contact between the user and the opening and closing element (Yamauchi ¶ 0011).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Schodel, Schatz, and Yamauchi teaches the elements of Claim 2 as described above. Schodel further teaches:
wherein the check routine is modified in such a way that a lower probability of detection of a valid operator action is achieved […] (Schodel ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 “First of all, it is assumed that a predetermined operating event to be recorded is defined by allowed ranges in operating event variables, where the operating event variables are sensor measurements of the sensor arrangement or are derived from them. In the first case, for example, these are the maxima and minima of the distance values of a proximity sensor.,” teaching ranges of permitted sensor measurements of the predetermined operator event, ¶ 0010 lines 1-3 “Specifically, it is proposed that for the predetermined operating event, the allowed range of an operating event variable is composed of sub-ranges according to a class rule, each defining an operating event class of the predetermined operating even,” and ¶ 0013 “The proposed solution allows for a simple statistical analysis of which operator event classes have occurred most frequently for a predetermined operator event. Based on this, an adjustment can be made to the class rule and thus to the allowed range of the relevant operator event variables,” representing threshold values for recognition based on statistical likelihood of the recognized event, analogous to the claimed variation in the probability of detection)
Schodel does not teach:
[…] with a higher, assigned collision risk than with a lower, assigned collision risk.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Yamauchi teaches:
[…] with a higher, assigned collision risk than with a lower, assigned collision risk. (Yamauchi ¶ 0011 “it is configured so that the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body that is driven to open and close changes according to the distance between the user and the opening and closing body. Thus, when the user is present within the predetermined range with a possibility of contacting the opening and closing body, the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body is made slower, so that contact between the user and the opening and closing body can be suppressed. On the other hand, when the user is present out of the predetermined range with no possibility of contacting the opening and closing body, the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body is made faster, so that the time in which the user waits for opening and closing of the opening and closing body decreases and the stress the user feels can be reduced,” and ¶ 0107-0108 “In the above embodiment, when the user and the back door 3 are close to each other, that is, when the user within the predetermined range performs the kick motion or operates the switch SW1 or SW2, the back door 3 is driven to open and close at the slow first speed. Therefore, contact between the user and the back door 3 is suppressed. On the other hand, when the user and the back door are far from each other, that is, when the user out of the predetermined range performs the kick motion, the back door 3 is driven to open and close at the fast second speed. Therefore, the time required for the opening and closing of the back door 3 decreases, reducing the stress applied to the user waiting for the opening and closing,” teaching modification of the control decision of the automatic door based on relative position of the opening and closing body (closure element) to the user (execution position) as a function of risk reduction in a close predetermined range with a possibility of contacting the body (danger zone) and a far distance area)
Schodel and Yamauchi are considered analogous because they both relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules based on statistical likelihood of recognition based on position of Schodel with the simple addition of Yamauchi’s risk-based control modification based on a relative position of a user to the door including a close predetermined range, resulting in Schodel’s statistical representation of likelihood of recognition based on distance incorporating Yamauchi’s risk associated with relative distance. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by suppressing contact between the user and the opening and closing element (Yamauchi ¶ 0011).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Schodel, Schatz, and Yamauchi teaches the elements of Claim 6 as described above. Schodel does not teach:
wherein the far range is defined outside the adjustment range.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Yamauchi teaches:
wherein the far range is defined outside the adjustment range. (Yamauchi ¶ 0011 “it is configured so that the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body that is driven to open and close changes according to the distance between the user and the opening and closing body. Thus, when the user is present within the predetermined range with a possibility of contacting the opening and closing body, the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body is made slower, so that contact between the user and the opening and closing body can be suppressed. On the other hand, when the user is present out of the predetermined range with no possibility of contacting the opening and closing body, the opening and closing speed of the opening and closing body is made faster, so that the time in which the user waits for opening and closing of the opening and closing body decreases and the stress the user feels can be reduced,” teaching the far range being outside the range with a possibility of contacting the opening and closing body, which is the adjustment range)
Schodel and Yamauchi are considered analogous because they both relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules of Schodel with the simple addition of Yamauchi’s risk-based control modification based on a relative position of a user to the door including a close predetermined range. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by suppressing contact between the user and the opening and closing element (Yamauchi ¶ 0011).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schodel in view of Schatz and Yanai et al (WO 2024101194, hereinafter “Yanai,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Schodel and Schatz teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Schodel does not teach:
