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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2025 and 12/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “vehicle key” in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salter at al. (US 10,633,895 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Salter discloses a method (e.g. Fig. 6) and a control system (e.g. Fig. 5) of a vehicle sliding door (e.g. col 4 lines 8-11), comprising:
a sensing module, comprising a plurality of sensors set on an outer side of the vehicle sliding door (e.g. Figs. 3-4B & Fig. 5: 32A-32E & col 5 lines 12-21), wherein the sensing module is for sending a first control instruction to a vehicle body domain controller (e.g. Fig. 5: receive signal from capacitive sensors 32A-32E) in response to some of the sensors being triggered in sequence (col 10 lines 26-39), and the first control instruction comprises an opening instruction or a closing instruction of the sliding door (e.g. col 5 lines 18-21: swiping across capacitive sensors to open or close the door);
the vehicle body domain controller, for, in response to receiving the first control instruction, sending a second control instruction to a sliding door controller (e.g. Fig. 5: control 80, 44 instructs door actuator 20 to perform door control routines) based on a locking state of a vehicle (e.g. col 4 line 58 to col 5 line 4 & col 11 lines 47-59: determine if key fob next to door handle when swipe open gesture is received to latch or unlatch the door), wherein the second control instruction comprises the opening instruction or the closing instruction of the sliding door (e.g. col 4 line 58 to col 5 line 4: swiping across capacitive sensors to open or close the door); and
the sliding door controller (e.g. Fig. 5: control 80, 44 instructs door actuator 20 to perform door control routines), for receiving the second control instruction and performing an opening or a closing operation of the sliding door according to the second control instruction (e.g. col 11 lines 8-14).
Regarding claim 2, Salter discloses the sensing module is represented by a capacitive switch set on the outer side of the vehicle sliding door, with the plurality of sensors respectively set in a plurality of sensing areas of the capacitive switch (e.g. Fig. 5: receive signal from capacitive sensors 32A-32E).
Regarding claim 3, Salter discloses the sensing module, when sending the first control instruction to the vehicle body domain controller in response to some of the sensors being triggered in sequence, is specifically for: in response to some of the sensors being triggered in sequence from front to rear of the vehicle, sending the opening instruction of the sliding door to the vehicle body domain controller; and in response to some of the sensors being triggered in sequence from the rear to the front of the vehicle, sending the closing instruction of the sliding door to the vehicle body domain controller (e.g. col 5 lines 18-21: swiping across capacitive sensors to open or close the door).
Regarding claim 4, Salty discloses the vehicle body domain controller is further, when sending the second control instruction to the sliding door controller based on the locking state of the vehicle, specifically for: when the vehicle is in a locked state, in response to receiving identity confirmation information, controlling the vehicle to be unlocked and sending the second control instruction to the sliding door controller; and when the vehicle is in an unlocked state, sending the second control instruction to the sliding door controller (e.g. col 4 line 58 to col 5 line 4 & col 11 lines 47-59: determine whether key fob next to door handle when swipe open gesture is received to latch or unlatch the door, or open the door directly).
Regarding claim 9, Salter discloses a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium (e.g. Fig. 5: 46), storing a computer program (e.g. Fig. 5: 98, 100, 150, 200, 300) therein, wherein the program implements operations of the control method according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8) when executed by a processor (e.g. Fig. 5: 44).
Regarding claim 10, Salter discloses an electronic device (e.g. Fig. 5), comprising: a memory (e.g. Fig. 5: 46), for storing instructions executable by a processor (e.g. Fig. 5: 44); and the processor, for executing the executable instructions in the memory to implement operations of the control method according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter at al. (US 10,633,895 B1) in view of Tomita et al. (US 2018/0099642 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Salter disclose a user identification module (e.g. Fig. 5: controller 80 is capable of receiving information from key fob and/or customer phone; thus, implies comprising a module for communicating with authorized user of the vehicle) and the vehicle body domain controller (e.g. Fig. 5: 44) is further for sending an identity identification request to the user identification module (e.g. Fig. 5: 100 & col 10 lines 52-60 & col 11 lines 15-23).
Salter fails to disclose, but Tomita teaches the vehicle body domain controller is further for sending an identity identification request to the user identification module when the vehicle is in a locked state; and the user identification module is for receiving the identity identification request and obtaining user identity information, and in response to that the user identity information meets a preset condition, sending identity confirmation information to the vehicle body domain controller (e.g. [0036-0037]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Salter with the teachings of Tomita to continuously monitor whether authorized user is approaching the vehicle so as to automatically open/close and lock/unlock a vehicle door to improve security and convenience of a vehicle user (e.g. [0007]).
Regarding claim 6, Salter discloses the user identification module comprises a Bluetooth module (e.g. Fig. 5 & col 10 lines 52-60), and Tomita teaches: receiving the identity identification request and sending a Bluetooth broadcast to a vehicle key (i.e. mobile device); and in response to establishing a connection between the vehicle key and the Bluetooth module (i.e. receive response from the mobile device), sending the identity confirmation information to the vehicle body domain controller (e.g. [0036-0037]: confirm identity with vehicle control to allow open/close and/or lock/unlock operation of the door).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter at al. (US 10,633,895 B1) in view of Lengning et al. (US 2007/0182532 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Salter fails to disclose, but Lengning teaches a sound control module; wherein the sliding door controller is further for sending a sliding door status signal and a first sound request signal to the vehicle body domain controller after receiving the second control instruction, the sliding door status signal representing an opening process or a closing process of the sliding door; the vehicle body domain controller is further for sending a second sound request signal to the sound control module after receiving the sliding door status signal and the first sound request signal; and the sound control module is further for controlling a speaker of the vehicle to make a sound according to the second sound request signal (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0034]: customized sound effects associated with opening/closing doors implies vehicle controller is capable of utilizing speaker 130 to playback customized sound effects when vehicle door is opened/closed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Salter with the teachings of Lengning to associate vehicle control with sound effect to improve driver’s mood or state to increase traffic safety (e.g. [0017]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights