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. The effective filing date is recognized as April 12, 2024, in continuity with DE 102024110387.6.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 12, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract uses language which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. Specifically, the abstract states, “The present disclosure relates to …” which is implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a communication device”, a “central control unit”, a “central locking control unit”, a “window lifter control unit”, as found in Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9, as well as a “door control device” as found in Claims 2 and 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Examiner did not find sufficient structure in the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9,
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9 recite limitations which, as shown above, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Specifically, the Claims recite “a communication device”, a “central control unit”, a “central locking control unit”, a “window lifter control unit”, as found in Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9, as well as a “door control device” as found in Claims 2 and 5. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification provides no further description of what constitutes a unit or a device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claims 2, 3, and 5, 9, and 2-10,
Claim 2 recites, on Line 3, “the door control device”, however, the limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites, on Lines 1-2,“wherein the motor vehicle comprises only vehicle doors with a purely electrically controllable door opening mechanism.” Due to a grammatical ambiguity, it is not clear if the limitation states that the motor vehicle only comprises doors, or if the doors only comprise electrical doors. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the as doors only electrical doors.
Claim 5 recites, on Line 1, “the door control device”, however, the limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites, on Line 6, “the device”, however, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the device as the mobile terminal,
Claims 2-10 depend from claims which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and thus are themselves rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Appropriate correction is Required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Reichel (DE 102022125610 A1), in view of Chappell (US 5547208 A), further in view of Packham (US 20090163140 A1), herein after referred to as Reichel, Chappell, and Packham, and respectively.
Regarding Claim 1,
Reichel discloses the following limitations,
A motor vehicle with an emergency opening mechanism for … the motor vehicle, (Page 1, Line 1, “The invention relates to a method for emergency unlocking of a locked vehicle door”)
the motor vehicle comprising: a communication device; (Page 5, Lines 15-20, “In order to establish a communication connection 6 with the identification transmitter 5a or 5b, the motor vehicle 1 has a communication unit 7 that can establish a wireless communication connection 6 with the identification transmitters 5a, 5b.”)
a central control unit; (Page 3, Lines 5-9, “wherein the motor vehicle has a door control unit for unlocking and/or locking the vehicle door, wherein the door control unit can be controlled by the central control unit in a normal mode of the door control unit, wherein upon authentication of the electronic signature by the testing system, the central control unit controls the door control unit with a control signal” See Figure 1, element 3.)
a central locking control unit; (Page 5, Lines 9-14,“In order to check the authorization, the access system has a check system 4 that communicates with the central control unit 3, wherein the check system 4 is used to authenticate an electronic signature of an identification transmitter 5a, 5b, wherein the identification transmitter 5 can be, for example, a mobile phone 5a and/or a radio key 5b, as shown schematically in the 1 is shown.” Check/test system 4 constitutes a central locking control unit, see also, Page 3, Lines 13-16, “the emergency mode is activated when a malfunction of the access system occurs, wherein in the emergency mode dus the door control device can be controlled with an emergency control signal, in particular without authentication of the electronic signature by the testing system”)
However, the combination of Reichel does not disclose the following limitations,
an emergency opening mechanism for an openable motor vehicle window of the motor vehicle,
and the motor vehicle window comprising: a window lifter control unit; and a window lifter actuator,
activate the window lifter control unit for emergency opening of the motor vehicle window by means of the window lifter actuator.
However, Chappell, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a window opening and door unlock can be operated in an equivalent manner for emergency opening (Column 2, Lines 37-40,“It is another object of the present invention to provide a vehicle safety exit apparatus that includes means for automatically opening a vehicle's windows and door locks when the vehicle's main battery becomes disabled.” And Column 4, Lines 27-29, “The auxiliary battery 16 is operable for delivering power to the vehicle's electrically operated window and door lock operators 14 in emergency situations.” The windows are electrically operated, therefore, they include an actuator, and controlling the actuator is enacted by means which constitute a window lifer control unit). The window can be manually activated for emergency opening in the emergency mode (Column 7, Lines 8-11, “The manual safety exit switch 32 and the auxiliary battery 16 cooperate to open the vehicle's windows and door locks whenever activated by an occupant of the vehicle. With this configuration, a vehicle's electrically operated windows and door locks can be opened either automatically or manually.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the emergency access of Reichel, with the window operation of Chappell, as this provides additional redundancy in emergency operation. Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, the combination of Reichel and Chappell does not teach the following limitations,
wherein the communication device, on receiving an external emergency opening signal from a mobile terminal of a user of the motor vehicle and in the event of failure of at least one of the central control unit or the central locking control unit, is configured to activate the window lifter control unit for emergency opening of the motor vehicle window by means of the window lifter actuator.
However, this is taught by Packham, which teaches a wireless window control by a phone, (Paragraph [0076], “A window operating function, e.g. open window, toggle window and/or close window, is selected on cell phone 38 and an issue command, 82, 84, and/or 86 is sent to control module 50 via Bluetooth or other transmission media. The selected command is then transmitted to one or more windows via wired or wireless transmission at step 88. Optionally, a window status signal can be relayed back to cell phone 38 via control module 50.”). The phone can be used for an emergency opening control (Paragraph [0073], “the system also provides a means to remotely operate the cell phone 38 in an emergency such as when the phone is inadvertently locked in a vehicle along with the vehicle keys. The application user uses a second phone, wired or wireless, to place a call into a server that relays a message via cell phone 38 to control module 50 using Bluetooth or other transmission media. Control module 50 then operates one or more features of the automobile, e.g. door lock, window and/or trunk to enable the user to gain access to the car and/or car keys.”). The user is prompted (Paragraph [0012], “Another application is when an individual locks the keys in the car or trunk. The user simply calls his or her cell phone from another phone and enters a security code and unlock option. The system will issue the code to unlock the vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the emergency door control of Reichel, as previously modified by Chappell, so that a limited emergency mode may be activated and then interfaced with by a smartphone, as this provides a useful function for a vehicle user (Paragraph [0073], “Control module 50 then operates one or more features of the automobile, e.g. door lock, window and/or trunk to enable the user to gain access to the car and/or car keys.”)
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Reichel, Chappell, and Packham, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Reichel further discloses the following limitations of Claim 1,
wherein: the motor vehicle window is mounted in a vehicle door with a door control device; (Figure 1, door control unit 8 is a door control device.)
[performing] emergency opening of the motor vehicle … without the involvement of at least one of the central control unit or the central locking control unit. (Page 3, Lines 22-30, “For example, it is conceivable that the central control device has completely failed, for example no longer sends any signals at all. It is also conceivable that an electrical power supply to the central control device has been interrupted. However, it is also entirely conceivable that there is a malfunction in the test system. Furthermore, it is also conceivable that there is a malfunction in a receiving device of the access system, whereby this receiving device serves to receive the electronic signature of the identification transmitter. In this respect, the invention provides in the emergency mode that the door control device can be controlled directly independently of the rest of the access system.”)
the communication device is connected to the door control device via a common data bus; (Figure 1, wherein the units are connected, which constitutes a data bus of the units.)
Chappell further already teaches the following limitations,
and the communication device is configured to transmit an authorized command for emergency opening of the motor vehicle window to the window lift control unit via the door control device without the involvement of at least one of the central control unit or the central locking control unit. (Column 2, Lines 37-40,“It is another object of the present invention to provide a vehicle safety exit apparatus that includes means for automatically opening a vehicle's windows and door locks when the vehicle's main battery becomes disabled.”)
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Reichel, Chappell, and Packham, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Reichel further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the motor vehicle comprises only vehicle doors with a purely electrically controllable door opening mechanism. (Page 2, Lines 41-43, “The object of the present invention is to provide a method for emergency unlocking of a locked vehicle door of a motor vehicle, which does not require a mechanical emergency key”)
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Reichel, Chappell, and Packham, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Packham further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein the communication device is configured to wirelessly transmit back the closed state of the motor vehicle window when a status request signal is received. (Paragraph [0076], “Optionally, a window status signal can be relayed back to cell phone 38 via control module 50.”)
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Reichel, Chappell, and Packham, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Reichel further discloses the following limitations,
determining the failure of at least one of the central control unit or the central locking control unit; (Page 3, Lines 22-23, “For example, it is conceivable that the central control device has completely failed, for example no longer sends any signals at all. It is also conceivable that an electrical power supply to the central control device has been interrupted. However, it is also entirely conceivable that there is a malfunction in the test system. Furthermore, it is also conceivable that there is a malfunction in a receiving device of the access system, whereby this receiving device serves to receive the electronic signature of the identification transmitter. In this respect, the invention provides in the emergency mode that the door control device can be controlled directly independently of the rest of the access system.”)
and when at least one of the central control unit or the central locking control unit have failed, activating the … emergency opening … (Page 3, Lines 18-23, “In this respect, the invention provides an alternative for controlling the door control device, whereby this alternative can only be used if there is a defect in the access system, …”)
Packham further already teaches the following limitation,
the method comprising: receiving an authorized instruction for emergency opening of a motor vehicle window from a mobile terminal of the user of the motor vehicle; (Paragraph [0073], “the system also provides a means to remotely operate the cell phone 38 in an emergency such as when the phone is inadvertently locked in a vehicle along with the vehicle keys. The application user uses a second phone, wired or wireless, to place a call into a server that relays a message via cell phone 38 to control module 50 using Bluetooth or other transmission media. Control module 50 then operates one or more features of the automobile, e.g. door lock, window and/or trunk to enable the user to gain access to the car and/or car keys.” The user must send an instruction for opening via their phone, or the remote access of their phone.)
Chappell further already teaches the following limitation,
and when at least one of the central control unit or the central locking control unit have failed, activating the window lifter control unit for emergency opening of the motor vehicle window. (Column 7, Lines 8-11, “The manual safety exit switch 32 and the auxiliary battery 16 cooperate to open the vehicle's windows and door locks whenever activated by an occupant of the vehicle. With this configuration, a vehicle's electrically operated windows and door locks can be opened either automatically or manually.”)
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Reichel, Chappell, and Packham, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 7. Reichel further disclose the following limitations,
wherein the instruction for emergency opening of the motor vehicle window is transmitted via a backend of the manufacturer of the motor vehicle. (Page 1, Line 1, “The invention relates to a method for emergency unlocking of a locked vehicle door” Having a redundant, failsafe access, for emergency opening, constitutes a backend created by the manufacturer.)
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Reichel, Chappell, and Packham, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 7. Packham further teaches following limitations,
wherein the following steps are additionally carried out after the step of determining the failure of at least one of the central control unit or the central locking control unit and before the step of activating the window lifter control unit for emergency opening of the motor vehicle window: transmitting the information that at least one of the central control unit or the central locking control unit have failed to the device from which the authorized instruction for emergency opening of the motor vehicle window was received; (Optionally, a window status signal can be relayed back to cell phone 38 via control module 50.” A window status can be known.)
and continuing the method only upon receipt of a confirmation of the instruction to open the motor vehicle window in an emergency. (Paragraph [0073], “the system also provides a means to remotely operate the cell phone 38 in an emergency such as when the phone is inadvertently locked in a vehicle along with the vehicle keys. The application user uses a second phone, wired or wireless, to place a call into a server that relays a message via cell phone 38 to control module 50 using Bluetooth or other transmission media. Control module 50 then operates one or more features of the automobile, e.g. door lock, window and/or trunk to enable the user to gain access to the car and/or car keys.” The user must send an instruction for opening via their phone, or the remote access of their phone.)
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Reichel, Chappell, and Packham, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9. Packham further teaches the following limitations,
wherein the confirmation of the instruction for emergency opening of the motor vehicle window is given by the user of the motor vehicle. (Paragraph [0012], “Another application is when an individual locks the keys in the car or trunk. The user simply calls his or her cell phone from another phone and enters a security code and unlock option. The system will issue the code to unlock the vehicle.” - The user is prompted.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Reichel, Chappell, and Packham as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Beyers (US 20210331686 A1), herein after referred to simply as Beyers.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Reichel, Chappell, and Packham, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Reichel further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the external emergency opening signal for emergency opening of the motor vehicle window is rejected by the … [a unit] when the central control unit [is functional] … (Page 3, Lines 18-23, “In this respect, the invention provides an alternative for controlling the door control device, whereby this alternative can only be used if there is a defect in the access system, i.e. if there is a malfunction of the access system. The malfunction can be, for example, a malfunction of the test system, but also a malfunction of the central control device. For example, it is conceivable that the central control device has completely failed, for example no longer sends any signals at all.”)
However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
wherein the external emergency opening signal for emergency opening of the motor vehicle window is rejected by the communication device when the central control unit transmits a response signal to the communication device in response to a request from the communication device within a predetermined period of time, signaling that the central control unit and the central locking control unit have not failed.
However, Beyers, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a vehicle fault monitoring system may monitor a feedback of a unit to determine a fault (Paragraph [0021], “Aspects of the present disclosure are directed to improved systems and methods for handling faults such as, for example, handling faults of an autonomous vehicle. For instance, a computing system of an autonomous vehicle can include a plurality of devices (e.g., physically-connected devices, wirelessly-connected devices, virtual devices running on a physical machine, etc.). The computing devices can be included in the vehicle's onboard computing system.“ And, Paragraph [0042], "In some implementations, the existence of a fault can be time dependent. In such a case, the detector node can include and/or be associated with a periodic trigger (e.g., a heartbeat trigger) and/or a global timer (e.g., defined by directed graph architecture). The periodic trigger and/or global timer can be utilized to compare the function output to a period of time. For instance, a detector node can include a sliding window function that can detect whether acceptable rates are exceeded over time (e.g., “number of dropped packets in the past second exceed a threshold,” “a high percentage of recent requests have been rejected,” etc.).”) The monitor may be a communication device. (Paragraph [0028], “The autonomy computing system (e.g., one or more subsystems of the autonomous computing system) can include a plurality of devices configured to communicate over one or more wired and/or wireless communication channels (e.g., wired and/or wireless networks). Each device can be associated with a type, an operating system, and/or one or more designated tasks.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Reichel, Chappell, and Packham, with the fault detection of Beyers, as this improves vehicle reliability (Paragraph [0064], “The computing system employs improved fault management techniques that leverage a directed graph architecture and multiple single function nodes within the directed graph architecture to reduce the time from detection to reaction of a fault. As a result, the computing system provides the practical application of increasing vehicle safety, generally, and autonomous vehicle safety, in particular, by efficiently identifying and responding to faults within an autonomous vehicle.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Reichel, Chappell, and Packham as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Henes (US 20200031207 A1), herein after referred to simply as Henes.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Reichel, Chappell, and Packham, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
wherein the door control device is configured to close the motor vehicle window again after a predetermined period of time after the emergency opening of the motor vehicle window.
However, Henes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a window may be automatically closed after a predetermined period of time after an opening of the vehicle window (Paragraph [0089], “As another example, BCM 89 can issue a command to automatically close window 11 after a period of time (i.e., if a user walks away and forgets to close the window 11, the vehicle 1010 will close it for the user without the user having to operate the remote actuation device), and example of an automatic control of the window 11 without an input received by the Body Control Module from a user.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle door and window of Reichel, as previously modified by Chappell and Packham, so as to perform automatic closing as taught by Henes, as this provides a helpful assistance for a forgetful user (Paragraph [0089], “i.e., if a user walks away and forgets to close the window 11, the vehicle 1010 will close it for the user without the user having to operate the remote actuation device”). Further, the combination could be performed with known methods, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Soroko (US 20160012653 A1) teaches that a diagnostic mode for remote control of a vehicle may be selectively activated, so as to ensure user security (Paragraph [0007], “If an automobile thief is able to gain physical or remote wireless access to the automobile diagnostic electronic system they would be able to issue electronic commands to unlock the doors to allow physical access” and Paragraph [0029], “Diagnostic commands which lead to the unlocking of doors and starting the engine are not allowed to move across the CAN, LIN, FlexRay, or any other automobile network while the automobile is in the mode of disallowing diagnostic servicing.”). Wallace (US 5684337 A) teaches that authentication of a remote fob may be overridden in a diagnostic mode (Abstract, “The controller has a diagnostic mode of operation during which it initiates the vehicle device function in response to receiving a request signal without determining whether the request signal is valid.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM.
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 Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/K.L.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights