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 .
This office action is in response to applicant amendment/remarks filed 07/30/2026. Claims 1, 9, 12, and 16-17 have been amended. Claims 8, 15, and 20 have been cancelled and claim 21-23 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/02/2026 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection of Fig. 2, 5A and 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive, since the applicant has added that the original equipment manufacturer only accessible interface includes enabling and disabling parts of the set of features. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Herman Ryan WO2020252601A1 and Beran et al. US5,913,763A. See the new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive, since Ryan’s reduced-speed operation does not specifically read on the limitation “a subset of the features when operating in a reduced performance mode”. However, Ryan discloses this limitation in another embodiment as shown in the new 35 U.S.C 103 rejection below. Since the change in the ground of rejection (with regards to the reduced performance mode) was not necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, the present action is made non-final.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman Ryan WO2020252601A1 (henceforth Ryan) in view of Beran et al. US5,913,763A (henceforth Beran).
Regarding Claim 1,
Ryan discloses:
A power closure member system 21 for a motor vehicle 10 (See at least Fig. 1 and Para. 0002, “power closure member actuation system”)) comprising: an actuator 22 to move a closure member 12 (See Fig. 2 and Para. 0117, “The actuator 22 is configured to move the closure member 12 relative to the vehicle body 14”. The actuator is configured to move the closure member.)
and a controller 50 adapted to control the closure member 12 using the actuator 22 with a set of features, (See at least Para 0121, “The controller 50 is configured to determine whether an obstacle is detected using the at least one non-contact obstacle detection sensor 66 (e.g., using a non-contact obstacle detection algorithm 69) and may, for example, cease movement of the closure member in response to determining that the obstacle is detected”. The set of features further include an anti-slam feature (Para. 0169) and anti-pinch (Para. 0136)). The controller is adapted to control the closure member using the actuator with a set of features.)
wherein the controller 50 is adapted to control the closure member 12 with a subset of the features when operating in a reduced performance mode.
(See at least Para. 0225, “ In one possible configuration the non-contact obstacle detection system is only activated during the automatic door mode, and will be disabled, or enabled but signals to the controller 50 from the non-contact obstacle detection system will be ignored by the controller 50, in the power assist mode so as to not trigger interruptions in door motion due to the user being in proximity to the door 12 during power assist mode” and Para. 0227, “following step 1612 the method will proceed to step 1614 with the controller 50 disabling the NCOD (Non-Contact Obstacle Detection) system”. When operating in power-assist mode, then controller is adapted to control the closure member with a subset of features (i.e. without obstacle detection). The limitation “reduced performance mode” is defined as including a lesser number of the subset of the features, which is captured in Para. 0225 and 0227.)
wherein the controller 50 includes an original equipment manufacturer only accessible interface 204 (See at least Para. 0139, “manufacturers 107 utilizing the power closure member actuation system 20 in a vehicle 10 may prefer to restrict modification of certain parameters to ensure desirable operation of the power closure member actuation system 20. Consequently, the at least one stored motion control parameter can also include a plurality of manufacturer motion control parameters being modifiable by the manufacturer 107 (e.g., modified using an OEM interface 112 and stored in the memory device 92 as shown in FIG. 5 or elsewhere as shown in FIG. 7). Such manufacturer motion control parameters 89, such as pop-out profiles (motion profile for presenting the closure member to the user 75) are not modifiable by the user 75.” The controller includes an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) only accessible interface.)
Ryan discloses an OEM manufacturer only accessible interface does not specifically state “for enabling or disabling parts of the set of features”.
However, Beran teaches:
for enabling or disabling parts of the set of features. (See at least Column 22 lines 17-23, “ In the field, the apparatus of this invention would normally be shipped from the factory with configuration (DIP or sliding, for example) switches 133 preconfigured for a push or pull side mounting, fully automatic or power assist mode of operation” and Column 24 lines 1-6 “controller switches 133 are configured for enablement of the push and go feature”. Further see Column 17 lines 31-33, “these states are performed by a low-energy type operator i.e. when the power-assisted opener features are disenabled at switches 133”. Additionally, Fig. 9B shows “DSBL” and “ENBL” for the switch positions. Enabling/disabling parts of the set of features is disclosed.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ryan to incorporate the teachings of Beran to include the limitations as recited above such that different doors and different controllers can be supplied with different function sets, while would introduce a more versatile door opener. Furthermore, it would be an “Improvement of door operators directed to maintaining and/or enhancing the utility and efficiency of traditionally utilized hydraulic or pneumatic door closers, while selectively providing low power yet fully automatic door opening and/or opening assistance, without undue complication and expense” (Column 2, lines 8-14, Beran). This would create a more robust and versatile door opener that includes both a power assist mode and an automatic mode. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ryan and Beran. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2,
Ryan discloses:
wherein the controller 50 is further configured to control the closure member 12 using the actuator 22 with another subset of the features when operating in an increased performance mode different than the reduced performance mode, the another subset of the features associated with the increased performance mode including a greater number of the set of features than the subset of the features associated with the reduced performance mode.
(See at least Para. 0225, “ In one possible configuration the non-contact obstacle detection system is only activated during the automatic door mode, and will be disabled, or enabled but signals to the controller 50 from the non-contact obstacle detection system will be ignored by the controller 50, in the power assist mode so as to not trigger interruptions in door motion due to the user being in proximity to the door 12 during power assist mode” and Para. 0227, “following step 1612 the method will proceed to step 1614 with the controller 50 disabling the NCOD (Non-Contact Obstacle Detection) system”. When operating in power-assist mode, then controller is adapted to control the closure member with a subset of features (i.e. without obstacle detection) and when operating in automatic door mode, it uses the full subset of features (i.e. with obstacle detection).)
Regarding claim 3,
Ryan discloses:
wherein the controller 50 includes: a memory unit 92 comprising instructions 200, 202 associated with operating the power closure member system 21 in an automatic mode or a power assist mode; and a processor 110 for executing the instructions 200, 202 stored in the memory unit 92, wherein the processor 110 is adapted to execute the instructions 200, 202 associated with one of both of the automatic mode and the power assist mode or only one of the automatic mode and the power assist mode. (See at least Para. 0132, “the controller 50 includes a processor or other computing unit 110 in communication with the memory device 92. So, the controller 50 is coupled to the memory device 92 for storing a plurality of automatic closure member motion parameters 68, 93, 94, 95 for the automatic mode and a plurality of powered closure member motion parameters 96, 100, 102, 106 for the powered assist mode and used by the controller 50 for controlling the movement of the closure member (e.g., door 12 or 17).” The controller 50 executes the stored instructions (i.e. in memory device 92) associated with operating the power closure member system in an automatic mode and a power assist mode. Additionally, see Para. 0133, wherein the controller executes the instructions associated with both of the automatic mode and the power assist mode.)
Regarding claim 4,
Ryan discloses:
wherein the processor 110 is further configured to: execute the instructions 200, 202 associated with the power assist mode (See at least Para. 0225, “the non-contact obstacle detection system is only activated during the automatic door mode, and will be disabled, or enabled but signals to the controller 50 from the non-contact obstacle detection system will be ignored by the controller 50, in the power assist mode”. Further see Para. 0178, “Verifying that the door is stationary before controlling the door in the automatic mode ensures that the power assist mode is not overridden, for example by an automatic mode command from a switch interior the vehicle, by e remote FOB, or the like as examples, to ensure the user moving the door using the power assist mode maintains in control of the door in power assist mode without being overridden by another operating mode of the system 20. Therefore the power assist mode whereby a user is in control and contacting the door is prioritized over other sources of control.” The instructions associated with the power assist mode are executed.)
and execute the instructions 200, 202 associated with the power assist mode and the automatic mode (See at least Para. 0132, “the controller 50 is coupled to the memory device 92 for storing a plurality of automatic closure member motion parameters 68, 93, 94, 95 for the automatic mode and a plurality of powered closure member motion parameters 96, 100, 102, 106 for the powered assist mode and used by the controller 50 for controlling the movement of the closure member”, and Para. 0118, “the controller 50 is operable in at least one of an automatic mode (in response to an automatic mode initiation input 54) and a powered assist mode (in response to a motion input 56)”, wherein the controller is configured to execute instructions associated with the power assist mode and the automatic mode.)
Ryan does not specifically state execute the instruction associated with the power assist mode only in response to the processor operating in the reduced performance mode; execute the instructions associated with the power assist mode and the automatic mode only in response to the processor operating in an increased performance mode different than the reduced performance mode.
However, Beran teaches:
execute the instruction associated with the power assist mode only in response to the processor operating in the reduced performance mode;
(See at least Column 11 lines 8-12, “ operational control moves to the Opening states (in the fully automatic opening mode) or the Assist states (in the power assist mode of operation), depending upon setting at the appropriate DIP switch 133.” The power assist configuration is directed to the Prompt or Balance states. In the power-assist state, the processor executes the power-assist instructions and not the automatic instructions (i.e. reduced performance mode).)
execute the instructions associated with the power assist mode and the automatic mode only in response to the processor operating in an increased performance mode different than the reduced performance mode.
(See at least Column 19 lines 19-27,”In the Balance group of States (termed Assist states in the previous embodiment) illustrated in FIG. 18, controller 113 assists a user by balancing the force required to open the door. These states are typically used for a power-assist mode configured controller (at switches 133). If the door encounters an obstacle, the program enters these States, even if controller 113 is configured for low-energy, automatic opener mode operations.” The instructions execute both in the low-energy mode (i.e. the increased performance mode).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ryan to incorporate the teachings of Beran to include the limitations as recited above for an “Improvement of door operators directed to maintaining and/or enhancing the utility and efficiency of traditionally utilized hydraulic or pneumatic door closers, while selectively providing low power yet fully automatic door opening and/or opening assistance, without undue complication and expense” (Column 2, lines 8-14, Beran). This would create a more robust and versatile door that includes both a power assist mode and an automatic mode. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ryan and Beran. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5,
Ryan discloses:
further including a non-contact obstacle detection system 66 for detecting obstacles near the closure member 12 of the motor vehicle 10 and wherein the processor 110 is further configured to execute the instructions 200, 202 associated only with the automatic mode in response to the processor 110 being in communication with the non-contact obstacle detection system 66.
(See at least Para. 0121, “The power closure member actuation system 20 additionally includes at least one non-contact obstacle detection sensor 66 which may form part of a non-contact obstacle detection system coupled, such as electrically coupled, to the controller 50. The controller 50 is configured to determine whether an obstacle is detected using the at least one non-contact obstacle detection sensor 66 (e.g., using a non-contact obstacle detection algorithm 69)” and Para. 0122, “In the automatic mode, the controller 50 can include one or more closure member motion profiles 68 that are utilized by the controller 50 when generating the motion command 62 (e.g., using a motion command generator 70 of the controller 50) in view of the obstacle detection by the at least one non-contact obstacle detection sensor 66.” The processor is configured to execute the instructions associated with the automatic mode in response to the processor being in communication with the non-contact obstacle detection system.)
Regarding claim 6,
Ryan discloses:
wherein the processor 110 is configured to enter the automatic mode in response to receiving an automatic mode initiation input 54 from a user 75 and enter the power assist mode in response to receiving a motion input 56 from the user 75, the automatic mode initiation input 54 being a singular input from the user 75 and the motion input 56 from the user 75 being continuous to move the closure member 12. (See at least Para. 0118, “The controller 50 is operable in at least one of an automatic mode (in response to an automatic mode initiation input 54) and a powered assist mode (in response to a motion input 56). In the automatic mode, the controller 50 commands movement of the closure member through a predetermined motion profile (e.g., to open the closure member). The powered assist mode is different than the automatic mode in that the motion input 56 from the user 75 may be continuous to move the closure member, as opposed to a singular input by the user 75 in automatic mode”. The processor is configured to enter the automatic mode in response to receiving an automatic mode initiation input from a user and enter the power assist mode in response to receiving a motion input from the user. Singular input vs Motion input.)
Regarding claim 7,
Ryan discloses:
wherein the automatic mode initiation input 54 includes at least one of the user 75 operating a switch 58, the user 75 making a gesture near the motor vehicle 10, or the user 75 possessing a key fob 60 near the motor vehicle 10.
(See at least Para. 0119, “The automatic mode initiation input 54 may, for example, be a result of a user or operator operating a switch (e.g., the closure member switch 58), making a gesture near the vehicle 10, or possessing a key fob 60 near the vehicle 10”. The automatic mode initiating input may include a user operating a switch, a user making a gesture near the vehicle, or the user possessing the key fob near the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 9,
Ryan and Beran discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 10,
Ryan discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 11,
Ryan discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 12,
Ryan and Beran discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 14,
Ryan discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 16,
Ryan and Beran discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Ryan further discloses an OEM manufacturer only accessible interface coupled to the controller (Para. 0139) does not specifically state “enabling certain parts of instructions”
However, Beran teaches:
enabling certain parts of instructions (See at least Column 22 lines 17-23, “ In the field, the apparatus of this invention would normally be shipped from the factory with configuration (DIP or sliding, for example) switches 133 preconfigured for a push or pull side mounting, fully automatic or power assist mode of operation” and Column 24 lines 1-6 “controller switches 133 are configured for enablement of the push and go feature”. Further see Column 17 lines 31-33, “these states are performed by a low-energy type operator i.e. when the power-assisted opener features are disenabled at switches 133”. Additionally, Fig. 9B shows “DSBL” and “ENBL” for the switch positions. Enabling/disabling parts of the set of features is disclosed.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ryan to incorporate the teachings of Beran to include the limitations as recited above such that different doors and different controllers can be supplied with different function sets, while would introduce a more versatile door opener. Furthermore, it would be an “Improvement of door operators directed to maintaining and/or enhancing the utility and efficiency of traditionally utilized hydraulic or pneumatic door closers, while selectively providing low power yet fully automatic door opening and/or opening assistance, without undue complication and expense” (Column 2, lines 8-14, Beran). This would create a more robust and versatile door opener that includes both a power assist mode and an automatic mode. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ryan and Beran. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 17,
Ryan discloses:
A method of configuring a control system of power closure member system 21 of a motor vehicle 10 comprising the steps of: providing a controller 50 adapted to operate an actuator 22 for moving a closure member 12;
(See Fig. 2 and Para. 0117, “The actuator 22 is configured to move the closure member 12 relative to the vehicle body 14”. The actuator is configured to move the closure member.)
uploading to a memory unit 92 of the controller 50 instructions 200, 202 associated with operating the power closure member system 21 in an automatic mode or a power assist mode; (See at least Para. 0132, “the controller 50 is coupled to the memory device 92 for storing a plurality of automatic closure member motion parameters 68, 93, 94, 95 for the automatic mode and a plurality of powered closure member motion parameters 96, 100, 102, 106 for the powered assist mode”. Since the memory device stores the plurality of instruction with operating the power closure member system in an automatic mode or a power assist mode, then it includes an uploading operation to the memory. Furthermore, Para. 0248 “These components can be implemented as a collection of instructions executed by a processing device, for example, as a computer program product such as a computer program, program code or computer instructions tangibly embodied in an information carrier” and Para. 0249, “A list of instructions, for example a computer program, can be written in any form of programming language, including compiled or interpreted languages, and it can be deployed in any form, including as a stand-alone program or as a module, component, subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a computing environment. A computer program can be deployed to be executed on one computer or on multiple computers at one site or distributed across multiple sites and interconnected by a communication network”. An upload operation is realized to store the data in the memory.)
and uploading configuration instructions to the controller 50 to use the instructions 200, 202 both associated with operating the power closure member system 21 in the automatic mode or the power assist mode, or use the instructions 200, 202 associated with operating the power closure member system 21 in only one of the automatic mode or the power assist mode. (See at least Para. 0132, “the controller 50 includes a processor or other computing unit 110 in communication with the memory device 92. So, the controller 50 is coupled to the memory device 92 for storing a plurality of automatic closure member motion parameters 68, 93, 94, 95 for the automatic mode and a plurality of powered closure member motion parameters 96, 100, 102, 106 for the powered assist mode and used by the controller 50 for controlling the movement of the closure member (e.g., door 12 or 17)”. Additionally, see Para. 0133, wherein the controller executes the instructions associated with both of the automatic mode and the power assist mode.)
Ryan further discloses an OEM manufacturer only accessible interface coupled to the controller (Para. 0139) does not specifically state “enabling certain parts of instructions”
However, Beran teaches:
enabling certain parts of instructions (See at least Column 22 lines 17-23, “ In the field, the apparatus of this invention would normally be shipped from the factory with configuration (DIP or sliding, for example) switches 133 preconfigured for a push or pull side mounting, fully automatic or power assist mode of operation” and Column 24 lines 1-6 “controller switches 133 are configured for enablement of the push and go feature”. Further see Column 17 lines 31-33, “these states are performed by a low-energy type operator i.e. when the power-assisted opener features are disenabled at switches 133”. Additionally, Fig. 9B shows “DSBL” and “ENBL” for the switch positions. Enabling/disabling parts of the set of features is disclosed.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ryan to incorporate the teachings of Beran to include the limitations as recited above such that different doors and different controllers can be supplied with different function sets, while would introduce a more versatile door opener. Furthermore, it would be an “Improvement of door operators directed to maintaining and/or enhancing the utility and efficiency of traditionally utilized hydraulic or pneumatic door closers, while selectively providing low power yet fully automatic door opening and/or opening assistance, without undue complication and expense” (Column 2, lines 8-14, Beran). This would create a more robust and versatile door opener that includes both a power assist mode and an automatic mode. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ryan and Beran. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 18,
Ryan discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 19,
Ryan discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan and Beran further in view of Sohn et al. US20210248394A1 (henceforth Sohn)
Regarding claim 13,
Ryan and Beran discloses the limitations as recited in claim 9 above.
Ryan further discloses:
further including the step of configuring the controller 50 to execute the instructions 200, 202 associated with the power assist mode and the automatic mode being in communication with a non-contact obstacle detection system 66. (See at least Para. 0178, “FIG. 37A illustrates a method 401, for example as executed by the controller 50, for transitioning between the automatic mode and the power assist mode based on a detected deviation from a reference speed profile beyond the speed thresholds… The non-contact detection system may be used in conjunction with the method 401”. The controller is configured to execute the instructions associated with the power assist and automatic mode when the controller is in communication with a non-contact obstacle detection system.)
Ryan does not specifically state, wherein the instructions are executed in response to the controller 50 being in communication with a non-contact obstacle detection system.
However, Sohn teaches:
wherein the instructions are executed in response to the controller 50 being in communication with a non-contact obstacle detection system.
(See at least Para. 0028, “. In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 1A, the ECU 108 and the noncontact sensor 106 communicate via a CAN bus 107. The ECU 108 is configured to control movement of a powered door and take one or more automatic actions based on the data received from the noncontact sensor 106 (e.g., an integrated MCU), other vehicle data, data from the powered door itself, or a combination thereof” and Para. 0044, “For example, the obstacle may be an appendage within the obstacle detection zone of a person standing just outside of the obstacle detection zone (for example, a hand, finger, foot, and the like). The ECU 108 may then perform an automatic action accordingly. For example, for the power tailgate 400, when a person is detected near the motion path of the tailgate 400, the ECU 108 may be programmed to not allow a power close until the person is far enough away that they could not possibly reach into the motion path. In some embodiments, a detected object may be ignored depending on the operation of the door (e.g., obstacles on the outside of the door may be ignored when the door is closing).” The instructions are executed in response to the controller being in communication with a non-contact obstacle detection system.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ryan to incorporate the teachings of Sohn to include “wherein the instructions are executed in response to the controller 50 being in communication with a non-contact obstacle detection system” such that “performing an automatic action with respect to the powered door before the powered door contacts the object” (Para. 0006, Sohn), which would create a more robust non-contact obstacle detection system for a powered door on a vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ryan and Sohn. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan and Beran further in view of Miloser et al. US20170355381A1 (henceforth Miloser).
Regarding claim 21,
Ryan and Beran discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Ryan further discloses:
executable instructions associated with the set of features associated with respective closure-member operating modes. (See at least Para. 0132, “the controller 50 is coupled to the memory device 92 for storing a plurality of automatic closure member motion parameters 68, 93, 94, 95 for the automatic mode and a plurality of powered closure member motion parameters 96, 100, 102, 106 for the powered assist mode and used by the controller 50 for controlling the movement of the closure member (e.g., door 12 or 17).”.)
Ryan does not specifically state wherein the controller 50 is configured to selectively enable or disable executable instructions.
However, Miloser teaches:
wherein the controller 50 is configured to selectively enable or disable executable instructions. (See at least Para. 0037, “the target ECU 104 determines whether to enable the target function 122. In some examples, the target ECU 104 may enable the target function 122” and Para. 0004, “The instructions further cause the processor to disable the first software function to prevent the execution of the first software function while continuing to execute the second software function.” The controller is configured to selectively enable or disable executable instructions.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ryan to incorporate the teachings of Miloser to include the limitation as recited above since “when an OEM desires an ECU that includes different logic providing new and/or different functionality from an existing ECU, it is often necessary to engage a tier one supplier to re-build or re-design the entire ECU system. This process can be expensive and involves long lead times” (Para. 0012, Miloser). This would create a more robust processor that would not need to be rebuilt or redesigned. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ryan and Miloser. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 22,
Ryan further discloses:
in the reduced performance modes, instructions are associated with an automatic closure-member motion modes (See at least Para. 0225 and 0132) and instructions associated with a power assist mode are executable (See at least Para. 0132).
In an increased performance mode, both the automatic closure-member motion mode instructions and the power assist mode instructions are executable. (See at least Para. 0132.)
Ryan does not specifically state instructions are disabled and only other instructions are executable. However, Miloser teaches:
instructions are disabled and only other instructions are executable (See at least Para. 0004, “The instructions further cause the processor to disable the first software function to prevent the execution of the first software function while continuing to execute the second software function.” The controller is configured to selectively enable or disable executable instructions.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ryan to incorporate the teachings of Miloser to include the limitation as recited above since “when an OEM desires an ECU that includes different logic providing new and/or different functionality from an existing ECU, it is often necessary to engage a tier one supplier to re-build or re-design the entire ECU system. This process can be expensive and involves long lead times” (Para. 0012, Miloser). This would create a more robust processor that would not need to be rebuilt or redesigned. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ryan and Miloser. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 23,
Ryan further discloses:
wherein the controller 50 stores both automatic-mode instructions 200 and powered-assist-mode instructions 202 in a memory unit (See at least Para. 0132)
wherein the original equipment manufacturer only accessible interface 204 is configured (See at least Para. 0139.)
automatic-mode and power-assist-mode instructions (See at least Para. 0132)
Ryan does not specifically state allowing a manufacturer to configure which instruction sets the controller executes.
However, Beran teaches:
allowing a manufacturer to configure which instruction sets the controller executes (See at least Column 22 lines 17-23, “ In the field, the apparatus of this invention would normally be shipped from the factory with configuration (DIP or sliding, for example) switches 133 preconfigured for a push or pull side mounting, fully automatic or power assist mode of operation” and Column 24 lines 1-6 “controller switches 133 are configured for enablement of the push and go feature”. Further see Column 17 lines 31-33, “these states are performed by a low-energy type operator i.e. when the power-assisted opener features are disenabled at switches 133”. Additionally, Fig. 9B shows “DSBL” and “ENBL” for the switch positions. Enabling/disabling parts of the set of features is disclosed.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ryan to incorporate the teachings of Beran to include the limitations as recited above such that different doors and different controllers can be supplied with different function sets, while would introduce a more versatile door opener. Furthermore, it would be an “Improvement of door operators directed to maintaining and/or enhancing the utility and efficiency of traditionally utilized hydraulic or pneumatic door closers, while selectively providing low power yet fully automatic door opening and/or opening assistance, without undue complication and expense” (Column 2, lines 8-14, Beran). This would create a more robust and versatile door opener that includes both a power assist mode and an automatic mode. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ryan and Beran. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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 at (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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