wherein in the check routine the sensor values are fed as input values to a trained machine learning model,
wherein the presence of a valid operator action is assessed on the basis of at least one output value of the trained machine learning model,
and wherein the trained machine learning model and/or the input values is or are dependent on the relation of the closure element position to the execution position,
taking into account the intended adjustment direction.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Yanai teaches:
wherein in the check routine the sensor values are fed as input values to a trained machine learning model, wherein the presence of a valid operator action is assessed on the basis of at least one output value of the trained machine learning model, (Yanai Pg 5 ¶ 8 – Pg 6 ¶ 1 “The storage unit 71 stores a trained model that has been machine-learned using teacher data that associates images captured in advance with the positions of the user's body parts. In other words, the trained model is a model that inputs an image captured by the camera 50 and outputs the positions of the user's body parts in the image. In detail, the trained model outputs the position PN of the user's neck, the position PRs of the right shoulder, the position PLs of the left shoulder, the position PRh of the right hand, the position PLh of the left hand, the position PRt of the right toe, and the position PLt of the left toe as shown in FIG. 2. In this embodiment, the right hand corresponds to the "first body part", the left hand corresponds to the "second body part", and the neck, the right shoulder, and the left shoulder correspond to the "reference body part". The trained model is created, for example, when the vehicle 10 is designed, and written into the storage unit 71 when the gesture detection device 70 is manufactured,” teaching the use of a previously trained model for gesture recognition)
and wherein the trained machine learning model and/or the input values is or are dependent on the relation of the closure element position to the execution position, taking into account the intended adjustment direction. (Yanai Pg 4 ¶ 2-3 “First, a gesture to be detected by the gesture detection device 70 will be described. 2 , the gestures detected by the gesture detection device 70 are movements of the user's arm while facing the side of the vehicle 10. When the user faces the side of the vehicle 10, the user's face and upper body are facing the side of the vehicle 10. The gestures include movements of the user's right hand moving in the direction of opening or closing the rear door 32, and movements of the user's left hand moving in the direction of opening or closing the front door 31,” teaching control based on gesture recognition that takes gesture direction and distance into account, in combination with the previous trained model element)
Schodel and Yanai are considered analogous because they both relate to automatic non-touch opening of vehicle closure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules based on statistical likelihood of recognition based on position of Schodel with the simple addition of Yanai’s machine-learned trained model of gesture recognition to recognize the movements of a gesture of opening or closing a door. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by using a model that can adapt to various situations with high versatility (Yanai Pg 6 ¶ 4).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schodel in view of Schatz, Yamauchi, and Ham (US 20230339401, hereinafter “Ham”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Schodel, Schatz, and Yamauchi teaches the elements of Claim 3 as described above. Schodel does not teach:
wherein, starting from the closure element position, a lower risk of collision is assigned to positions opposite the direction of displacement than to positions in the direction of displacement.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schodel, Ham teaches:
wherein, starting from the closure element position, a lower risk of collision is assigned to positions opposite the direction of displacement than to positions in the direction of displacement. (Ham ¶ 0149-0151 “Referring to (b) of FIG. 6C, in a device and method for assisting a safe exit of a vehicle according to an embodiment, when it is determined that there is an object 660 connected to a vehicle 650 in the side-view image of the vehicle 650, a processor may determine whether a dangerous situation has occurred, based on comparing the traveling direction of the vehicle 650 and the traveling direction of the object 660. According to an embodiment, when the traveling direction of the vehicle 650 is the same as the traveling direction of the object 660, the processor may determine that no dangerous situation has occurred. According to an embodiment, when the traveling direction of the vehicle 650 is not the same as the traveling direction of the object 660, the processor may determine that the dangerous situation has occurred.,” teaching the determination of danger based on the sensed direction of travel of the vehicle and of a sensed object, analogous to the movement of a vehicle door and user, where there is more danger when the direction of travel is toward the object than away from the object)
Schodel, Yamauchi, and Ham are considered analogous because they both relate to vehicle door monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptation routine for operating event class rules based on statistical likelihood of recognition based on position of Schodel and Yamauchi’s risk-based control modification based on a relative position of a user to the door with the simple addition of Ham’s danger determination based on the direction of travel. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by preventing safety accidents such as catching clothes or a body on the door by the use of the monitoring strategy (Ham ¶ 0007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights